2004-02-25
Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, we have some students in the gallery from Year 6/7 of Stuart Park Primary School, accompanied by their teacher, Marina Goff. On behalf of all members, I extend to you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, the Darwin city waterfront is the most exciting construction project in the Top End for many years. It will enhance the government’s vision of a vibrant and sophisticated Darwin, provide a platform for our proposed public art policy, and complement proposed redevelopment of our cruise ship facilities.
The removal of the old port facilities to East Arm has given us a brilliant window of opportunity to create a bustling precinct that will celebrate what is distinctive about Darwin, attract tourists, and remain a place for Territorians that they feel is their own, where they can go for fish and chips to watch the sun set, and take families at weekends.
Our vision for this 25 hectare site starts with a world-class convention and exhibition centre that should be ready by late 2006, and put Darwin well and truly on the map for conventions. The site will also include residential and commercial facilities. However, we also want to ensure that this is a people place that comes alive through the day, with alfresco dining, lots of shaded public space, and a 2 km promenade right around the site.
Where are we up to now? We have made significant progress on this $600m waterfront redevelopment since we announced the project in August last year, with a government commitment of $100m. In December, we announced that the three short-listed developers were consortia led by Multiplex, Macquarie Bank and ABN AMRO. Let me talk about those three short-listed developers.
In the consortium composed of Darwin Cove, led by ABN AMRO and Australian property developer, the Walker Corporation, would use local construction companies Sitzler Brothers and Barclay Mowlem to design and construct the convention centre, along with Henry Walker Eltin, MKEA Architects and Connell Wagner.
The second consortium is Wharflink, led by Macquarie Bank and Leighton Contractors, with local companies, including Woodhead International, Troppo Architects and Ove Arup.
The Multiplex-led consortium, includes Darwin property developers Redco and Philip and Mitaros Projects, as well as Spowers, Clayton Utz, Sinclair Knight Merz, Scott Wilson Irwin Johnston, Davis Langdon Towell, June D’Rozario and Associates, and the Larrakia Development Corporation.
One of the critical elements of this project is a commitment to local participation. As such, all three consortia include local participation through a mixture of consortia members, consultants or contractors. The consortia were briefed in February and are now working on detailed bids which they have to submit by May. We hope to announce our preferred bidder in August.
The third stage will conclude with the signing of a project development agreement for the site by the start of 2005, with a construction start soon after. A challenging timetable, but one we believe we can achieve.
We have stressed to the short list of consortia that the master plan must reflect the exotic and unique differences that the tropical climate, history, culture and proximity to Asia have carved into the fabric of life in Darwin. To ensure that the developers understand what this site means to Territorians, we have engaged in extensive community consultation including public displays, a web site, displays in shopping centres, and presentations to a range of community, business, tourism and professional groups. We have established reference groups with the National Trust and with tourism and business groups.
In January, we engaged Sheila O’Sullivan of Socum to run a series of community workshops. Over 100 people took part. They were recruited through public advertisements, to e-mails sent to known stakeholders and through the assistance of such groups as the Youth Round Table, Arts NT, the Architects Association, Engineers Australia, the National Trust and members of reference groups set up last year. This led to a productive exchange of views and a better understanding of the trade-offs required for such a major public/private sector partnership. The report from these workshops is on the waterfront web site, and was given to the short-listed developers in February.
At the same time, Darwin company, URS, has been conducting an environmental impact statement which will be released for public comment in May. The report will cover a range of issues including soil contamination, the heritage significance of the site, the impact of the redevelopment on flora and fauna in adjacent areas, such as the escarpment, and natural and social features of the environment.
Some initial site works have began with the demolition of sheds at the site. Further clean-up works, including decontamination works, will be done during the coming Dry.
Another associated project is redevelopment of the Stokes and Fort Hill wharves. Although they are excluded from the waterfront site, we have given developers the option of giving us expanded proposals for these wharves. As I announced yesterday, the growth in cruise ship visits to Darwin also makes it imperative to upgrade facilities at Fort Hill Wharf, and we have initiated a study that will look at how we make Darwin attractive to cruise ships. That study should be completed in April.
Imagine this site in 20 years, with all this work completed; it will be transformed. Future generations, I am sure - and us included - will be proud of what our vision achieves.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I welcome the statement. All members of the House also welcome the describing, once again, of a grand vision. I am sure, as it is painted for all Territorians, we all look forward to seeing it brought to completion.
However, the concerns of this House, and those of the business community of the Northern Territory, are the details of the process that will allow us to actually achieve that vision. You have set yourself, Chief Minister, at your own admission, a very challenging timetable. In the context that we have a Minister for Business and Industry who, yesterday, could not for the life of him understand why small to medium-sized businesses in the Northern Territory have a pronounced lack of confidence in your ability to inspire any sense of confidence or to stimulate the domestic economy, that lack of confidence, translates into the need for you to make sure that the process is followed in a way that engenders real confidence, because this is something that will - according to your own challenging timetable - ultimately fall to others to make sure it is brought to completion.
One aspect, which is in the public domain at the moment, and I would ask you to comment on, is the proximity of this development to visiting Naval vessels. There is a concern at this point that there is an issue there with regards to this proposed development being far too close to maintain the security of visiting Defence vessels.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I welcome the Leader of the Opposition’s comments. I did not understand half of them, I have to say. There was something about: ‘This was a challenging timetable’ and could we deliver in the time and were we talking to local business.
I indicated in my report how extensive the consultation is, how impressed we are with the three short-listed consortia who are working closely - and I indicated the local participation, the extent at this stage only of the consultations we have had in the community.
I am not embarrassed by the short timetable. What we want to do is build our tourism capacity. I do not think anyone is arguing with the importance of a convention and exhibition centre for Darwin. We can spend another three years putting it together, or we can do it quickly and see those benefits flow onto our economy, to our small businesses. We know the flow-on of a convention centre is significant. If the Opposition Leader would like a further briefing about the water front, all he has to do is ask. There are complex issues involved.
Dr TOYNE (Health): Madam Speaker, today I report on palliative care services across the Territory. We are implementing our election commitment for a hospice in the grounds of the Royal Darwin Hospital, with a 12-bed facility to be built alongside the Menzies School of Health Research. Late last year, we allocated an additional $600 000 to this project, bringing the total commitment for its construction to $3.6m.
I am pleased to advise the House that a tender to select the architect for the hospice closed on 8 February. Design development will occur in March, with specification of the construction tender completed by May and awarded by the middle of this year. Construction will commence shortly after that, and the completion is planned for early 2005. Regular news sheets will ensure stakeholders are advised of progress, and I look forward to updating the House.
I am also pleased to advise that the NT Hospice and Palliative Care Association and other community groups have already expressed their willingness to support the hospice through activities such as fundraising and volunteer services. The hospice is part of a broader reconfiguration of palliative care services, which was outlined in our Building Healthier Communities five-year framework. As part of that project, we will be examining the adequacy of palliative care services in Central Australia and the rest of the Territory.
In the Centre, the Central Australian Palliative Care Reference Group provides my department with valuable information about the types and levels of palliative care services for the Centre. While there is a recognition that a hospice is the preferred model for the Top End, in Central Australia a different approach may be taken to provide better support to remote and local patients. As well as improving services in Central Australia, we will look at further supporting the leadership the Northern Territory offers in indigenous palliative care, and enhancing remote palliative care and inpatient care facilities.
These projects will be supported by funding of nearly $300 000 that we have recently been successful in obtaining from the Commonwealth government through the National Palliative Care Program. That money will be used to develop an NT-wide palliative care strategic plan, and to increase the palliative care skills in our community nurses, Aboriginal health workers and allied health professionals through a work force placement program with palliative care specialist services.
A further $374 000 will also be allocated to non-government agencies for projects that will be undertaken in close collaboration with NT Palliative Care Services. This funding makes a total of nearly $1.4m going into palliative care services across the Territory, together with the $3.6m commitment this government has made to the Darwin Hospice.
Madam Speaker, the projects and funding that I have outlined provide another snapshot of the detailed work we have already started to implement in our Building Healthier Communities five-year framework.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s report. What I do not welcome is the radio interview this morning with Mark Latham, the federal Opposition Leader, who has back-pedalled on his commitment to overturning the Andrews bill if he comes into power. That is a huge disappointment.
In the Northern Territory, one of the pluses of the voluntary euthanasia debate was an increased emphasis on palliative care, and that was something to welcome. I am very pleased to hear the minister’s report detailing what his government is going to do to put further resources into palliative care.
As the minister and the previous minister would be well aware, the Northern Territory Palliative Care Association has been very disappointed with how the hospice has progressed. The funding has not been adequate. The headworks required to build the hospice in the grounds of Royal Darwin Hospital at the moment sit at about $1.2m and, given the budget of $4m, this is going to eat dramatically into the provision of the sort of hospice that we should be building. What has ended up happening is, because the provision for oxygen supply, water, electricity from the main tower block into the hospice to make it as cheap as possible, the siting of the hospice is going to be in the old Menzies car park, rather than out on the edge of some bush land which, quite frankly, would have been a much better site for a hospice for the people who are terminally ill. I am disappointed that it is going to be tucked in close to particularly unattractive buildings. You could not find anything more unattractive, I would think, than the building that is Royal Darwin Hospital.
A further disappointment for people in the community has been the refusal by the Northern Territory Labor government to fund furnishings for the hospice. People of the Territory are going to have to raise funds in order to furnish that hospice, and that is a huge disappointment to people.
Dr TOYNE (Health): Madam Speaker, I will make a very one-line statement here, unqualified: there will be a fully functional hospice in the Darwin Hospital grounds by the time I have indicated in my statement - end of story. If something is needed to make it functional it will be there; whether it is staff, furniture or the building itself.
My experience of losing a couple of close relatives in the last two years is that the crucial element that we looked for was not scenery; it was an environment where the family and friends could get together and give the person the closure that they needed as they passed from life, and the family the closure they needed when they were losing a loved one. I am very aware of that. I am also very aware that, in the Territory, some people pass through that experience under real bush, as well as people in the cities.
Dr BURNS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I am extremely pleased to be able to report to the Assembly and Territorians on progress in securing the relocation of bulk fuel facilities from the Darwin suburb of Stuart Park to the industrial zone in the Darwin Harbour’s East Arm. This is a very big project, both for East Arm and for the Darwin CBD in future years. It is more excellent news for Territory contractors, the real estate industry and small business.
This is a major project that the former government did a lot of talking about over more than a decade, but was unable to secure. Unlike its predecessor, the Martin Labor government did not give up on this major project and has now secured agreements for this project to proceed. It is another demonstration of this government’s commitment to hard work and taking the Territory ahead.
Earlier this month, the major fuel distributors, Shell, BP and Mobil, entered into contracts with Vopak Terminals Australia that will result in the construction of the new bulk liquids facility at East Arm. The agreements will result in the construction of a $50m facility in the East Arm industrial zone and will, in turn, help further establish the government’s vision of Darwin as a leading tropical city of our region. Vopak Terminals Australia has confirmed that at least 70% of the construction costs will be contracted with Territory businesses.
This is a major industrial investment in the East Arm zone, and is further confirmation of growth and confidence in the Territory economy. Vopak is a leading international provider of independent tank storage and related logistic services for the oil and chemical industries. The company operates a network of 66 major bulk liquids terminals in 26 countries. These terminals are commonly located adjacent to rail infrastructure; an advantage that the company sees in the East Arm location, with significant potential for further development in the future.
Construction of the new facilities is set to commence next month, with the commissioning of the new terminal in mid-2005. Redevelopment will require the current tanks and pipe works to be dismantled and the land to be rehabilitated. This will free up a major parcel of land, some 25 hectares adjacent to the CBD. It will also enable the Darwin CBD to expand in line with the anticipated growth of the Territory economy and the Darwin region. This is a very major and exciting development for the Northern Territory. The landscape of inner Darwin will be improved, a major new land release will become available adjacent to the CBD from 2007 onwards, leading to investments of many millions of dollars in the future residential and commercial developments.
Indeed, this is an historic development for the Territory leading to the relocation of the current fuel terminals to a modern facility in the East Arm region, as well as freeing up substantial land adjacent to the CBD. Madam Speaker, it is an example of this government taking the Territory forward.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I wonder if I could look like a minister if I held up my paper here and read it out and looked like I was confident in what I was saying? The minister looks a lot more confident this morning than he did yesterday in Question Time. One of the observers in Question Time yesterday said they had never seen anyone shuffle their feet so much in their life. The guy was hopping like a bunny in the spotlight!
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is an opportunity for the honourable member to respond to the ministerial report, not to talk about anything he likes.
Mr BURKE: It is good to see the minister when he does perform well. He does perform well when someone writes the script for him and he knows he is on safe ground - including, of course, if he checks that it has not been done before. In this case, you could have given a ministerial report which we would all have welcomed, except for the churlish comment at the start that, somehow, this government is now driving forward unlike the CLP had in the past. What a lot of garbage!
We know that this heads of agreement between those three oil companies fell over. It has been going on for nigh on six years; and it has finally been put together again. The only reason you have a facility to move them to is because of the vision of the CLP government that built the East Arm Port facility, for God’s sake! Let us all welcome the fact that the Stuart Park redevelopment will occur, but let us get some sense of perspective if you want the support of the opposition.
The important issue is this – and Leader of the Opposition alluded to it before: what is actually happening with all these fuel facilities? How are we going to refuel Naval ships in the future? There you are, minister; you do not need a script. Stand up and tell us how the Naval ships, with the new convention centre at the Stokes Hill Wharf facility - particularly American Naval ships, and also Australian Naval ships - will be refuelled under your grand plan in the future? Then we can see some real vision; we can see where the real substance is coming on to the port development and also in the relocation of the port facilities.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I should remind members that there actually is a small parcel of land rezoned in the middle of Darwin Harbour on the Ware Peninsula, which is where those tanks were originally going to go. There are a lot of things passed under the bridge since then. They are now finally back at East Arm Port.
My concern is for - as this discussion has been going on for such a long time - the people at One Mile Dam community who would like to know, I would presume, what the future of their community is. There were plans to relocate those people, even though they opposed that. I gather there has been some discussions about the future of the One Mile Dam people. We might have these grand plans for moving the tanks – and that is great – but there have been grand plans also to develop fairly intense residential development in that area. The people who are living there now surely must be consulted with before any moves to change what is and has been their lifestyle for many years.
Dr BURNS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I will pick up on the points made by the member for Nelson …
Mr Burke: What about my points?
Dr BURNS: … first and dispense with them. Firstly, I am very mindful of the people at the Railway Dam and the fact that they have been there for quite a long time. I have had some approaches on this issue, and I will certainly be bearing in mind their welfare and their housing in any decisions about the future of that area.
In relation to what the member for Brennan has raised, certainly, in refuelling and other activities at the proposed developments around the wharf, there are ongoing discussions with the Navy and other entities such as cruise ships. These issues will be worked through …
Mr Burke: What about Defence?
Dr BURNS: If the member for Brennan wants some history, I was informed that, in 1996-97, the three oil companies signed up to an agreement which Shane Stone refused to sign. Vopak came along at the beginning of last year, 2003, and this government has worked with Vopak to seal the deal.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Family and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I present a report on respite child care for families.
Members will know that all parents and families require extra support from time to time. Some parents need more help than others, or for longer periods. The Minister for Health and I recently released the framework for Building Healthier Communities. Two key aims of the framework are to give our children the best start in life and to strengthen families and communities. Consistent with these aims and with the recognition of the isolation of some parents from their usual support, a new service has been developed to meet this need.
The Department of Health and Community Services is funding an innovative brokerage service to assist parents find respite occasional child care. This brokerage service is called Breathing Space. This service will specifically support parents who do not have extended families or other networks to assist them. In 2003, the Department of Health and Community Services undertook a project that identified gaps in care services for families. This project found that it was difficult for families to attend services such as parenting programs and counselling, or attend to their medical needs or crisis situations, as there would be no one to care for their children. A service model was designed and, in June 2003, Darwin Family Day Care Incorporated was awarded the tender to provide this service. The Breathing Space service now identifies available occasional childcare places for children up to 12 years of age in Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine and Alice Springs. The service liaises with family support services in the area to facilitate placement of children in short-term child care. It assists parents to access subsidies or available funding for child care, and links families with other parent networks or programs. The program also coordinates training for childcare providers to ensure they are aware of relevant issues and support for families.
Breathing Space has quickly been accessed by a number of community-based organisations providing support to families in Darwin and Palmerston. As of the end of January 2004, 31 families have been referred to Breathing Space. The main source of referrals have been made through non-government agencies, such as Dawn House, Darwin Aboriginal and Islander Women’s Shelter, Anglicare, Somerville Counselling Services, Centrecare Personal Support Program, Carpentaria Disability Early Intervention Services, Mental Health Services, and the Salvation Army Drug and Alcohol Service. All of the participants were linked into the existing programs, with a large proportion of families using several support agencies. Care has been provided while parents attend counselling, drug and alcohol programs, support groups, legal obligations and court appearances, or for medical reasons. Care has been provided during the day, overnight and on weekends. Darwin Family Day Care has been able to provide up to 98% of the care, with the child care centres providing the other 2% required.
To date, 27 government and non-government agencies have been introduced to the respite care service. This new service is reaching those families who often find using services difficult. The majority of clients come from a low socioeconomic group whose only source of income is through benefit payments. Nearly half of the clients are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders and have never accessed any type of formal child care before. The Breathing Space program has found that transport is a major barrier for these families being able to access care. Consequently, transport costs or negotiation with the referral agency is included in the brokerage services when required. This service also operates an outreach service with 97% of clients needs being assessed in their own home.
Breathing Space has recently been extended to Alice Springs and Katherine, and negotiations are currently being undertaken with providers of family services in these areas to establish a local referral system. This service will be officially launched next month.
Creating better ways of working together is an integral part of the framework for building healthier communities, and this is an outstanding example of the way that government and non-government agencies can work together to respond to gaps in services for children and families. I commend the initiative and the Darwin Family Day Care scheme for its work to date.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s report here this morning. Child care is a major issue in our community and in Australia generally. We have a community which has a population fall occurring with regard to the rate of child birth and, as a community, we have to look very carefully at the sort of incentives we offer women to entice them into becoming mothers.
I welcome the minister’s statement because child care is something women weigh up when they are making the decision whether or not to have children, because of the impact it has on their lives. I would be interested to hear how many places or how many hours of child care will be provided through this initiative.
The minister mentioned respite and mental health within her report and, as members would be aware, I am very concerned about the lack of mental health services for people under the age of 18 in the Northern Territory, particularly residential services. Parents with children with mental health problems do not have anywhere where those children can go for respite, and I believe that is a gap in services. I hope the minister and the government take that gap into mind when they are developing their budget.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Racing and Betting Amendment Bill 2004 (Serial 207) and Unlawful Betting Amendment Bill 2004 (Serial 208) –
Bills presented and read a first time.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
The purpose of the two bills is to amend the Racing and Betting Act and the Unlawful Betting Act following the National Competition Policy (NCP) review of the Territory’s racing and betting legislation. Given the interdependency of the two acts, it is my intention to introduce the amending legislation together.
The amendments presented today address the key recommendations requiring legislative change. Some of the review’s recommendations proposed further legislative change, but have been deferred because they form part of a broader change to gambling legislation as a whole. Specifically, the deferred aspects relate to broader recommendations to develop a new legislative framework based on two principal sets of legislation - one covering the licensing and operations of the industry itself, and the other covering the gambling and wagering control aspects - and possible changes to the regulatory administration itself. Both of these recommendations require further research before further legislative amendment can be contemplated.
One other issue not referred to in these amendments is that of minimum wager obligations. As agreed by the Australian racing ministers at the meeting of 31 October 2003, minimum wager obligations will apply to all bookmakers. The minimum wager obligations require bookmakers to take bets that expose them to a potential loss to the minimum ceiling. The new prescribed licence conditions will include a requirement for all bookmakers to adhere to the minimum wager obligations.
You would be aware from the introduction of earlier legislative amendments following similar reviews, the NCP review was undertaken in accordance with government commitment to the Competition Principles Agreement to examine and remove anti-competitive requirements or restrictions that cannot be justified to achieve the legislation’s objectives. The overall objective of the review was to make reforms that will enable the racing and wagering industry to operate in an environment as free from bureaucratic restrictions as possible, whilst ensuring industry regulation upholds the aims of harm minimisation and the amenity of community life.
A consultative paper was produced that identified the issues relevant to the review and sought public comment on those issues. The issues on which comment was sought included the objectives of the legislation, the regulatory structure of the industry, the administrative regime in the industry, industry licensing, racing activity and event management, bookmaking operations, betting activity, betting management and problem gambling.
I wish to thank those organisations and individuals that made submissions to the review, including the Darwin Turf Club, Northern Territory TAB Pty Ltd, Centrebet, IASBet Limited, Northern Territory Gaming and Wagering Advisory Forum, Mr Marshall Perron, and Punting Partners. The submissions contained a variety of views from which the following recommendations, based on competition principles, were developed.
The review found that the strong and prescriptive regulatory approach for this industry is justified and that identified restrictions are generally in the public interest. For example, the review found that licensing of industry participants, including racing and betting operators, is widely accepted as the most effective and efficient means of protecting consumers, and that weaker forms of regulation are unlikely to be as effective in delivering the required probity outcomes.
The review noted two significant considerations, being the need to counter the high potential for industry participants to manipulate racing and betting activity and outcomes, and the adverse public consequences which can arise through problem gambling. Both of these issues provide strong argument for tight regulatory controls over the related activities. The review found that, whist continuance of a strong licensing regime for the industry is justified and in the public interest, the easing of a number of restrictive provisions, particularly those involved in the control of bookmaking activity and prohibitions on specific codes of racing and racing organisation, should improve competitive positioning and industry efficiency. Nett public benefits are expected from the continuing strong industry controls and the increased consumer choice that can, potentially, result through expansion of racing codes.
I turn now to the proposed amendments. The majority of the amendments relate to the Racing and Betting Act. There are also two amendments to the Unlawful Betting Act. I shall deal firstly with the bill that introduces the amendments to the Racing and Betting Act.
1. Objectives of the act. The bill proposes that an objects section be included in the act. The reason for this is to make clear the purpose of the legislation, which is to ensure probity and integrity in racing and betting, and to reduce the adverse social impact of betting in the Territory. As the NCP Review noted:
The Productivity Commission, in its report into Australia’s gambling industries, found the two objectives providing the strongest rationales for special gambling policies are to ensure the probity of gambling and to reduce its adverse social impact. Accordingly, in proposing to insert an objects section in the Racing and Betting Act, prominence is given to the probity and integrity of the industry and of those persons engaged in the industry, and to reduce the impact of problem betting activities. The proposed objects are therefore:
to promote probity and integrity in racing and betting in the Territory;
betting in the Territory; and
2. Functions of the Racing Commission. The review noted that the very nature of the racing industry creates an inherent risk of criminal exploitation of racing and betting activity, and that the operation of an effective regulatory framework is an essential element to protect against such infiltration. Section 17 of the act describes the functions of the Racing Commission. To that end, section 17 has been amended through the insertion of a new clause setting out the principles that the commission must have regard to in the performance of its functions. Those principals are:
minimum regulatory intervention by government;
Section 17 is also amended by deleting reference to a ‘bookmaker’s clerk’ and substituting the term ‘key employees’. The reason for this amendment has been touched upon in referencing the amendments to the definitions section of the act.
3. Licences and permits. Until now, it has been the practice to grant annual permits to registered bookmakers who operate on-course and authorised race meetings, whereas sports bookmakers - commonly referred to as corporate bookmakers - have been granted licences that are valid for multiple years. The review has found this practice to be unsustainable against National Competition Policy and has recommended that the annual permit system for registered bookmakers be revoked and replaced with the licensing system that operates along the same lines as that in place for sports bookmakers.
With this in mind, section 24 of the act has been amended to refer to licences issued under either section 90 or 102, and that such licences will remain in force for the period determined by the commission. Such a licence will be renewable but not transferable, and subject to the payment of an annual fee. Penalties for non-payment of the annual fee have been inserted into section 80 of the principal act, which allow for suspension of a licence if not paid within 30 days of the due date, and possible cancellation should the fee still be outstanding after three months.
4. Criminal history checks. As I stated earlier, the National Competition Policy review of this legislation saw the regulation of the racing industry as necessary to achieve the fundamental objectives of probity and integrity, including protection from infiltration by criminal elements. In achieving these objectives, this bill introduces probity checks similar to the high level of investigation into applicants for gaming licences under the Gaming Control Act, including those for on-line and land-based casinos. Section 8 of this bill creates a part of that new probity level by introducing into the principal act a new clause that requires all natural person applicants for a licence or renewal, and officers of corporate applicants for a licence or renewal, to undergo a police criminal history check. This officers of any corporate applicant shall include all company directors, the secretary or executive officer of that corporation, and any other person who has control or influence over the corporation’s affairs.
5. Repeal of restrictions on proprietary racing. The principal act has, until now, precluded private enterprise from carrying on racing in the Northern Territory through what is known as propriety racing; that is, the conducting of a race meeting for profit. The National Competition Policy review report found that the reasons for the blanket restrictions on propriety racing - that is, concerns over the manipulation of privately run racing events - are no longer appropriate and should be removed if the industry in Australia is to remain commercially competitive on a global basis. Sections 26, 27 and 29 of the principal act effect the current ban on propriety racing, and section 9 of the bill repeals those sections, allowing propriety racing in the Northern Territory. Section 30 of the principal act is also repealed, as it has no real meaning in the absence of section 29. Propriety racing must still meet strict regulations and controls imposed on the racing industry generally, notwithstanding these amendments.
6. Person to whom licence or permits under this part may not be granted. Clause 9 of the bill continues the theme of increased probity in the granting of licences under the principal act by adding a new subsection that prohibits the grant of a licence to a person who is not a fit and proper person to hold such a licence. The bill then defines a person who is not fit and proper as being someone who has been found guilty of an offence under the principal act, the Unlawful Betting Act, the Gaming Control Act or the Gaming Machine Act, has been convicted within 10 years of the application of a disqualifying offence prescribed under the Racing and Betting Regulations, or is a person who does not satisfy the probity requirements under the principal act.
7. Offences by bookmakers. Section 79 of the principal act is an offence clause that precludes bookmakers from undertaking a number of activities. Included in that list is an offence relating to betting tax imposed under the Stamp Duties Act, and an offence of paying out on a winning bet based on a totalisator declared dividend. These offence clauses are no longer relevant to the industry and are being removed from the act. Separate steps have previously been initiated to remove the latter offence relating to totalisator based dividends. Clause 10 of the bill deletes section 79(d) of the principal act which relates to totalisator based betting.
8. Suspension or cancellation of licence. Clause 11 of the bill broadens the Racing Commission’s power to suspend or cancel a licence granted to a bookmaker where the bookmaker fails to pay the applicable annual licence fee. Suspension of a licence may be invoked where the fee is not paid within 30 days of the due date, and cancellation may occur if the fee is still not paid after 90 days that it falls due.
9. Commission may grant licence. Clause 12 of the bill again strengthens the probity requirements of the licensing process under the principal act by directing the Racing Commission to have regard to certain matters when determining whether to grant or refuse a licence. Those matters are listed in an amendment to section 9 of the principal act and relate to the character, honesty and integrity of the applicant; the applicant’s financial capacity and viability; the structure of corporate applicants; the business expertise of the applicant; and the integrity and character of directors, officers and associates of a corporate application.
Concerns have been expressed in the past that the strict probity approach to industry licensing that includes strident consideration of an applicant’s financial capacity, leads to an expectation by government that a licensee will be financially viable for the term that a licence has been granted. This perceived expectation is not the intended position of government and so, to remove any such view, a new section has been inserted at the end of section 90 of the principal act specifically disclaiming any such perception.
Section 90(4) of the principal act has also been amended to provide for a licensee to abide by the licence conditions prescribed under the regulations, as well as any such further conditions that the commission sees fit to include in a particular licence.
10. Recovery of probity investigation costs from applicants. It is a basic principle of the National Competition Policy that regulated industries that benefit from regulation should incur the costs of administering that regulation. Clearly, the racing industry is one of those industries. With this in mind, it is proposed that the cost of the increased probity investigations into proposed licensees be borne by the applicant. Clause 13 of the bill introduces a new section into the act which allows the Racing Commission to recover the costs it incurs in carrying out the investigation into the probity of an applicant under section 90 of the principle act, as discussed above.
11. Licence renewals. I made reference earlier to a recommendation made in the review of the legislation, that the licensing activities under the act should be made more uniform in their application. Logically then, this uniform approach to licensing processes and procedures should extend to the renewal of all licences issued under the act. Consequently, clause 14 of the act introduces an amendment to section 91 of the principal act, authorising the Racing Commission to renew a licence granted under the provisions of the act, subject to similar probity requirements for the granting of a new licence, including a review of the licensee’s financial standing and new criminal history checks for persons relevant to the renewal application. As a consequence of the renewal provisions for all licences under the act being dealt with separate to the granting of a licence, it has been necessary to delete reference to ‘licence renewals’ in the definition of the term ‘licence’.
12. Licence conditions. This bill introduces a new provision whereby standard licence conditions will be prescribed under the regulations. The Racing Commission also has the power to impose further conditions. Clause 15 of the bill has been introduced to amend section 92 of the principal act, to make it clear that, whilst the commission may impose further conditions on a licence, it may not impose a condition that would have the effect of varying a prescribed condition.
13. Repeal of restrictions to hours of trade. In keeping with the National Competition Council principles of reducing regulation as far as possible without increasing the risk of harm, the review found restrictions on hours of trade and limited use of venues were anti-competitive, and recommended those restrictions be removed. Clause 16 of the bill does this by repealing sections 94, 95, 98 and 101 of the principal act; that is, those provisions that restrict the hours of trade, use of venue facilities for other purposes, and the type of betting activities that a bookmaker may make bets on.
14. Licensed bookmakers. As mentioned earlier, it is the intention of this bill to align the licensing provisions of registered bookmakers and sports bookmakers so that there is similar probity in the issuing of licences under the act. To that end, clauses 17 and 18 of the bill introduce amendments to the licensing requirements of registered bookmakers that are identical to those that are being introduced for the licensing of sports bookmakers. Those amendments have been inserted into section 102 of the principal act, including a new section 102A, relating to cost recovery for investigations by the Racing Commission.
15. Licensing of key employees. Another aspect of the introduction of uniform licensing procedures under the principal act is the recognition of key employees of licensed bookmakers and the need for such employees to be licensed. The definitions section of the act has been amended by omitting the term ‘bookmaker’s clerk’ and replacing it with the phrase ‘key employees’. Clauses 19 and 20 of the bill apply the ‘key employee’ concept to employees of a registered bookmaker by deleting reference to the phrase ‘bookmaker’s clerk’ in sections 103 and 104 of the principal act, and replacing it with the term ‘key employee’. Clause 19 also inserts a new section 103(1A), which provides for the Racing Commission to designate a position or function of a bookmaking operation to be a key position or function that will be required to be licensed under the act.
16. Appeals to the Local Court. Clause 21 of the bill is a new clause that protects the natural justice rights of an applicant for a new licence, or for the renewal of an existing licence, by permitting an aggrieved applicant to appeal to the Local Court to have a decision of the Racing Commission overturned and to grant or renew the licence sought by the appellant. Government recognises there may be occasions where the Racing Commission will be bound to refuse an application on the ground that an applicant has been convicted of a disqualifying offence but that, in all the circumstances, it would be inclined to grant the licence. In cases such as this, it is seen as reasonable to give the Local Court the power to overturn a decision of the commission and grant a licence or renewal of a licence to the applicant.
17. Codes of practice. One last important development in the regulation of the racing and betting industry that this bill seeks to introduce is the power of the Racing Commission to bind bookmakers to operate within standards set out in any codes of practice that the commission sees fit to adopt. The use of such codes has been successful in other related areas of social regulation, such as the gaming, liquor and private security industries. This new power of the commission is inserted into the principal act through the insertion of a new section 148A. The new provision also provides sanctions for non-compliance with an adopted code through monetary penalties of up to $2000.
That concludes the proposed amendments to the Racing and Betting Act. I turn now to the Unlawful Betting Amendment Bill 2004.
The National Competition Policy review has identified two aspects of the Unlawful Betting Act that require legislative change: restrictions on advertising; and the prohibition on third party betting. The review has found that, subject to the consideration of problem gambling issues, restrictions on the advertising of licensed lawful betting services are unsustainable in the face of National Competition Policy principles and should be removed as far as they affect the services of licensed bookmakers.
In order to give effect to that finding, the bill seeks to amend section 22 of the Unlawful Betting Act by rewording section 22(1)(a)(ii) of the act and adding a new clause that permits a licensed bookmaker or their employee to advertise services in such a manner that would otherwise be prohibited under the provisions of the act.
With respect to third party betting, the review made the following observations:
The review then went on to recommend that the restriction on third party betting be removed. To this end, the bill seeks to amend section 29 of the Unlawful Betting Act by removing the restriction on third party betting upon unlawful betting activities. This will mean that a person who wishes to engage in third party betting on legal betting activities can do so without fear of prosecution or the need to hold any kind of licence whatsoever. Any person who seeks to undertake commercial third party betting activities would be subject to the normal trading conditions imposed by Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading legislation in force in the Territory from time to time.
Madam Speaker, the bills I have today introduced address key recommendations contained within the National Competition Policy review into the racing and betting industry in the Northern Territory that require legislative attention. This action reaffirms the government’s commitment to National Competition Policy principles and the competition policy reform process. I commend the bills to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled First Home Owner Grant Amendment Bill 2004 (Serial 210) and Stamp Duty Amendment Bill 2004 (Serial 211) –
Motion agreed to.
Bills presented and read a first time.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
The bills propose amending the First Home Owners Grant Act and Stamp Duty Act to put in place a number of measures to improve the integrity and administration of the First Home Owner Grant, the Stamp Duty First Home Owner Concession and Principal Place of Residence Stamp Duty Rebate.
I turn first to the First Home Owner Grant Amendment Bill, which seeks to make several changes to the First Home Owner Grant Act. By way of background, the First Home Owner Grant Act provides a $7000 grant to first home buyers. The grant was introduced across Australia at the same time as the GST to compensate first home buyers for the initial cost of buying their home because of the GST. The Commonwealth, states and territories agreed to introduce the uniform scheme in accordance with legislation administered by states and territories. To maintain this consistency between the legislation of the states and territories, the first three changes proposed to the First Home Owner Grant Act have been, or will be, adopted in similar form by all states and territories.
The first of the proposed changes introduces a minimum age of 18 years for First Home Owner Grant applicants. I announced this change on 30 October 2003 in response to reports that very young children were being used to exploit the scheme in other states. While the scheme does not appear to have been abused in this way in the Territory, the minimum age limit has applied since 10 November 2003 to safeguard the scheme’s integrity.
Children under 18 years of age will still be able to qualify for the grant where they purchase jointly with a person who is over 18 years of age, or if they show that they are genuinely buying a home for themselves. In the instances where this may apply include where a 17-year-old child has saved sufficient funds, through working, for a deposit on a home and a bank has provided them with finance to purchase the home; or a disabled child has obtained funds from a compensation payment to buy a home which has been modified to suit his or her medical needs, and lives in the home with his or her parents who act as the child’s carers.
Currently, the only residence requirement for First Home Owner Grant recipients is that they live in a home as their principal place of residence within 12 months of buying or building a home. However, the legislation does not provide any rules to assist people to determine when they have satisfied the requirement to occupy their home as their principal place of residence. This has caused difficulties for both grant recipients and the Commissioner of Taxation.
To overcome these difficulties, it is proposed to require First Home Owner Grant recipients to reside in the property for which they have received the grant for a continuous period of at least six months. This period of residence must commence within 12 months of buying or building the home for which the grant is received. This amendment seeks to provide a simple rule to enable people to determine when they have met the residency requirements. This rule will apply across Australia.
It is also recognised that people’s circumstances may change once they have moved into the home, which may not enable them to live there for the full six months. Where a person’s reason for not living in their home for at least six months is legitimate, a shorter residency period can be approved. Examples of where this may apply are where a grant recipient is transferred to another town or city for their current job; a home of a grant recipient is damaged or destroyed to the extent that it is uninhabitable; or a grant recipient’s ill health requires them to be hospitalised.
The third proposed change relates to circumstances in which a person has been required to repay the grant because they did not meet the residence requirements under the First Home Owner Grant Act. Currently, such a person is disqualified from obtaining the grant for a subsequent home that they buy, even though they have repaid the previous grant that they were not entitled to. This is a harsh penalty in many circumstances, and it is proposed to remedy this by allowing a person to qualify for a subsequent grant, as long as they have repaid the previous grant and any penalties and interest owing on that amount. This change is also being adopted across Australia, but to varying degrees.
The bill also proposes to charge interest on First Home Owner Grants that are to be repaid, and on any penalties that are not paid on time. The proposed interest rate would be equivalent to the average yield of 90-day bank accepted bills published by the Reserve Bank of Australia for the month of May immediately preceding the financial year in which interest is applied, plus 7%. Other Territory acts use a similar rate, as does the Commonwealth and other states.
The commissioner may remit any interest in appropriate circumstances. For instance, the commissioner may remit the interest where a person is genuinely unaware that they were not entitled to receive the grant, such as where their spouse had previously owned a home but did not advise them of this.
Another of the proposed amendments will alter the current offence under the act for knowingly making a false statement; such that it will be an offence to make a false statement, irrespective of whether it is deliberate or not. To alleviate concerns that a person may be unjustly prosecuted for making a false statement, a defence will be available to a person if they can show that the false statement was made inadvertently or through ignorance. This change has been proposed on legal advice. That advice indicates that it can be very difficult to prosecute a person under the current provision, even though the person deliberately intended to defraud the Territory by making a false statement.
Minor changes are also proposed for the First Home Owner Grant Act to clarify that a charge created under the act is an overriding statutory charge under the Land Title Act, and ensure that all grant recipients have 12 months after a transaction is completed to occupy their home.
Turning to the Stamp Duty Amendment Bill, this seeks to mirror the proposals in the First Home Owner Grant Amendment Bill, to introduce from 10 November 2003 a minimum age limit of 18 years for Stamp Duty First Home Owner Concession applicants; requiring applicants for the Stamp Duty First Home Owner Concession and Principal Place of Residence Stamp Duty Rebate to reside in the home for a minimum period of six months; and to not disqualify a person from obtaining the first home owner concession for a home that they purchased, even though they may have obtained a previous concession that they were not entitled to.
The commissioner may approve a lesser residency period and pay the concession to applicants under 18 years of age for similar reasons to those proposed for the First Home Owner Grant.
Finally, the bill also proposes a change to the Stamp Duty First Home Owner Concession to ensure that a recent change made be the Law Reform (Gender, Sexuality and Defacto Relationships) Act does not inadvertently result in de facto couples being able to claim the concession for more than one home.
The changes proposed in both bills will operate from 1 July 2004, other than the clarifying of statutory charges under the Land Title Act, which will operate from the day of commencement the Land Title Act, being 1 December 2000; the minimum age limit which will operate from 10 November 2003; and the change in response to the Law Reform (Gender, Sexuality and Defacto Relationship) Act, which will operate from the date that the relevant changes under that act take effect.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 7 October 2003.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this report was tabled on 7 October 2003 and, at that stage, leave was granted for the Chief Minister to continue her remarks at a later date. There has been no comment on this report for five months, and we have had 12 sitting days since that tabling, not including today or on the tabling day. Therefore, I would hope that there is going to be substantive comment on the Auditor-General’s report, because it contains some issues of concern that need the open, honest and transparent government to address and respond to so that we, as elected members representing the community of the Northern Territory, can understand and accept that those issues raised by the Auditor-General are being put on the agenda and adequately reported on by those who are charged with the responsibility of governing. We are not off to a good start if we find that it has been almost seven months since the report has been submitted to this Chamber and we still await comment.
I will now go through some of the issues contained within the report so that we may be able to assist government in ensuring that these are on the agenda in a formal sense. We invite comment from government.
Turning first to key findings on pages 13 and 14: questions need to be asked as to why 28% of debtors to an agency were more than 90 days overdue. Furthermore, that, contrary to requirements documented in an accounting and property manual, fixed asset disposals were not being approved by the chief executive officer. I invite comment from the Chief Minister to assure us that these issues raised by the Auditor-General are being attended to: why stocktakes in some agencies and departments were informal or non-existent; why effective reconciliation of ledgers was absent across a number of agencies. In one case noted by the Auditor-General, the bank reconciliation did not balance the ledger by more than $250 000. It is only befitting for members of this Chamber to receive a fulsome response to assure us that the report of the Auditor-General is being attended to and responded to in a responsible way. These matters should not be left hanging. The Auditor-General reports to this parliament on his findings, and it is a part of the procedure that the government then responds to this parliament.
The report also raises a number of other concerns that demand a response from the government. For example, did the government take the Auditor-General’s advice and ensure that Centralian College was audited before the merger with Charles Darwin University? We find that recommendation on page 59. Or has the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education met its targets under the resource agreement with DEET? A finding and recommendation is on page 55. Whilst speaking about Batchelor, although it is very pleasing to note that following adverse comment in a previous Auditor-General’s report, audit procedures are improving at the institute.
However, it is not pleasing to note that neither the Nitmiluk National Park Board nor Cobourg Peninsula Sanctuary and Marine Park Board can meet reporting time lines or exist without continuing government subsidy. A report would be most fitting; in fact, would be expected. We will find those recommendations of the Auditor-General on pages 65 to 70. In both cases, payment to traditional owners had to be cut between 2001 and 2002. Those findings are published on pages 66 and 69.
Some of the problems found by the Auditor-General in selected annual reports of departments is also of some concern, particularly his finding that:
That is on page 88.
This is even more important than it once was because this government has changed the basis of the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report, so that it is no longer departmental budgets that are presented in detail and audited but, rather, the whole-of-government information. To find out the full financial statements of agencies one now must rely on their annual reports. The comments of the Auditor-General in this report do not give one great confidence in this process.
Of course, the Auditor-General does find that departments and agencies are continuing to improve. In particular, he notes the significant progress made by DCIS in its monitoring and dealing with the outsourcing of IT services. We find that on pages 84 to 87. They and public servants and CEOs across the board are to be commended for taking on board the previous Auditor-General’s recommendations, and acting to improve their performance.
Before concluding, there are a couple of other areas of this report I would like to comment on. One of the most frustrating aspects of the Auditor-General’s report is that it usually provides snippets of fascinating information within the context of a report on a much larger issue. Of course, all members, in different ways depending on where they sit in the House, eagerly await the Auditor-General’s report. An example of a fascinating snippet of information is on page 24. The Auditor-General comments on the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment and the early termination payments to CEOs and executive contract officers. He reveals that one CEO received non-standard remuneration arrangements and the Commissioner for Public Employment might not know anything about it. The employment of this CEO was, obviously, negotiated outside the standard range of salaries for CEOs and the deal was done by government not by the appropriate person; that is, the commissioner. Unfortunately, that is the extent of the information about the incident, other than the comment from the commissioner himself, that it involved one case back in January 2002. The commissioner further noted that his office has resumed the role of managing all executive contracts. You will find that report on page 24. It certainly would be nice to know who the lucky CEO is.
It would also be of interest to find out if the government is going to take up the suggestion of the Auditor-General that the pay and conditions, the remuneration of senior officers of each agency and department, be noted in their financial statements in their annual report. The Auditor-General points out that this happens in the private sector with listed companies. Not doing it within the public service reduces transparency and accountability, he says. Presumably, this government will disclose the salaries of its senior public servants because they constantly proclaim that they are an open, transparent and accountable government.
The other area I would like to touch on is the use of certificates of exemption from public tender, at pages 17 to 21. It is interesting to note the Auditor-General’s concerns in this area, especially as they relate to consultancies. I am sure we all remember that it was an election promise of the Labor government to cut consultancies by $15m a year to the tune of more than $50m over its four years in power. It was, of course, one of the first promises jettisoned by the Labor Party when they were elected. Perhaps the government could tell us how much they are spending on consultancies each year.
Back to the Auditor-General’s report and the concerns he has raised. He points out on page 20 that, of the certificates of exemptions he examined, almost half, 46%, were for some form of consultancy. He went on that sometimes it was difficult to assess whether the principles of the procurement policy reforms were being satisfied. Was there open and effective competition? Was there value for money? Was there environmental protection? Was there ethical behaviour and fair trading? Did the consultancy enhance the capabilities of Territory business and industry?
Going on the government’s report card in the latest Sensis Small to Medium Sized Business Index, it would appear that business would answer ‘no’ to the last question, as they gave this government a negative rating of 20%.
Mr Henderson: Palmerston said yours was minus 47.
Mr MILLS: You did not report that 81% of them viewed your performance as very poor.
The other concern the Auditor-General had, on page 19, was whether the system of certificates of exemption and the levels of improvement needed at the different cost levels was being enforced.
He raised the question of whether, by not including the total costs of the consultancies such as travel or facilities like the provision of mobile phones, computers, motor vehicles and office space, the level of approval was, in fact, much lower. In other words, by excluding these costs, the full procurement process could be gotten around.
I am aware that further changes to the process have been made since the Auditor-General conducted his audit, and that some of his concerns have been addressed. However, it would be beneficial for members if the Chief Minister could give us a clear ruling on what is included and what is not when consultancies are being sought. Or perhaps the Treasurer could table the procurement guideline in relation to this and what his department told the Auditor-General and Procurement Review Board they could issue.
I began these comments by reflecting on how long it has taken the government to bring this report on for debate, and how long it has taken to get any response from government to the Auditor-General’s recommendations. I hope that this is an oversight and not a reflection of how this government regards the report of the Auditor-General. Seven months has expired since this was tabled. Auditors-General are the bane of governments, but that is what they are meant to be; they are one of the crucial watchdogs of democracy. You can argue with them, dispute their findings, but you must not ignore them.
I hope that the government’s tardy response to this report from the Auditor-General is an aberration and not a practice that will continue. They cannot afford to ignore the independent, invaluable advice and analysis that the Auditor-General provides. Certainly, Territorians cannot afford it.
Finally, I would like to place on the record my thanks to the Auditor-General and his office for the quality work that they do. His regular reports to this parliament, and his accessibility to members and the Public Accounts Committee are a very important part of our democracy. The fact that so many of his recommendations are accepted by departments according to comments in his reports, shows the great job that he and his office are doing. One can only hope that in the future his reports will get a similar response from the Northern Territory government.
Mr HENDERSON (Business and Industry): Madam Speaker, I would also like to start by complimenting the Auditor-General, once again, on a very thorough report. I agree with the previous speaker that it is a fundamental part of our checks and balances on the democratic system that the Auditor-General has the capacity and the powers to oversight government agency operations. I can assure members, as ministers in government, we certainly do take into account what the Auditor-General has said. In response to the member speaking previously, the very fact that the vast majority of the recommendations that the Auditor-General has highlighted in his report receive immediate acceptance and implementation from government agencies, really does go to show that government takes the report seriously.
In regards to the comments that we have had about seven months to debate this, this report was adjourned on 7 October 2003. By my calculations, that is just over four months. During that period, I remember the November sittings which we were criticised for, were extraordinarily busy with significant legislation, and this is the first sittings since Christmas that we have had the opportunity to debate this report. The reality is that the public service and government has accepted the vast majority of the recommendations that the Auditor-General handed down. Again, I pay tribute to the work that the Auditor-General does.
Regarding the portfolio responsibilities that I am accountable for, I will go to the comments that the Auditor-General has made in regard to DCIS, starting with his analysis of personnel costs. The Auditor-General found that DCIS provided management with payroll activity reports but they are long and detailed and time consuming to review. It was recommended that payroll provide exception reports. This is supported by DCIS, who have now included an exception reporting capacity in its specification for a PIPS management reporting facility, which is currently being developed in conjunction with agencies. Agencies will need to determine which of those reports they find useful.
I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that there has been a significant improvement in the outsourcing of IT services. I am absolutely sure that my colleague, the member for Stuart, will agree. He inherited this portfolio on coming to government. We inherited a mess! We inherited an extraordinary mess in regard to the previous government’s handling of the outsourcing of IT services. It certainly was a policy position we supported, but the implementation was nothing short of a bit of a debacle. It has taken a long time to move forward. There was an extraordinary mess in service provision, and an even worse mess in budget allocation, as a result of outsourcing. DCIS have done a magnificent job, working with all agencies in understanding their costs, ensuring government appropriates adequate budget to meet the new financial demands on agencies as a result of the outsourcing agreements, and now implementing performance management criteria in contracts to ensure that government and the taxpayer are getting the services that they require. It really has taken the best part of two years to get that mess that was inherited under control.
The Auditor-General noted that significant progress had been made since the previous audit, with improved processes to monitor deliveries, manage outstanding issues, audit reported performance, and better communications between service providers and agencies.
The recommendation to provide assistance to agencies with monitoring and reconciling service level credits against performance reports has been accepted. It should be noted that, since the March audit 2003, the majority of volume disputes have been resolved to the satisfaction of both the service provider and agencies. Current disputes average around 1% of monthly billing totals, compared to last year where the total exceeded 6%. This should be interpreted as the service provider now meeting its obligations and acquitting services they provide to the satisfaction of agencies.
I would like to congratulate the people in DCIS who manage those outsource contracts, and also the people in the agencies. It is now under control. I also congratulate the companies who are providing those good services to government. I put on the Parliamentary Record my appreciation of the job done by the previous minister, who really did have a very slippery ball to run with in trying to get this under control. It is a great job and it is good to see that those issues have, by and large, been resolved.
Another area of my portfolio responsibilities is, obviously, Police, Fire and Emergency Services. There were comments and the analysis in the report by the Auditor-General regarding the payments of other personnel costs, and looking at the increasing amounts of the overall personnel budget that are going to higher duties allowance, consolidation allowance, penalty payments and overtime to the members of Police, Fire and Emergency Services. The Auditor-General highlighted that, as a percentage of those personnel costs, those costs are moving up. His report shows that, from the period 30 June 2000 to 31 December 2002, as a percentage of overall payroll costs, those categories had increased from 14.1% of the personnel budget to 15.5%. The Auditor-General highlighted the lack of reporting of people who were working excessive overtime in a pay period, who had not taken leave, who had been receiving higher duties allowance for over six months, etcetera.
What DCIS is doing now is actually implementing those exception reports through the payroll system to highlight to management - not only in the police but across government - of personnel that land in those categories and are obviously working excessive overtime or for far too long without a break.
With regard to the police, the commissioner has commented that, for overtime over the period, major incidents including the Falconio case, the Litchfield National Parks search, and Pine Gap exercises, have occurred during the reporting periods and were major contributing factors influencing overtime payments.
I am disappointed. I will put it on the Parliamentary Record that I have written on three occasions now to Senator Hill requesting some financial compensation from the Commonwealth government for the overtime bill for the Northern Territory police at the Pine Gap demonstrations that occurred this year. I believe, Treasurer, the bill came to in excess of $220 000 that the Territory taxpayer picked up in, essentially, providing protection to a Commonwealth facility. The silence has been deafening from the federal Defence minister. I received a letter just before Christmas basically saying it was our responsibility. I found that quite extraordinary. We have written off the $200 000 now. However, certainly before either I or the Police Commissioner commits any such forces again in regards to protection of Commonwealth facilities, we will be getting an agreement up-front from the Commonwealth that they will compensate us for those expenses. If they do not agree to do that, well, they can find somebody else. I find it absolutely extraordinary; the Commonwealth covered South Australia in similar demonstrations there.
We get compensation, for example, from the US Navy when the Northern Territory Police provide fantastic security services to the US Navy. That is on a fee-for-service basis. For the life of me, for the sake of a couple of hundred thousand dollars out of the Commonwealth budget, I cannot see why they did not provide us with support for the great job that the police did in those Pine Gap demonstrations last year.
The police have also reported that the increased payments for consolidated allowances paid to NT Police members is directly linked to increased staffing numbers and three salary increases, resulting from the certified agreement, which were implemented over the period. One of the issues that the O’Sullivan Report highlighted was the excessive overtime that police were working, in large part due to the dearth of resources that they had amongst the police force - which was directly related to under-funding over many years, and the total recruit freeze implemented by the previous government between 1990 and 1994 when not one police officer was recruited into the police force. That really did put extraordinary pressure on our police force, resulting in virtually all members working excessive overtime. One of the great things about our government’s $75m commitment to our police force over the next few years and an additional 200 police out on the street is that the pressure on the overtime asked of serving police officers will be decreased.
One of the key performance measures I have set for the Police Commissioner is that I want to see that level of overtime coming down unless, of course, there are exceptional circumstances when we have significant and major incidents. Obviously, we would expect to see a peak in overtime around those types of operations. However, it is just not on to expect our police to have to work enormous amounts of overtime just to provide a base service that Territorians expect. The commitment that we have made to the Northern Territory Police is going to ease that burden and provide our police with better support in terms of them not having to work such significant amounts of overtime.
With those comments, Madam Speaker, I again thank the Auditor-General for his report. It is taken with the highest degree of recognition by ministers and government. We certainly talk to our CEOs regarding what they are doing in response to these findings. As the Leader of the Opposition himself said, the fact that government has accepted and is moving on the vast majority of those recommendations - I am hard pressed to find one where we have basically said that we disagree - means that the Auditor-General is providing a vital role in his job of oversighting government agencies. As a government, we are certainly respecting that role by implementing his recommendations.
Madam SPEAKER: Before we go on, I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Year 6 and 7 students from Stuart Park Primary School accompanied by their teacher, Sylvia Siskamanis. On behalf of honourable members, I extend you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I too am pleased to stand in this Chamber and respond to a couple of points from the Auditor-General’s report, and join with my colleague, the member for Wanguri, in putting on the record how much we appreciate the work of the Auditor-General, and the respect we have, as ministers and as government, for his findings.
It does stand in contrast really to the way Auditor-General reports were treated by the previous government. I make one exception, and that was the Chief Minister of the day who always - for those areas he had responsibility for - responded to areas of the Auditor-General’s report. That exception aside, in over 11 years in opposition I raised every year - twice a year when the Auditor-General’s report came through - issues in relation to shadow ministry areas I was responsible for without ever a response from minister’s offices opposite, with the exception of the Chief Minister, whenever it was. I do not know how many times where he had a ministry for which I was responsible for as a shadow minister. That was the only time we used to get a response. We have elevated the importance of the Auditor-General’s report.
DEET was mentioned in two areas: the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program acquittal and DEET’s systems to monitor schools. DEET responded to those areas during preparation of the report. The Auditor-General’s opinion in relation to the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program acquittal was:
The department thanked him for comments and did not provide further comment for that report in this area.
Under DEET’s systems to monitor schools, the Auditor-General made three recommendations:
That DEET:
align its ‘quality’ performance measures for non-government schools with those for government schools
and report the results in its annual report;
distribution to the Executive Board.
The report was formally accepted by the department on 8 September 2003. A close liaison with the non-government sector to align reporting performance measures will be taken up. DEET’s formal response to the Auditor-General was:
That is not bad from DEET - one of those departments that I was talking about, from our days of opposition, that used to have many points raised in the Auditor-General’s report, all of which went unresponded to in this House by the minister of the day, although I would have thought that the department would have been making responses to the Auditor-General’s report.
In the October report, in relation to early termination payments to the Chief Executive Officers and Executive Contract Officers, an audit of early termination payments to CEOs and ECOs was conducted by the Auditor-General in January 2002 with the finding included in the Auditor-General’s February 2002 report to the Legislative Assembly. The issue was subsequently taken up by the Public Accounts Committee in a public hearing on 13 February 2003. Prior to finalising the report, the PAC asked the Auditor-General to revisit the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment to ascertain the effectiveness of procedures now in place which address the concerns raised in the Auditor-General’s February 2002 report.
The Auditor-General concluded the audit in May/June 2003 and the objective was to:
examine whether payments to CEOs and ECOs, after 1 January 2002, following early termination
of their employment, were in accordance with their contracts of employment or, if not, whether
variations were assessed as achieving an improved outcome for the public benefit; and
on files to support decisions made.
The Auditor-General’s findings were:
In all cases reviewed, the payments made were appropriately authorised. There has been improvement in the standard of documentation filed in support of termination decisions, although there were three noted instances of lack of documentation to support decisions made for the Northern Territory government to meet certain costs. In the view of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment, they were faults of detail rather than substance.
Finally, to further improve the standard of documented records of termination decisions, an agency checklist has been implemented to ensure that all appropriate documentation is on file before a terminating contract officer’s file is closed. Again, there has been a response from OCPE to pick up what the Auditor-General referred to in those earlier reports in relation to termination payments to CEOs.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I will not take long. I will quickly respond to areas of the report that deal with either Health or Justice portfolios. I also welcome the Auditor-General’s report. As always, they are constructive, and are putting government on notice if there are standards to be kept up in the general accountability arrangements within our operations. This is no exception.
The crucial issue regarding my portfolios is that of performance reporting. I am very pleased to see that coming through in the report again, as the previous Auditor-General, Iain Summers, had a major campaign to introduce effective performance measures into the budget papers, and then to see them reflected in the annual reports of each of our agencies - the idea being that there is no point in setting up a budget and giving, say, $100m or maybe more to secondary education, and that the performance measure is to improve secondary education. What does that mean? It is not measurable; it is not accountable. It is simply a motherhood statement.
The budget papers these days, as a result of our government’s commitment to open and accountable government processes, now have a full set of performance measures. They might still need to be refined. The departments of each agency will need to also refine its mechanisms of monitoring those performance measures, and making sure that, in their annual reports, they have given a meaningful response to the performance measures. It is to that point that the Auditor-General leads us in his report for both Justice and the Department of Health.
There was an audit done of both Health and Justice in terms of the performance measures that were included in the budget papers. He reports back that, in the case of Health, out of 13 performance measures that he audited, 11 of them were verified as being supported by the agency’s monitoring mechanisms; and two were wrongly reported as in over-reported or under-reported in terms of the outcomes that were claimed to have been achieved. In the case of DOJ, 13 performance measures were audited. Ten were verified as being correctly monitored and reported on; one was not supported by any agency process - and I will get to that in a minute; and two were wrongly reported in terms of the actual claimed outcome.
What that indicates is that we are on track, but we are not there yet in a fully effective system of performance reporting. It is very difficult though, in some areas, to fully quantify the outcomes of government activity. I suppose if you take an example from this morning: how do you actually judge the performance of the hospice? It would be pretty crass to judge it on the number of deaths that occur there over a year, although that gives some indication of the volume of activity that that facility would be handling. It is far more about the qualitative things: what goes on around a person when they are passing from life with their family. Is there a good environment in supporting the person as a patient, as well as a for supporting the family and friends in what is a very intimate process? Sometimes performance measure have to be qualitative as well as quantitative. However, I am very pleased to see that this work is continuing on these issues.
The other one is the Fines Recovery Unit. Being on the PAC when it looked in to fine recovery, it is very easy to bandy around a figure of whatever number of millions of dollars of unrecovered fines are out there, but the whole point of the Fines Recovery Unit is to actually rationalise the payment of fines, or some other alternative response to a transgression that has attracted a fine. In many cases, the FRU is not actually going after money, but are looking at community work orders or some other means of honouring that fine. Again, the Department of Justice is committed to developing an effective monitoring system. However, that monitoring system will depend partly on the IT support of the FRU and partly on getting the right mix of measures to see whether they are actually affective. In some cases, it might be more of a sign of success that they did not collect a fine because they had come up with some effective alternative to repay the community for that transgression, than if they had.
To summarise, we are committing, both in Health and Department of Justice, to further work on these performance measures. We welcome the Auditor-General’s continued interest in that area and approach within government. We get two goes a year at it: each time the budget papers come out, members can check the performance measures that are enshrined in the budget; and when the annual reports come through - late in the year usually, or early in the new year - they can see whether the agencies effectively reported on each of the performance measures. Bring it to estimates; we can talk about that as well.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to address some of the issues raised in the Auditor-General’s report for October 2003. Like all of us here, I thank the Auditor-General and his staff for the work he has done, the commitment he showed, and also the wonderful way he has been communicating with all of us and offering briefings and the like, so that we can increase our understanding of his work and his findings.
I have been pleased to hear the commitment from ministers - in particular, the Health Minister - with regard to the resolve to address issues within their departments based on the findings of this particular report. I hope that is what happens because, specific to the Department of Health and Community Services in this report, is a concern by the Auditor-General for the amount of overtime being earned by staff of that department. His specific concern is the fact that, with a lot of overtime, it is quite well known, can lead to problems with occupational health and safety. With regards to occupational health and safety issues in the Department of Health and Community Services, the people who can suffer from problems caused by tired staff are not only the staff themselves - who may suffer an injury, for example, when trying to lift someone, if they are very tired at the time, have a problem with the lift, and suffer a permanent back injury – but also, of course, that tired staff make mistakes, and that is well documented. In the area of health in particular, and in community services, mistakes can be deadly.
Therefore, this is an area of grave concern for all of us: the ever-increasing demand on Territory staff to work overtime. The Auditor-General makes a couple of points, and I quote from page 30, where he says:
20.4% respectively.
He also said:
with 474 full-time equivalents each receiving more than $10 000 per annum in the year ended 30 June 2002.
The concern is that the trend continues upwards.
In the table explaining the amount of money being earned or spent on overtime, you can see this definite trend. Because of the timing of the report, the Auditor--General was only able to provide figures for six months for the year ending the 31 December 2002. If you extrapolate that six-month period out, you get $16m. Therefore, the trend then reads that, from the 30 June 2000, approximately $12m was earned in overtime; 30 June 2001, $12.6m; 30 June 2002, $14.3m; and, as I say, for what would be 30 June 2003, extrapolated out that would be $16m. There is a definite trend upwards in the amount of money being earned in overtime. You can be reasonably sure, because during that period there was not a pay increase particularly for nurses, who I suspect, along with medical officers, the pay rates that they would have been on would have been fairly constant. There has been a definite and significant trending up in the amount of overtime being worked. This should be of major concern to all Territorians and, particularly, the staff and clients of the services. I take on board the minister’s commitment to use this report as the basis for making changes within the department. I look forward to seeing a future trending down of the amount of overtime being worked and earned by healthcare providers.
The minister made comment along the lines that the annual report will add to our resources to be able to explore the budget and the spending of the Department of Health. I am very concerned that this year’s annual report will change significantly from the previous year because of this division of the department into health and community services, with bits going one way and other bits going another way. I have a grave concern that, once again, Territorians are not going to be able to compare apples with apples but, once again, we will be trying to figure out what on earth is going on in that department. As members will know, I was particularly disappointed with the very poor effort made by the previous Minister for Health when she coughed up paperwork that was generated in preparation for last year’s estimates, which we spent over $2000 on with regards to the Department of Health and Community Services.
Of the 500 pages that we received, Madam Speaker, as you will be aware, 200 of those were considered exempt and we received no information whatsoever from them. Of the remaining 300 pages, a vast number of them had large blocks of text blacked out, which really defies imagination as to why Territorians and their representatives on this side of the House should not know about the details of government and departmental spending on areas, for example, as important as renal services. I am very concerned about the lack of information Territorians are receiving, particularly from the Department of Health and Community Services. I am very grateful for the information that we are able to receive through the Auditor-General’s report. I hope that, in the next couple of years, the Martin Labor government will do more to demonstrate their commitment to an open and accountable government.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I thank the Auditor-General and his staff for a very comprehensive and constructively critical report on agencies’ performance over the period covered in his report. The Auditor-General’s role has changed over time from that of one being focussed on auditing the public accounts to actually looking at organisation and performance. As you see through his report, he said that the focus of his report is really on organisation and performance.
I thank the ministers and their shadows for contributing to this debate. This debate on this report today will help inform the PAC on what areas of the Auditor-General’s report they might wish to consider to follow up. It is impossible for the PAC to actually follow up on every recommendation of the Auditor-General’s report; however, with the contributions here of ministers and shadow ministers, we will be able to better target our resources and achieve a better outcome for the people of the Northern Territory. The Auditor-General does actually now have a very close working relationship with the Public Accounts Committee.
I must also take the opportunity to bring to members’ attention the offer made by the Auditor-General that, when these reports come out - and he has done the same with the TAFR report, by the way – he has now instituted a practice of briefing members on that report. It would be a simple observation to say that we can do better, as a parliament, to get along to these consultations and information sessions that the Auditor-General offers us. It is a wonderful initiative of his office and we should all take great benefit of that offer.
Madam Speaker, the object of this report, and of the Public Accounts Committee and the Auditor-General working together, is to review all these recommendations and see how the agencies are progressing with them. Therefore, as the Chairman of PAC, I say to parliament that we will be following this debate carefully; we will be talking to some agencies on the recommendations that the Auditor-General has made and how they are being followed up within the agency.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank everyone for their contributions; particularly the member for Sanderson in his role as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. I put on the record, as many others contributing to this debate have, that we thank the Auditor-General for the job he does in overseeing the workings of government and the detail he puts into his twice-yearly reports.
To pick up on an issue raised by the member for Port Darwin and one highlighted by the Auditor-General in his October report last year that we are discussing now, which is the overtime and payroll-related expenses in the Department of Health and Community Services. The response from the Health Department is that the issues that the Auditor-General identified in the report span back to 1999-2000 and demonstrate a long-standing problem that we, as government, are determined to resolve. The employees that were audited in the process were mostly nurses or medical officers and they, of course, are areas in which we have skill shortages in the Territory. Also, for these disciplines of medical officers and nurses, penalty, overtime and higher duty amounts are expectedly higher, as they are applied to a higher salary base.
Of the 10 staff identified by the audit as receiving highest penalty payments, eight were medical officers of whom seven were hospital-based. Of the 10 staff identified as receiving highest overtime payments, nine were medical officers. The 10th person was a radiographer from Alice Springs Hospital identified as a discipline of identified skill shortage and, of course, very difficult to recruit. Of the 10 staff identified as receiving highest higher duty payments, five were medical officers. Others were predominantly administrative staff and it is recognised that there are significant payments for this group.
The Department of Health and Community Services is actively reviewing its policies and procedures to enable better monitoring of issues such as those identified in this report by the Auditor-General. These will include reviews of payroll expenditure, rostering shift work, recruitment, and retention of staff. The department will also be focussing on monitoring overtime and its relationship with occupational health and safety issues - issues that we, as government, take very seriously. We will also be taking a far more strategic approach to human resource issues generally. That was specifically recommended by the Bansemer Review of Health and Community Services. Issues such as this that are raised by the Auditor-General, we take very seriously. He is in the position to give us a long-term view, one that is appreciated.
To pick up on an issue that was raised by the Leader of the Opposition, on page 24, that the Auditor-General raised, which is an issue to do with payment of CEOs. I am very pleased that the Auditor-General recognised, in his short discussion on the payment of CEOs, that we, as government, have put in place processes to deal with what he described as ‘the potential to have fluctuating remuneration and other conditions of service for CEOs.’ The Auditor-General believes that the new provision adopted by the Executive Remuneration Review Panel - and that is from March last year - should adequately address the gap that he has seen. Therefore, on an issue raised by the Auditor-General in this report we already have mechanisms in place to deal with, and have been given a tick by the Auditor-General.
Overall in his report, I am pleased to note that the Auditor-General has found that appropriate accounting and control procedures are in place to assure this Assembly that the Treasurer’s Directions and Procurement Guidelines are being consistently applied across the government. They are important issues that the Auditor-General does monitor.
The report does cite some areas of weakness where there are opportunities for improvements in review mechanisms and accounting treatments and we, as government, will continue to work on those. These will have been noted by the agencies concerned and we have heard reports back from ministers in this House. Most importantly, the Auditor-General has found no evidence that the weaknesses identified caused any financial losses to government.
The Auditor-General has observed a general improvement in management approaches to internal audit over the last 12 months. We are very pleased about that. This has been associated with an increase in the activities of audit committees, many of which include the Auditor-General as an observer. Likewise, there is a strong trend towards developing and implementing plans to identify and address strategic business risks. I am pleased with this outcome and believe it is, in part, a reflection of the efforts of the Risk Management Services Unit within my own department, working in partnerships with other agencies. I certainly look forward to this trend continuing. Risk Management Services do a very important job across government from within the Department of the Chief Minister.
Madam Speaker, I gave an undertaking to deliver open and accountable government to Territorians. The independent opinion of the Auditor-General is an important aspect of this commitment. His comments may not always sit comfortably with my ministerial colleagues and myself; however, his reports and recommendations are viewed most seriously and given due consideration by ministers and chief executives alike.
I again put on the public record our thanks to the Auditor-General, Mike Blake, for his work and his oversight of government. We look forward, sometimes with mixed feelings, to his next report.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
Madam SPEAKER: We have some more visitors in the gallery today. We have the Year 11 Legal Studies students from Kormilda College accompanied by their teacher. On behalf of all members, I extend you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
[Editor’s note: Question Time ended as a result of the following motion.]
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving that this House censures …
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): A point of order, Madam Speaker! We are prepared to take this censure motion on board, but very reluctantly. It is the most thinly prosecuted case of all time. However, as a point of principle, we will take it on board, and I would ask you to end the broadcast.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): I have a point for clarification, Madam Speaker. The convention in standing orders in this House provides for the Leader of the Opposition to at least state the censure motion for the benefit of Territorians who have been listening to this broadcast. This Leader of Government of Business has, in fact, gagged the censure motion so it could not be heard even in the Chamber or by other members in this House.
Madam SPEAKER: The censure motion has not been gagged. The camera men know once Question Time is over to cease filming.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker I move –
That this Assembly -
1. Censure and condemn the former planning minister, the member for Casuarina, for:
failing to comply with the mandatory notice of requirement of section 15 of the Planning Act,
thus acting unlawfully and illegally;
acting unlawfully and contravening section 12 of the Planning Act;
undermining both business and community confidence in the Northern Territory planning scheme;
Northern Territory planning scheme, which was outside the proper purposes of the Planning Act and not
on a proper basis;
as planning minister, acting in a dishonest manner and, in so doing, threatening the integrity of good governance
of the Northern Territory;
to carry ministerial responsibilities on behalf of Territorians and should be removed from office.
2. Censure the Chief Minister, who was informed of the member for Casuarina’s actions, for her failure to halt his
unlawful conduct.
Madam Speaker, members of this House have had two days to appraise themselves of the facts presented before the House. We have consistently had obstruction with members of government failing to answer questions, withholding information that is pertinent to this case, and constantly endeavouring to stand behind community. Community in this case have been sorely led up a garden path and have been misguided by the minister, the former planning minister in fact.
If we are talking about good government, we must have a good government that recognises good process. Otherwise we have corruption and the community losing their faith in the very institution that we have that provides social cohesion and, ultimately, the undergirding for our economic future; which is the jobs and a good future for all Territorians. If that is corrupted, with the processes misused and abused, we end up with bad government. The only reason that we can have to occupy space in here is to defend the right of good government. Processes must be upheld, honoured and respected. If you are going to stand behind - as we have heard a number of times - the number of people in your own electorate who would personally lose from the abuse of this process, then you have led them up the garden path. You have offended their confidence that they have placed in you.
You are a minister of the Crown. It has been substantiated beyond doubt that you did not comply with your requirement to inform those who were affected by your actions. There are numbers of people who stood to lose significantly, who were directly affected by your actions and were left outside of this process. That is a violation of section 15 of the Planning Act, something that we have had people, without reserve, say they were simply not informed of and were kept aside from due process. The ones who had the most to lose and expected to be protected by processes put in place to ensure good government, were left exposed. They were required to spend significant amounts of money to prepare and defend their position that was exposed by you, minister.
You also failed and contravened section 12 of the Planning Act. An application that needed to be put in process was not duly completed. That has been substantiated here, not defended. There is an assertion that there is legal representation, which the House has not had the opportunity to assess. Every fact points to the fact that this was a flawed process from beginning to end, and used distinctly to further your own political ends as a local member seeking to win the confidence of those directly around you. Your motive was to win their confidence and you led them incorrectly. You misled them. At the same time, you corrupted the very fabric that holds together the business community. You would know for a fact …
Mr Henderson: Wrong!
Mr MILLS: We had the Minister for Industry and Business express surprise - mock surprise - that the business community has such a low level of confidence in the Northern Territory government: minus-22% in November.
It has now moved forward and we have a minus-20% rating of confidence in the Northern Territory government. I remind honourable members, the last time that these figures were forwarded to the Northern Territory community under a CLP government, it was plus-40%. It is minus-20% at this particular point in time and you went on television and you said: ‘Look, I cannot for the life of me work out why this would be’.
It is because you have fundamental processes abused for personal gain, for low level gain. You have the fabric that holds together the economic prospects of the Northern Territory corrupted in the process for short-term minor gain. We will all lose from such actions. Anyone who listens to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, or goes to any business function, is aware of your actions, minister. They know what you have done, and they know the damage you have created.
There have been shock waves that have rippled right through those who have an interest in the financial future of the Northern Territory. They have carried this message far and wide. There is distinct concern - serious levels of concern - from those who want to have some confidence in the future of the Northern Territory.
If you are going to abuse process, minister, you are going to reap something we will all inherit: a lack of confidence in the investment sector in the Northern Territory - just because you wanted to seek personal gain and some personal comfort. Sure, we all know that your polling indicates that you are not doing too well out there, so you cobble together an arrangement that suits your own ends. Minister, this is not the only time, and the saddest thing here is that we recognise and accept that, as a minister of the Crown, as you carried your responsibilities, you have stumbled and fallen.
It is hard for me to bring this before the Northern Territory community; however, it is my duty to do so. If we are going to have some confidence in the observance of true process and, second, some confidence in the integrity of good government, it is our duty to bring this censure on.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: It is my sad duty and obligation as Leader of the Opposition, on behalf of Territorians, to inform Territorians of the substance and the quality of that which we are talking about: the observance of good practice, policy, procedure, and that which carries significant weight here – respect and confidence in the quality of government.
I call upon the Chief Minister to reflect soundly upon that which is debated here in this Chamber today, and to act. In the best interests of preserving confidence within the investment sector, in good government, in the status of that minister, sadly, I ask the Chief Minister to remove him from office. It is a requirement in order to preserve some level of confidence in the office and the position of responsibility he holds in the Northern Territory community. We are not playing games here.
Those of you who have been here for some time can well reflect upon the fine-sounding words of the great sentiments that were expressed when you were in opposition. Something was lost when you moved to that side. Many of you have those memories, but you are selective in your carriage of memory. We have now a level of arrogance and disregard for due process that is staggering and deeply concerning.
If you have, Minister for Industry and Business, the audacity to wipe off, with snide comments and selective reporting on the level of confidence that is displayed in the Northern Territory government at this present point in time, and leave it unchallenged, that will compound the problem that we all have. It is not about your or my political future, it is about the future of the Northern Territory.
In order to sustain some quality and level of respect for the office that you hold, we need to bring this to the House’s attention. Minister Vatskalis has failed his test in carriage of ministry …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I seem to recall that the member for Greatorex is pretty strong on this point - that members be referred to by their electorate and not by their names.
Madam SPEAKER: They should, yes. That has been pointed out many times, Leader of the Opposition.
Mr MILLS: The member for Casuarina so far has failed his test over his handling of the banning of commercial flights over Katherine Gorge and Nitmiluk National Park without a permit, the handling of commercial passenger vehicle licensing issues and his subsequent backflip. He compounded this by taunting taxi drivers over the government’s plan to introduce a free bus service to the Wharf precinct. He taunted them with disregard; that is full of arrogance - bald, bare-faced arrogance.
That arrogance showed in the following instances: he signed off on a gift of land to Danila Dilba Medical Service, an organisation that he used to work for; he signed off on an acquisition of three houses in the rural area; there was a compulsory acquisition of land from householders near Rapid Creek; his handling of the sacking of the former Director of Parks and Wildlife; his claim that PowerWater late fee charges have been rejected by government; the true story as to why government had broken its election promise to seal the outback highway; his handling of the lethal cyanide spill in Central Australia - within 24 hours he first blamed a truck driver and then eco-terrorists; then he took 12 months to get a report to the Chamber,. and then could not identify anyone to blame.
He was caught out being less than honest. This may appear to be a smaller issue but, for me and members of this House, this is one that sticks: in what we heard in your lack of honesty over your appearance on a web site as a translator for hire. What we had in this Chamber was bare-faced lies - we had lies. That is not a word that I would use lightly, but any member who followed that debate knew that there were lies. The capacity to lie in this Chamber to cover yourself, to cover your position …
Mr Henderson: Proves nothing!. Didn’t get one cent - not one
Mr MILLS: You believed it, did you?
Mr Henderson: You prove it.
Mr MILLS: You believed it? You believed it.
Mr Henderson: You prove it. You’re lodging the allegations. You prove it …
[Editor’s Note: Words expunged by order of Madam Speaker.]
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is exactly the suggestion …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw that remark.
Mr Henderson: I withdraw that Madam Speaker. I withdraw.
Mr MILLS: What we have seen here is precisely what I was talking about. Something has been lost in your translation to government; something that you once thought you would never do.
I will prove that there have been lies. The Chief Minister was asked whether the member for Casuarina had been involved in this exercise of profiting from his appearance on a web site, offering his services as a translator. The Chief Minister said, and I quote from Hansard:
Members interjecting.
Mr MILLS: Further …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order.
Mr MILLS: The member for Casuarina reasserted in this Chamber:
‘I know him’:
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The censure motion is very specific. It goes to the allegations that my colleague misused his position in regards to planning issues in Tiwi. It is a very specific censure motion; we have suspended the order of business of the House to deal with it. Rehashing the issue of allegations about the Internet has nothing to do with the content of this censure motion. I would urge the honourable member to get back to the point.
Mr MILLS: Okay. I am, sadly, bringing to this House evidence that the member for Casuarina has plainly lied to the House. Members of this House who followed this debate knew for a fact that there was the capacity - the bare-faced capacity - to lie. Therefore, in all these issues that have already been outlined, we have a sound reason to be more than concerned, minister, if that concern translates in to a demand that the Chief Minister make a quality decision.
We go further when - and I will bring this to a close so that I can move forward - the member for Casuarina asserted that he does know the man who created this site, and it was his invitation that he appears on the site. He then admits that the photograph, yes, was a recent one, though at another time he said it was an old photograph. He said at some time that he did not earn any money, but then has to explain in some complicated way: ‘Oh, yes, but I had to put some figures on there’ - but we all have to believe that you did not earn any money. Then we finally had the man himself who created that site say that he never, ever knew you, which is proof in itself that you constructed this whole fabric, this tissue of lies, to cover the fact that you were on a web site proffering for gain, using your capacity as a high profile member of the community, and you had the audacity to sit in this Chamber and construct a convoluted story simply to protect yourself.
The Minister for Industry and Business yesterday said on a couple of occasions to deflect any heat from government: ‘Well, there is a problem here in the public perception of politicians’. The public perception of politicians is seriously damaged by the actions of the member for Casuarina.
It is clear that minister Vatskalis, the member for Casuarina, is a liability not just to the Martin government, but to our capacity, as members of government aspiring to that which provides that stabilising and mitigating stance that would allow us to have some confidence in the office of government. It is for that reason this censure includes the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister must act upon the concerns that have been raised in this House. She must act in haste.
I go back to another issue that has been brought before the Northern Territory community. It has to do with the processes that led up to the use of Darwin Harbour for industrial purposes. Minister, you involved the community, apparently in a very sincere effort to gain their input into process. At that time, the community that was directly affected - the stakeholders - were believing of you. They believed that it was a sincere process, and that you were genuinely calling for them to be involved. I understand that your invitation for public involvement in this approval process was a sham.
Ms Lawrie: In your opinion.
Mr MILLS: The outcome was predetermined, and 1642 people who made submissions in good faith had their time wasted. The member for Karama says: ‘in my opinion’. I neglected to inform the House that I am actually quoting from the Environment NT newsletter of December 2002/January 2003. Here we have 1642 people who made submissions to a process that you created. In the end, 1642 people believed that you led them up the garden path. Only one of the public submissions supported a granting of the EDP. It was the opinion of Kirstin Blair and Mark Wakeham, that the planning minister failed a key test.
The question that you must answer is: why should the public have any faith in planning processes that completely ignores public submissions? There was a process there …
Mr Vatskalis interjecting.
Mr MILLS: You put the process in place. You raised the expectations of the people involved in that process. You used those people just to satisfy a political end; that is, to get them off your back - put them over here, give them the opportunity to speak up, to write submissions, to be involved, and then leave them out to dry and move on and do what you had already intended to do. You lost their confidence and they have, therefore, as a result of that, a lack of faith in you.
Minister, I am going to the heart of this. Once again, we have in this process, you standing to directly benefit from the support that you can gain and the deal that you can make with the community directly around you - your constituents. The motive here is to engender goodwill, to show that you can do a deal. You are the man who can sort things out, ‘Just trust me. I will fix it’. How many times do people say: ‘The minister said: “Hey, just you give me a call and I will fix it”’. We had this little transaction between the community and the local member: ‘Do not worry. We will sort this out. I will fix it’. They are led to this place of high expectation of you - in your office as a local member representing their best interests. You hold them there and you lead them to a place where they believe that you have their best interests at heart. Their best interests would be served by the observance of true process because, otherwise, by corrupting and ignoring true process, you are letting them down seriously.
You are letting them down seriously: holding them there; raising their expectations that you will do the deal, you will meet their need. ‘You write to me and I will pass it on to the minister and we will sort it out’. Who is it passed on to? The local member then passes it on to himself, the minister wearing the hat of responsibility for the planning regime in the whole Northern Territory, then slips in with a deal. ‘Do not worry. We will sort this out’.
You have the business community, those who, to have any security, need to know that the process itself has been honoured. I have travelled to lands where the process itself is corrupt, and it has to be deals. It has to be a deal with a politician, otherwise you cannot make any progress. It has to be an arrangement, through relationships, to be some other means, so that you can have some security. Your security in this country is in process, and it is not in deals that are made between people. It is not in raising expectations and saying: ‘The process does not matter so much. Hey, I have power. I have a position. I will sort it out for you. We will work it out’.
I have been to countries where that is how it operates, and they have to adjust to operate in a sphere like that. I will stand to ensure that we protect the processes that are put in place so that the fundamental basis that holds our future together is honoured. It has been betrayed and corrupted through this very process. To try and stand in here and have very short answers in response to questions that are asked here - you look at the Hansard with both your eyes open, and look at the way you answered those questions: very concise, very tight, very repetitive answers, I must say. Then, when you have a dorothy dixer - my God, you enlarge your space and you talk about everything, you wander up and down the path and it is a wonderful old chap. Come to our question, tight little question - same answer again and again. Then you moan and you complain because the question has been asked again. ‘Madam Speaker, this is getting quite repetitive’. Do you ever listen to this side? We are getting the same answer, the same lack of information and we are finding that the actual process, the heart of this, is not being addressed. All you are doing is just standing around and protecting and it is plain for all to see what is happening here.
I was put in a position – I will speak personally here. I like the member for Casuarina; I enjoy having a wine with him and meeting him socially. However, I will not hold back from fulfilling my duty as a member of this parliament who has been elected to represent the best interests of Territorians. It is a difficult position for us, however, it is wrong if we were to back off from this.
Ms Lawrie: You are wrong with the facts.
Mr Elferink: No, we are not and that is the problem. He has his fingerprints all over it. He has got form. He has heaps of form. He love to be able to claim these things. He interferes with process and people have lost confidence. That is why he got shifted.
Mr MILLS: Members of the Chamber, I come back, that you have, minister, threatened the integrity of the reputation of the NT as an attractive place for investment. You have, minister, acted in a dishonest manner and you have threatened the integrity of good government in the Northern Territory. By your conduct, member for Casuarina, as minister you have abused your ministerial power in such a manner that you have demonstrated you cannot be relied upon to carry ministerial responsibilities on behalf of Territorians. You, minister, should be removed from office. I call upon the Chief Minister, who has been informed of the member for Casuarina’s actions …
Members interjecting.
Mr MILLS: I censure her, as she has failed to halt this unlawful conduct.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before we go on, I raise a point of order and refer to Standing Order 62. Upon a request from the members of Macdonnell and Goyder, and in discussion with the Clerk and the member for Wanguri, the words that were used by the member for Wanguri are considered to be highly disorderly. Therefore, I order that such words not be published in the Parliamentary Record.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I would like to offer a unqualified apology to the Leader of the Opposition. The words that I used in the heat of the moment were meant rhetorically, not personally. It is an unqualified apology, and I also request that those remarks be expunged from the record.
Madam SPEAKER: So ordered!
Mr MILLS: I accept the apology.
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, in the past two days we have seen a continuous attack from the CLP with regards to the proposed rezoning in Tiwi. I say ‘proposed rezoning’ because the process has not been finalised yet; a decision has not been finalised yet.
We heard allegations from member for Goyder about my involvement in drafting the application, and in instigating the application. However, the reality is that there are fundamental principles in a democracy. One of them is the right of the electorate to elect a member, be in constant contact with the member, and also the right and duty of the elected member to be in contact with the electorate. It is also the duty of the elected member to provide information and advice to his electorate. In addition to that, it is the fundamental right of the community to be able to express its opinion on matters of direct concern to that community. That is exactly what happened in Tiwi.
The Leader of Opposition made a lot of allegations. I am very happy he did not attribute to me 11 September; in these times, it is very dangerous to be given such a label. However, it looks as if everything else that went wrong in the Territory in the past two-and-a-half years is my fault. I am not going to say I am perfect – I have my shortcomings, and I am junior with regards to some of the members on the other side. Certainly, I have made mistakes, and I am not afraid to admit that I made mistakes. Some of the mistakes I made were because of my inexperience, but I always made sure that if I made a mistake, I was prepared to stand up and admit it. Also, if I made a mistake in good faith, I was prepared to go back and rectify it.
However, let us talk about the issue in question here. The censure is about the fact that the opposition does not believe that the elected member of parliament has a duty to provide advice to THE community. What we have also seen in the past two days is that the CLP, when there are competing interest, is prepared to ditch the community and support the entrenched interests.
Let me go back through the history, because what I noticed yesterday was that the member for Goyder is supposed to be the shadow minister for planning, and today it is the Leader of the Opposition. I doubt very much that they have actually read the Planning Act. They have not read it in any way, or had it explained to them – or at least briefed - to find out how the Planning Act operates and, when you put a application under the Planning Act, what happens.
First of all, that Planning Act that currently operates today is a planning act drafted and instigated by the CLP. Under the existing Planning Act, any person can submit an application for the land of another person to be rezoned.
Mr Maley: Upon the advice of the local member - unsigned, undated.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 51: No interruption. No member shall deliberately …
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: There are some serious allegations that are being levelled at the minister, which he is responding to. At least have the decency of listening to him.
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: The Leader of Opposition forgets that, last year, the DCA approved an application for four-storey flats to be built in an area which is actually confined by Rocklands Drive, Trower Road and Undoolya Street. In that area, there were all old Commonwealth buildings on either side of this area. That is the only area in Tiwi that has an R3 zoning. R3 means that you can build up to three-storey building but, with consent, a four-storey building. Until then, apart from this three-storey building, any other development in the area were single-storey dwellings that were strata titled and sold to different individuals. There is also a vacant block.
When that four-storey block was approved for building and construction started, the people in the area suddenly realised that that area was not an area where you had low density, low height dwellings, but could become a potential for high rise apartments. The people were very, very incensed. There was significant opposition to this proposal and there were continuous calls on the government to intervene and reject the application for the four-storey building. However, after it was explained repeatedly to the residents, this development that DCA had gone through the whole process and been approved. The residents of the area organised a gathering at the park in Undoolya Street, to which I was invited, and I went. At that time, I noticed that no member of the opposition went to that particular meeting. At that meeting, there were about 100 residents who were protesting quite loudly about the four-storey building development in the area. Amongst them were people who belonged to organised groups like PLAN, Miss Margaret Clinch, and there were a number of residents who lived directly opposite the high rise development and expressed concerns about the high rise development and the potential for other buildings of the same height to be in the area.
Some of the residents expressed their concern about having a high rise building 1.5 m to 2 m from their backyard, where people on the balcony could overlook their backyard. They were concerned about the loss of privacy. There were very strong calls for the government to do something about it. These people in that area are my constituents. These people are the people of Tiwi. These people demanded their local member to do something or to provide advice, and asked what to do to prevent the encroaching of the high rise development in their area. I advised them there were mechanisms under the act on how to proceed. I explained to them that the government can take an interim development control order to stop any development. However, that will last only for two years, and then the government has to make a policy decision on the town planning scheme. I also explained to them that, under the current Planning Act, people could put in a submission for rezoning of land from R3 to R2 or any other.
This is how these rezoning applications came to be drafted. The rezoning application was made by Mr Fran van der Sommen of Undoolya Street, who happened to live in the area, and also happened to have a unit in the area that he had asked to be rezoned or down-zoned. Therefore, that person is not a bystander. He is a person who lives in the area; a concerned citizen prepared to have his property down-zoned because he believed in the amenity of his lifestyle. Mr van der Sommen wrote a letter, which is dated 28 July 2003 and signed. That letter also has …
Mr Maley: Why don’t you table that?
Mr VATSKALIS: You tabled it yesterday.
Mr Maley: Are you going to table it?
Mr VATSKALIS: I can table it. You tabled it yesterday. Attached to his letter was an approved form with all the details, his name, his address and the request for this, for this, for this. This application is a part of the letter that bears his signature and has a date. That was dropped to my electorate office, as many other constituents of mine drop documents to my electorate office concerning either areas of my portfolio or other minister’s portfolios. As is my duty - and I believe you have done the same and you are doing the same - those documents are forwarded to the appropriate minister. That document was forwarded to my ministerial office and, from there, to the department.
Mr Dunham: Table it!
Mr VATSKALIS: I would be very happy to table it. I have no problem.
The member for Goyder tabled the same document yesterday that I am pretty certain he was provided with because they were presented at the Development Consent Authority hearing. The department had examined this document and said it is a valid document - a valid application. It was forwarded to me and, under the act, if you have bothered to read it, you would find out that the minister from the beginning has to make decisions. The decision made is, without exhibiting the proposal, he refuses to amend the Planning Scheme. That means telling the community: ‘Nick off, we do not take any concerns about what you are saying. We are not interested’.
Another option is to defer consideration of the proposed amendment. That means telling the developer: ‘We are not telling you what we are going to do. We are holding there and you are going to be in limbo until the minister decides to make a decision’, which I find quite inappropriate.
The third avenue is to proceed with exhibition of the proposed amendment. That means start following the process of this proposal being exhibited, which gives the opportunity to all interested parties to put their submissions in, and those proposals will be considered by the Development Consent Authority. The Development Consent Authority then would provide a recommendation to the minister to make a decision. This is the most transparent process because, from the moment the minister decides …
Mr Elferink: But not what the act says; you missed a bit.
Mr VATSKALIS: Listen, you might learn something because you are obviously totally ignorant of the Planning Act. You have no idea. You have not bothered to be informed about the Planning Act. I suggest you speak to the independent person mentioned before, and I will come to that. She might advise you about the procedures of the Planning Act.
This is the most open and transparent process because, first, all residents and owners are notified; all notifications are displayed around the area proposed to be rezoned; submissions are invited; a public hearing takes place; and only then a recommendation is provided to the minister for a decision.
I advised my department that I wanted all landowners to be advised of the proposal for these particular blocks of land - there is not only one, there is a series of bocks of land - the proposals are to be exhibited and the reason why we wanted it exhibited.
A letter, which I am prepared to table, too, was sent to 36 owners, including Mr van der Sommen and his partner, who are the owners of a unit. This letter says that it would be put on public exhibition from 17 October until 14 November. Now …
Mr Elferink: Dated what date? Table it.
Mr VATSKALIS: The date of the letter is 6 October 2003.
Mr Elferink: 6 October, after you were in front of a meeting taking applications in July. Very convenient, minister.
Mr VATSKALIS: 6 October …
Mr Elferink: After procedures were started against you!
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, there is a process to be followed and it takes time. It does not happen just like that. It takes time and, before exhibition signs went up, this letter went out to advise 36 owners; amongst them the developer and members of his family.
The developer came to my office and we met. During that meeting, the developer told us that some members of his family, who were equal partners in the development, had not received the letter. When we inquired with him, we found out that, in the Title Office, the address provided by the developer and his family, for example, was number 12 Something Street, while the correct address was 17 Something Street. We agreed, and he agreed, that it was an oversight. I told him I was prepared to reissue the letter and to extend the date of submissions to 12 December 2003, another 28 days. So I …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I seek that the minister tables the letter he has been reading and quoting from.
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes. I did not make the …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, the tabling.
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, Madam Speaker.
I did not make a decision to proceed and rezone or refuse the rezoning. I simply said we should follow the process to the letter as described in the Planning Act, with notification to landowners, display of the yellow signs and DCA considering in a public meeting these particular issues.
Following that, the developer then sought to retrieve some documents and he lodged a Freedom of Information application, which was sent to my department. My department advised that …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The minister has the floor.
Mr VATSKALIS: However, due to the time it would take to provide the information to the developer, the document would be provided to him not in the proper time, but under the expiry date of the notification. I then advised the department that I would like to extend the notification period to 23 January 2004, and advised all landowners of the event. Therefore, the notification in this case commenced on 17 October 2003, and the issue then was exhibited to the Friday, 23 January 2003, in excess of any other notification ever displayed before. The process was followed …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I seek that the documents referred to be table, as per standing orders.
Mr VATSKALIS: I table the document, Madam Speaker.
When I received the application by Mr van der Sommen, I advised my colleagues that, because of the issues in Tiwi, the coincidence of me being the minister for lands and the local member, and because I did not want to have any potential accusations of conflict of interest, that I gave the information and, should the developers and authority make a decision and provide it to me for consideration, I would bring the decision to Cabinet for my Cabinet colleagues’ consideration, in order to keep at arms length any decision of the DCA on this proposal. That was advised to the industry and, during a Property Council lunch …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, during a Property Council lunch in December, George Cridland, the president of the Property Council, in the presence of the Chief Minister said: ‘I know we are not very happy with that, but minister Vatskalis said that he would not make decisions himself, he will bring the decision of the DCA to Cabinet’. Therefore, the industry was well aware that I was keeping at arms length from this decision because of the potential conflict of interest.
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: The opposition tries to say that I acted unlawfully and that, under section 12, I should not have accepted the application and the application was not provided to all members, and was not done properly. The reality is, everything was done according to the act. There were questions about why we obtained legal opinion. I will tell you why we obtained legal opinion: when we receive an application to rezone the property, and mind you, that is not the first application I have received as a minister - the first application was at Bayview Haven when a small number of residents decided to apply for down-zoning a property that …
Mr Baldwin: And what did you do?
Mr VATSKALIS: We applied an interim development consent order and they had to successful resolution within two years. We are not going to rezone.
For this application, because I knew the concerns of the business industry and the potential cost to the developer, I sought a legal opinion about the possibility of compensation for development …
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: In addition to that, following …
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, obviously, they do not want to listen or they are not interested, because …
Mr Maley: Are you going to table that?
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: As you are well aware, member for Goyder, since you are a lawyer, when there is something still going on in a legal sense legal opinions are not given to other people, and I will hold it until this is finalised. I only …
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: If you are not aware, I suggest you speak to your colleague, the member for Araluen, who has excellent knowledge to provide you with advice.
Members interjecting.
Ms Carney: Flattery will get you nowhere, Kon. Come on, ‘fess up to what you did.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: The reality is that they make all these sorts of allegations, but what do they really want? They really want to gag the elected members, so as not to provide advice to their electorate, which is absurd. This is a pillar of democracy. This is what democracy is all about: people talking to their elected members, and the elected member providing advice to their electorate. If any of you do not do it …
Mr Baldwin: You led them on!
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: … that is to you own detriment. How many times do you provide advice for your electorate? Does it mean that the Minister for Health, if one of his constituents comes and asks him how to access some of the services, he says: ‘I am sorry, I cannot tell you, it is a conflict of interest’. Or, if somebody comes to the Minister for Family and Community Services and asks: ‘How can I access some grants’, she cannot tell him or her because it may be a potential conflict of interest.
I am the local member; I happen to be the minister. If somebody tomorrow - an amateur fisherman - comes and tells me: ‘I want this one’, do I tell him: ‘I am sorry. Do not talk to me, I am your local member; I am the minister. There is a conflict of interest according to the member for Goyder ...
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: … go and speak to the member for Karama or to the minister for business’? That is absurd, Madam Speaker!
Of course, all the allegations about acting outside my legal rights are absolutely untrue. They know that because, if they had bothered to actually look at the act, or had bothered to seek some legal advice about the act, they would realise that none of what they allege is true. Everything was done properly. Everything was done in accordance with the clauses as prescribed in the act, and that was confirmed by the department and legal opinions. After all, if these things were not done in accordance with the act, why should the DCA have a public hearing for something that was illegal or invalid? The DCA held a public hearing.
About the support of the community and the allegations that these applications did not have the support of the community: during the DCA hearing, they considered 72 submissions. Eight of them were against the rezoning, 64 were supporting the rezoning. That is the level of support of the community and shows the concern of the community. I tell you there is a lot of fear out there about planning issues such as the Ostermann Road proposed development. This is not the only one.
There are a significant number of blocks in Darwin, Nightcliff, Millner, Fannie Bay, and Tiwi that are zoned R3, and there is no interface between the R3 blocks and the R1. That means you can have a single-storey house and, next door to you, if somebody buys an R3 and he puts an application for a four-storey building, you have to live with it. I am also informed there was a letter forwarded to the department requesting the down-zoning of the Ostermann Road blocks. This letter is signed by a prominent member of the media, a member of the Real Estate Institute and a person who works in real estate. That is the fear of the community out there …
Mr Baldwin: So what are you going to do about it?
Mr VATSKALIS: … because they have failed to do anything about planning issues.
In 2000 , they considered the interface issue; but it was too hard, they could not handle it. Therefore, they dropped it and did not do anything. The people in Darwin now have to live with their failure to act. It is very easy for the member for Daly to talk about planning issues. I noticed yesterday he was very quiet. At least he is the one who knows about planning, but he was very quiet. He did not stand up to actually speak about the issue, because he knows very well that what was done was done in accordance with the act. Similarly, he was the missing man when they were demolishing the Hotel Darwin. Hopefully, the new Hotel Darwin will have the Tim Baldwin memorial room.
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is not about what I might have done; it is about what the minister has done.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr BALDWIN: If they want to cast those accusations, they can do so by substantive motion.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, I have the right, duty and obligation to provide advice to my constituents. I did it, and I will do it again ...
Dr Lim: For political gain, is it?
Mr VATSKALIS: I did it and I will do it again. I have the right, as the minister, to act within my legal rights, and I did. I did not manipulate; I did not go outside the system. The reality is, we had a situation where we have two competing interests - one is the developer, the other is the community. The only good result was for the minister not to proceed and say: ‘I reject the development’ or ‘I approve the development’. The minister said: ‘No, follow the procedure set out in the act; go through the Development Consent Authority. The Development Consent Authority will assess all submissions, and then will make recommendations to the minister’.
In that Development Consent Authority hearing, a number of submissions were considered - submissions by real estate agents, the Property Council and, certainly, independent consultants. Perhaps she was not an independent consultant, because she is a consultant who acts for the developer. Quite right; it is her profession. Well done. It is June D’Rozario and Associates, the independent consultant quoted yesterday on Channel 9, who is the consultant who actually acted for the developer. They knew about that. The member for Goyder knew about it, because he has been provided with all the documentation.
The questions he was asking yesterday were an exact copy of the questions put to my colleague, the Minister for Lands and Planning, Dr Burns, the member for Johnston, by Hoonans. Every single question he asked yesterday about section 12, section 15, section 16, are questions that have been actually forwarded to the minister by the …
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask the minister, because that is such an important document that he is quoting from, would he table the document?
Mr VATSKALIS: I am not quoting. I am just referring to my notes. I went back afterwards and I studied the legal letter. Every single question he asked is exactly the same, one by one. Regarding section 12, I bet if you asked him now to refer to what section he was asking about, he would not know.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: He was not quoting from it, member for Brennan.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, as I said before, I acted within my rights. I advised my constituents as it is my duty, and I will do it again. I advised my department to proceed in accordance with the proper process, writing to all the landowners, and they did. When one of the affected landowners told us that he had not received a letter, we re-issued the letter and extended the notification period. When the affected landowner wrote to us and said he wanted some information under the Freedom of Information Act, we further extended the exhibition period.
The other thing is that the Leader of the Opposition said: ‘You promised people that you would deliver’. You cannot promise anything, especially when you know that the process to be followed does not guarantee it will deliver what you want. The community wanted something; the DCA has to consider both the community wants and wishes and the effects on the developer and landowner, and make an independent decision. The minister can direct the Development Consent Authority, but then he has to come and give the reasons to this House. The minister has not directed the Development Consent Authority. The Development Consent Authority has acted completely independently, and advice will be forwarded to the Minister for Lands and Planning, the member for Johnston, for him to make a decision.
I doorknocked that area in my electorate to assess the level of support and, mostly, on this particular development. Let me tell you: not even one person who lives in the area told me that they object to the proposed rezoning. They actually support their neighbourhood retaining its amenity, retaining its R1 single-storey dwellings. Even the people who had both strata title units told me that it was not going to affect them because the reality is, if somebody wants to put a four-storey building, he has to acquire all the strata title units, ask for consolidation, demolish them at great cost and then build - which is financial madness. People living there said they wanted to maintain their amenity because Tiwi is a suburb which developed as an R1 area with single-storey dwellings. Therefore, as a local member, I have a duty to consult my electorate. I have a duty to provide my advice when they ask me, because they came and asked me and they keep in constant contact with me about this and other issues. As a minister, I followed due process. Despite the allegation by the Leader of the Opposition which are unfounded allegations, the due process has been followed.
This process has been confirmed by legal opinions obtained from the Solicitor-General, by me and my colleague, the Minister for Lands and Planning. It has been confirmed that every single step of this process was transparent and open. A decision has not taken place because it will be made by the minister following the advice by DCA.
Madam Speaker, this censure is about the opposition playing games. This is a censure that tries to gag the local members and alienate them from their electorates. I object strongly to that because that is the fundamental principle of our democratic society. Once again, the CLP shows, when it comes to competing interests, that people with money always win and stuff the community.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, the member for Casuarina’s conduct whilst he held the portfolio of Minister for Lands and Planning has been disgraceful. He has demonstrated consistent incompetence. The minister’s most recent botched attempt to instigate a blanket rezoning of portions of land mainly in the northern suburbs in the Trower Road region, has, however, reached a new level of incompetence, even by Northern Territory standards; a new benchmark.’
In the Northern Territory, town planning and zoning is governed ostensibly by the Planning Act. Ministers of even a small jurisdiction such as the Northern Territory must conduct themselves and exercise the powers conferred on them for proper purposes and on a proper basis.
For the information of honourable members and, indeed, those people who are listening to this broadcast or who will one day read the Hansard, I propose to set out a short chronology, which is gleaned from the material we have seen, some information we have gained from answers to questions over the past two days, and talking to people who were, of course, present at the hearing.
Last year, there was some political pressure placed on the member for Casuarina. He received representations from constituents in his electorate. He talked about them today; he has conceded that he was under political pressure relating to planning, and the rezoning from R3 to R2, etcetera.
On or about 25 July 2003, the former minister, in addressing a gathering to protest the development of a four-storey block of flats in Undoolya Street, he stated, and this was actually broadcast: ‘Your amenity will be affected. Eventually, during the election, my amenity will be affected’. The minister, it seems, has big-noted himself to local residents and gave one of them, it seems, at least, advice to file an application to amend the town plan; to amend the scheme. Indeed, that very application was eventually made by that third party and it stated: ‘Upon the advice of the local member’. That is the document the minister tabled today. It has attached Attachment B. It is similar to the document which was tabled yesterday during the course of Question Time.
It is an improper motive and outside the scope of what could reasonably be seen to be the proper purposes of the act, to attempt to amend the planning scheme for political purposes. The Planning Act clearly states the proper criteria, none of which are, however, to improve your political position by amending the scheme for political purposes. The conduct of this minister is irrefutable on the material I have seen to date, and it means that the former minister acted unlawfully and illegally. That conduct, in itself, is enough to justify his removal from any ministerial position.
We are talking about process and improper motive. But, there is more! The unlawful application he tried to instigate was inherently defective. The former minister could not even get that right. I will go through that. First, the application was made at the former minister’s electorate office, and to him, as the local member, when it should have been made to the local member in his capacity as the minister for planning. The proof of that comes from the very document he tabled today: ‘Kon Vatskalis, member for Casuarina’.
Second, the application was not in the approved form. That is a mandatory requirement and, if you look at the censure motion, point 2, it says section 12 of the Planning Act says:
If the minister is going to pay no regard to that mandatory requirement, that means a landowner or developer can lodge an application, not bother to attach his name or date it and, on his rationale, that document would be valid and there are absolutely no problems; it can just sail through. If you take it to the nth degree, I can apply for a motor vehicle licence, forget about signing or dating it and let it slip through. On his interpretation, that is valid and fine and there is no problem. At law, he is wrong. He is wrong; the statute is clear: unsigned, undated – invalid; mandatory requirement. He has failed.
Third, the application was so general as to what blocks of land it applies to, it is void for uncertainty. The minister now received the defective, unlawful application, because it is motivated by improper political purpose. He has an obligation to consider it. He has an obligation to make sure that it satisfies these fundamental prerequisites. What he should have done was to immediately reject the application. But no, the former minister, motivated by unfulfillable promises made to aggrieved constituents, gave the application the initial okay. This is crucial, and those who know anything about planning will understand this: he took the decision to exhibit the proposed amendment. He took that decision, and it is not a decision that should be taken lightly.
The decision to exhibit was not taken on the basis of proper town planning considerations. We have seen confirmation of that, in the form of his comments to his constituents, in the form of the references and the meetings which he had with people. Second, it was taken unlawfully for political reasons. This man is a disgrace. The member for Casuarina is a disgrace. He should not have a seat in this Chamber, let alone be a minister of the Crown.
However, there is more. I did not think it was possible, but there is more. Let us talk about process here. Section 15 of the act says, okay, once you get an application, there is a mandatory requirement to inform the owner to tell people: ‘This is what I am going to do, this is the application which is going to be exhibited, and it is going to have an affect on your land’. Therefore, not only does it codify what would be common courtesy and what would be the basic requirement of natural justice, it is a mandatory requirement. Clearly, if no notice is given to an owner before the decision to exhibit is made, the application is, once again, unlawful and invalid. I have spoken to several body corporates and a private landowner, who inform me they were not given the courtesy of the formal notice before the minister made the decision to exhibit the application. They received some notification after, and there were a few phone calls made, but they did not receive a formal notification before the minister made the decision to exhibit the application. This is the abuse of process; this is the complete abandonment of process.
These allegations are not made lightly; they are clearly supported by the facts in this matter. I have absolutely no doubt if the minister, the current minister or the previous minister, wanted to properly repel this censure motion, they could produce the legal advice and some of the relevant documents that were tendered before the planning authority, which would completely put to death this censure motion. However, they have not. They cannot because, if they did, it would confirm precisely what they are saying.
There was a complete and catastrophic failure to comply with the rules of natural justice. Just when you think it could not get any worse, and it is difficult to find any more defects, yes, there is more - there is a further one. The owners, having made several unsuccessful attempts to request information from the minister - unsuccessful to the extreme - had to rely upon the Freedom of Information Act to get material documents so they could properly prepare their submissions to put before the Development Consent Authority in relation to an application which was going to affect their land. The minister did not even have the courtesy to provide these owners with the requisite material to properly prepare their case. There was a complete abandonment of process - an invalid application, unlawful and improper purposes, no notice, a denial of natural justice.
The conduct of the previous lands minister has the potential to expose the Northern Territory taxpayer to compensatory payments. It has the potential, and could have resulted, in the significant loss of the value of land. It could have affected the value of strata title units in the area – indeed, it still may.
A consulting town planner and economist, one June D’Rozario, a former member of this House, in an independent report - it was reported last night on Channel 9 - clearly stated there are no known cases - or words to the effect - in the Northern Territory where a rezoning application made by a bystander has proceeded to public exhibition without the consent of the owner of the land to be rezoned. She went on to state there are no sustainable planning or policy basis for proceeding with the proposed amendment.
The previous minister used a bystander in an attempt to rezone a large portion of the northern suburbs for political reasons. That flies in the face of everything which the Planning Act stands for. It flies in the face of the very fundamental procedures which are designed to stop this man - this type of man - abusing his privilege.
The Chief Minister disgracefully stood steadfastly beside him – that is, the previous minister. She has given him support when he tried to take away airspace over Katherine Gorge. She stood beside him even when he botched the Mandorah ferry tender. Chief Minister, enough is enough! Honourable members, enough is enough! He has acted unlawfully, illegally, and for improper political purposes - irrefutable, on the evidence. Irrefutable!
Mr Stirling: He is listening to Territorians.
Mr MALEY: Irrefutable! He has acted for improper political purposes; he effectively admitted that in his pathetic response to the censure motion. He has acted dishonestly. The Chief Minister cannot stand beside him. To do so will amount to an endorsement of what he has done - endorsement of a minister who has tried to abuse the planning process, and acted improperly and unlawfully. He has a clear track record of incompetence; of shooting his mouth off before engaging his brain. He must go! He can no longer have a portfolio in this government. There is the door; do not let it hit the minister on the way out. He has to go. The member for Casuarina should be sacked from Cabinet.
During the course of Question Time today, it became fairly obvious that the current Minister for Lands and Planning is entertaining this application, it seems. Perhaps in the response that we are to get from the government, he could answer these questions: if the minister is not going to down-zone the land, is he going to reimburse the legal fees of the owners and the people who were forced to attend this hearing? If he is going to entertain the unlawful application and down-zone the land, can he please give an undertaking in this parliament that those people will be compensated: the owners will be compensated for their loss for the damage which this application will do to their livelihoods and investments?
The censure motion is clear. I have touched upon all of the points contained in that censure motion. There is no doubt that the previous minister’s conduct has significantly undermined business and community confidence in the planning scheme. He has as good as admitted being involved in politically manipulating the planning scheme to improve his position. He admitted that in his response. He has admitted the very fundamental systemic failure which we have made out. By his conduct, the former minister, the member for Casuarina, has abused his ministerial powers in such a manner that he has demonstrated that he cannot be relied upon to carry out ministerial responsibilities on behalf of Territorians.
Finally, and with some disappointment, this House must also censure the Chief Minister who was informed of the member for Casuarina’s actions and failed to halt his unlawful conduct. We know that members of industry took the concerns that they had directly to the Chief Minister - he has conceded that he told his Cabinet colleagues. The Chief Minister knew about this and she refused to act. She is standing steadfastly beside him. She must now take some responsibility for this outrageous conduct.
I am asking honourable members to support this censure motion. I am asking honourable members opposite, with a clear conscience, to support this censure motion. Do the right thing by Territorians. Let us send a message to the business community that we do not, and are not, going to tolerate this type of behaviour - this type of abuse of process. It is unfortunate that it has come to this, but it is time for the minister and the Chief Minister to go.
Dr BURNS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to speak to this motion. I do not think this motion has really any substance at all. However, I guess a lot of the issues that we are talking about here arise out of the natural tensions that come out of the planning process and history, and is scattered throughout the northern suburbs and other places of Darwin.
There are areas of blocks of R3 where people can develop to three-storeys and possibly to fourth-storeys with the permission of the DCA, butting right up to areas that are R1, which are ordinary residential areas. Therefore, there is a problem there and we are seeing anger, if you like, and concern expressed by residents in two areas. One is in Undoolya Street, Tiwi, which has been the subject and the focus of a lot of the questions over the last couple of days. The other one is in Ostermann Street, along Dick Ward Drive in Coconut Grove. There are issues there and we, as a government, need to work through them, and we will work through them.
The Chief Minister made a statement on National Nine News. She was talking about these things. She said it was a very difficult issue and this government would offer the greatest caution about anyone changing zoning: ‘I believe we can find a mid-way point’. I know what the Chief Minister is saying there; we are a government that is aware of residents’ concerns and also aware of the rights and concerns of developers. These are very important issues and one of the major forums for settling these sorts of issues has been the Development Consent Authority.
The crux of the argument and the questions that have been put by the opposition over the last couple of days has been to do with the legality of the former minister accepting the down-zoning application and turning that down-zoning application over to the DCA. Regarding the sections of the act that are involved, section 12 has been bandied around here a bit regarding the application being on an approved form. That has certainly been a pivotal part the arguments put by members opposite. The other part relates to section 15 which is all about mandatory notice.
I believe the member for Casuarina has made it abundantly clear in what he has said today, and addressed - as I have today as well, in Question Time - about the approved form. Certainly, a form went forward that was not signed, but it was as an attachment to a letter by the person lodging the application, which was signed and dated. I will say it again: my legal advice through the brief that I have received from the department, is that that was quite lawful and acceptable.
The member for Casuarina also addressed the issue, as I did today, of the mandatory notice, and the fact that notices were sent out. However, there were some people who had incorrect details within the Titles Office. The member for Casuarina has said that he did address that issue, that he was quite flexible in that regard.
In essence, what we have heard over the last two days - possibly 20 questions on this issue - has revolved around legal issues. We have had a bit of a legal team operating on the other side - the members for Goyder and Macdonnell. I have been trying to find a name for that legal team. Horace Rumpole and Uriah Heep might be a good one; passing little notes and geeing each other up. They have tried to turn this whole thing into: ‘We have the legal expertise, we know’.
The member for Goyder has tried to present his views as being the only acceptable views. As a government, we rely on the legal opinion that is provided through our departments. The advice to me has been very clear: the application that was accepted by the minister was quite within the process. There was nothing unlawful, as the member for Goyder has suggested, neither was there anything unlawful - or whatever he wants to attribute - in terms of the mandatory notice.
There has also been an accusation that, because the person making the application took the application to the electorate office of the member for Casuarina, somehow this represents a huge conflict of interest. Once again, in the legal advice that I have seen as part of my brief, there is certainly nothing illegal, unlawful or unseemly about it. Those of us on this side who are ministers, and those on the other side who were ministers in the previous government, know full well that people will often come to your electorate office, whether you are the minister for what there on about or not, and bring stuff that really pertains to ministerial activities. That is the nature of people. People out there in the electorate do not really make the distinction between a electorate office and ministerial office in town.
Part of what has been put to me is that, for the member for Casuarina to exclude himself because he is a local member who would represent a mighty disfranchisement of his constituents. I will come back to the theme that I have been talking about over the last couple of days. This seems to be the aim of the opposition: to disenfranchise, to separate out the residents who live around Undoolya Street in Tiwi away from their right to be part of a process to comment on a development, to have their day before the Development Consent Authority. I am certainly not going to stand in front of any citizen and say: ‘Oh, no, you cannot do that’ if it is within the process of the law.
The CLP should have a big soul search on this. I have already spoken about the tensions that naturally exist because of the situation we find ourselves in with R3 abutting R1. These tensions naturally arise. We, as a government and parliament, have to work through them.
There are some important issues that I have raised in relation to that. Most of the questions have come to me. I think there has been one question to the Chief Minister. I believe that I have answered all the elements that have been asked of me by the opposition as openly and as frankly as I can. I will repeat, from the article that was on page 4 of the NT News that I believe was misquoted today by the member for Goyder. I want to place on the record what I said. It goes to the crux of the allegations by the opposition:
In relation to some of the questions the member for Goyder asked me, I am not going to foreshadow the decision that I will make. I am yet to receive the report from the DCA. I will read that with avid interest including, very carefully, all the submissions by residents and those property owners who feel they are affected. I will make my decision on the basis of that. I am not foreshadowing a decision. I am certainly not foreshadowing anything to do with compensation, as the member for Goyder has tried to draw me on. That is a deep issue. As a good minister, I will take advice from the department about all those sorts of issues.
Mr Baldwin: Cough up. You should make him pay it out of his superannuation.
Dr BURNS: Well, you prosecuted a very weak case. You could feel the censure coming on and it was just going absolutely nowhere. I do not know why you got rid of Jim, because Jim would not have allowed this sort of debacle.
Mr Dunham: You want to read what that minister has just dropped on the table.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Kiely: Get yourself a southerner and look what happens.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! It is getting very disorderly. Order!
Dr BURNS: Basically, we heard language from the member for Goyder about ‘bystanders’. He said this person that made this application for rezoning was a bystander. The member for Casuarina has already outlined this particular person is not only a resident in the area but he is also a landowner and property owner, with a property that is likely to be affected by down-zoning. Acknowledge people’s right. This person has every right, under the processes of law, under the Planning Act, to make an application.
Mr Dunham: Yes. He can do it under the law.
Mr Baldwin: Are you going to pay the costs, Kon?
Mr Vatskalis: You are. That is prescribed costs, do you remember it?
Mr Baldwin: Your super’s not looking real good, mate.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: If I could just continue. The Chief Minister also made the point today that yesterday the opposition was clambering for every citizen in the Northern Territory to have the opportunity to comment on applications for a liquor licence. Then they are turning around today and saying: ‘Well, residents should not have an opportunity to comment under the Planning Act’. I really wish that they would get their story straight.
Mr Baldwin: Are you paying the costs or is the former minister?
Dr BURNS: You have made a lot of claims, opposition, particularly the member for Goyder and the Opposition Leader and, to a degree, the member for Macdonnell. I will issue you a challenge here today: go outside this place and make the same sort of allegations that you have made inside here. Go outside and make them. I give you that challenge, and I say I do not believe you will. I do not believe you will.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, members for Macdonnell and Daly!
Dr BURNS: The member for Goyder has already learnt that lesson. You can follow suit if you like.
Mr Baldwin: Do the right thing.
Dr BURNS: Do the right thing. Well, there is a lot of rubbish that is being pedalled by the other side, it takes a while to pick it up.
There have been all these allegations about my predecessor, the member for Casuarina, regarding his ministerial role and how he has not done the right thing as a minister.
I draw some attention to the member for Daly over an issue to do with Rapid Creek when he was minister. One of the people who is a landowner along Rapid Creek came to me quite early in 2002 with a problem. This person said: ‘I do not understand what is going on about this 50 m zone from the mid-point of the creek to my side of the creek as being a conservation zone, because I went to the previous minister and he showed me a map, and I have this map here that he has given me’. This resident produced this map with cross-hatching. I have it here - do you want to clamour for me to table this? - showing this 30 m zone. This person said: ‘It cannot be 50 m because the previous minister has given me this map with this cross-hatching, and it only shows 30 m; it is not 50 m ...
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If he is going to reflect on me, he can get it right. It is 50 m, and I stand by that. If he thinks it is 30 m, bring on a substantive motion and let us have that argument. I am happy to do it. He is getting off the track, but he should be able to quote me right.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! We are in the middle of this censure motion, member for Daly. There is no …
Mr Kiely: You are thin-skinned, Tim! Thin skinned!
Mr BALDWIN: No, I am happy to debate it. Bring it on! Bring it on!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: I have a letter here that I wrote to the then minister on the 14 February 2002. I said:
This is the map here, and you can see nice little cross-hatched area there. The signature down the bottom says ‘T Baldwin, 23 February 2000’ …
Mr Baldwin: I signed it, that is right. Not like your minister.
Dr BURNS: … and it has a little note and the cross-hatched area and it says: ‘60 m public access corridor’, and is clearly showing the 30 m.
I wrote to the minister and I received a reply back from the minister. It says …
Mr Baldwin: In my opinion …
Dr BURNS: No, no. It says, about the map: ‘The other is the final … - I sent him two maps. It said: ‘This is the final zoning map which was declared and, therefore, shows the correct zone boundary’. I sent him the town plan signed by the former minister, the member for Daly, that did not have the cross-hatching on it. They say that is the correct one. The one with the cross-hatching says: ‘… but this version …’ - meaning the little one with the cross-hatching I just held up – ‘… indicates an overlay of information and annotations and has no formal status. It was, I think, used by the previous minister for explanatory purposes at some stage’.
Here we have the amateur cartographer, the member for Daly, sitting behind his desk with all the files that he never got to, cross-hatching - it is nice colouring in - and then showing it to residents purporting that that was a conversation zone. That might be very harmless enough, except it has a profound influence, because they are talking about the value of land, and confidence in the market. There was a block of land up the road from this particular person’s land that was auctioned. It went to public auction, and it went out with a prospectus showing the 50 m corridor as being excised off the bottom of the land …
Mr Baldwin: No, it did not. No, no.
Dr BURNS: However, because of all the shenanigans that went on around the previous minister, the actual area was a lot more than that, because that conservation corridor had been shaved off. How would buyers who were bidding on this land know the exact area? It was not just a couple of metres; we are talking about substantial amounts of land here …
Mr Baldwin: How much did the block go for?
Dr BURNS: You have form over there. You are trying to make attributions and cast shadows against my esteemed colleague, but just look into your own backyard because it is not a pretty state.
I believe the opposition moved a very fatuous and flimsy motion of censure. I would just like to go through the motion and try and deal with it. The Leader of the Opposition alleges that, under section 15, my predecessor acted unlawfully and illegally – wrong!; acted unlawfully and contravened section 12 – wrong!; used his power as a minister for planning unlawfully and in an unprecedented way for political gain – well, he certainly did not doctor any maps up; undermined both business and community confidence in the NT Planning Scheme - I do not believe he has done that; created unrealistic expectations and misleading Territorians – well, those Territorians know that the process has to go through the DCA and I will be considering that particular application; undermined the integrity of the planning process …
Mr Baldwin: And you will say, ‘No’, and lead the people up the garden path.
Dr BURNS: Well, I would not interject too loudly, member for Daly.
… threatened the integrity and reputation of the Northern Territory as an attractive place for investment – well, that is a big one coming from someone in the previous government; acted in a dishonest manner, denying natural justice, abusing his ministerial powers - wrong, wrong, wrong!
Mr Baldwin: Absolutely. Prove that the documents were doctored, you idiot! Should not be a minister; should be sacked!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Daly, you have been spoken to!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, this is a very flimsy motion of censure. Most of the questions were directed at me. You have tried to include the Chief Minister in all of this. You asked her one question today which was basically hypothetical and had no substance. So you ask her a hypothetical question and then you try to draw her in to this big motion of censure. One description that has been put to me might describe this motion: ‘pathetically lame, wilted lettuce effort’. I have another one, it is ‘spongiform phallus’. A censure should be on a serious matter. All questions were answered. The opposition has not developed any case. They seem to be clutching at straws for issues. I believe you are still divided and are wallowing around like drowning men and women. You have no direction. Your leader put in a very weak effort today.
Madam Speaker, I move that the motion be put.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the censure motion be supported.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 10 Noes 13
Mr Baldwin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Burke Mr Ah Kit
Ms Carney Mr Bonson
Ms Carter Dr Burns
Mr Dunham Mr Henderson
Mr Elferink Mr Kiely
Dr Lim Ms Lawrie
Mr Maley Mr McAdam
Mrs Miller Ms Martin
Mr Mills Ms Scrymgour
Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion negatived.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that Government Business, Order of the Day No 2 be deferred until the next sitting day.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Statement - AustralAsia Railway – Completion
Continued from 17 February 2004.
Mr HENDERSON (Business and Industry): Madam Speaker, today I speak in strong support of the statement from the Chief Minister on the advent, after 100 years, of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway. What an exciting time it has been for Territorians, particularly to see those first two trains coming into Darwin station and also passing through Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Katherine.
It certainly is a time to celebrate the aspirations of Territorians for 100 years to see this railway completed, and to thank many Territorians who have worked so hard for many years to bring this railway to fruition. The Chief Minister, in her statement, thanked dozens of people who had a part to play in seeing the construction of this railway.
It truly has been a nation-building project, one that has certainly captured the imagination of Australia. It has captured the imagination of many people around the world, and it has done so unlike anything else that has happened in the Northern Territory for many years. There were a lot of great, eloquent and well-made speeches during the period of celebrations to the effect that, when Australians do come together and put their minds towards massive nation-building projects, we really can pull it off.
What a great partnership this has been; a partnership between two states and the Commonwealth of Australia, and one that has, to a large extent, been a little under-acknowledged in respect of the private sector, which put up the majority of the funding for the railway. It was a partnership between the people of the Territory and South Australia and the Commonwealth parliament, and a tripartisan partnership between the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, and the Country Liberal Party with regard to the railway. It is often that we have some divisive and heated debate in the parliament and outside but, on this particular issue, we were at one in wanting to see this railway completed.
My colleague, the Treasurer, the member for Nhulunbuy, recalled the night, as did I, that the then Chief Minister, the member for Brennan, at a point where negotiations were very close to getting over the line and were, essentially, stalled when a bill was presented in this House. I believe it was unprecedented in the Westminster system where the bill and the deal was done on handshake between the members for Nhulunbuy and Brennan. It was a whatever-it-takes bill: whatever sum of money was required to get this project over the line, we would commit to sight unseen based on a full explanation on determining what that figure was. That was the amount of trust, faith and confidence that we had in the then government of the day to conclude this deal. It truly was a bipartisan approach and I doubt, in the history of parliaments around Australia, that a Treasury bill has been approved by the parliament unanimously, sight unseen, regarding the dollars that may need to be appropriated.
It is truly a time for celebration and to thank all those people who brought that dream to reality. The Chief Minister has named many of those people in her statement. I will not go through them again.
The challenge now is to see this railway achieve what everybody who has believed in the railway has visions for it to achieve. Again, that will be done as the result of a continuing partnership between governments of whatever persuasion in South Australia and the Northern Territory over the coming years, and FreightLink, who are operating the railway. It will be a partnership between the public and private sectors, which will build those freight loads and, from The Ghan’s point of view, obviously, to attract tourists to undertake one of the great railway journeys of the world.
Before speaking about The Ghan, I would like to talk as trade minister on the importance that this piece of infrastructure has in really seeing the aspirations for Darwin to truly become Australia’s Asian gateway for imports and exports over the coming years. That is going to be an evolutionary challenge; it is certainly not going to be revolutionary. There will be a need to be a lot of work, particularly from FreightLink, in the service and the freight rates that they can provide to make it an attractive alternative to existing trade routes. I believe that it can work, it will work, and we are working with FreightLink.
The trade strategy that the government has adopted, by 2007, seeks to see 50 000 containers a year over the Darwin wharf. That is a significant increase on the 12 000 to 14 000 containers a year that we had over the wharf prior to the railway. It is a challenging statistic, but it is one that we are right there with FreightLink in trying to achieve those targets.
The member for Greatorex was highly critical in debate earlier this week about the government having done absolutely nothing in encouraging the freight route until the railway was completed and the first service ran. Nothing could be further from the truth. Since the first day that we came to government, both the Chief Minister and I travelled overseas on many occasions promoting the coming railway service, the coming opening of the port, and the opening of the new trade route. However, there is a world of difference between promoting what is coming at a certain point in time as an opportunity, to being able to travel in the region with FreightLink, and saying: ‘We are open for business. Here is the person to talk to in regards to the service that can be provided and the freight rates that can be struck’. That is a world of difference in terms of the response that is being received in the region, because no longer is it an opportunity, it is a reality. The reality is that, in terms of existing freight forwarders in the region, within Australia, of existing shipping companies who are locked into shipping routes and booked for years in advance into slots in particularly Sydney and Melbourne ports, that those shipping companies and freight forwarders want to see a demonstrated viable and reliable service, at rates that are competitive and a service that is better than existing routes. They are not going to commit in bulk to switching their existing trade and shipping routes until such time as the rail link has established a level of reliability and credibility. That is the reality of commerce. Those slots, particularly into Sydney Harbour, are very precious and hard to achieve, and that is the challenge for FreightLink.
The first three days after the arrival of the first freight train in Darwin I, along with John Parkes, FreightLink’s new International Trade Director, and President of the Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce, Bruce Fadelli, spoke to a major transport conference in Jakarta promoting the new trade route. On the way to Jakarta, we stopped in Brunei and made presentation to representatives of the Port of Brunei, shipping companies and freight forwarders in the region. It was a tremendous success. Over 150 people attended the presentation, and I am pretty confident that, within the not-too-distant future - within the next month or two - as a result of not only that visit, but a lot of hard work that has been put in by Rooney Shipping in particular, we will see a new shipping service into the Port of Darwin committed over the next two months. Because it is commercial-in-confidence, I cannot talk about the name of the company, but they attended the Global Freight Connect Conference in Darwin recently, and they believe that it is a very exciting time.
The work has just started; the port and the railway are open for business. That challenge of 50 000 containers by 2007, I believe, is achievable. However, it will be achieved evolutionary and not revolutionary, given the way that existing shipping services and freight contractors are currently structured. It is a world of difference from promoting an opportunity to promoting a business that is open for business, and there is somebody who can talk directly to potential customers about rates and services.
It is a bit chicken and the egg – attracting the containers and the shipping lines. However, already, we have seen Swires Shipping commit to the crocodile route, as they are calling it – a weekly Darwin/Singapore service. They have committed to that for 12 months, which is fantastic. Perkins and Rooney Shipping, two Darwin-based companies, are looking at opportunities and working strategies. As I said, hopefully, an announcement of a new shipping service to Darwin will be made within the next couple of months.
We have not been standing still - contrary to the ludicrous allegations by the member for Greatorex. We are working in partnership with FreightLink, freight forwarders and those shipping companies in developing that freight. That partnership was further demonstrated when, on 9 and 10 February this year, on the initiative of the Chief Minister and the Office of Territory Development, we held a Global Freight Connect 2004 Conference in Darwin – a major conference sponsored by Toll Holdings, who have an $18m investment at the Darwin Business Park - with a list of guest speakers and an agenda which would normally be held in a major hub like Hong Kong, Singapore or Sydney.
It was certainly a big coup for the delegates of that conference to come to Darwin from all over Asia and Australia and actually see the railway and the port open and running. Again, it is far different than talking about the opportunity. Some of the speakers that the conference attracted included Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, who, unfortunately, could not be here as transport minister in person, but provided a direct video link address; Access Economic Director, Chris Richardson; Toll Holdings Managing Director, Paul Little; Singapore Telecommunications President and Chief Executive, Lee Hsien Yang; and Linfox Malaysia’s Regional Director, Asia, Ross Ellison. It was a fantastic mix of key speakers.
If we look at some of the representatives from a cross-section of companies that came to the conference they included the San Miguel Corporation based in the Philippines - they do a lot more than just ship beer; 21st Century Logistics from Malaysia; Ports Department and Ministry of Communications from Brunei; Nestl Australia, New South Wales; Flinders Port, South Australia; Patrick Shipping, Victoria; Westgate Logistics, Victoria; ANL Container Line, WA; and Parmalet Australia, Northern Territory. It is not an exhaustive list, but a very substantial cross-section of companies. The Global Freight Connect Conference came at the right time and gave people a first-hand view of the railway and the port in operation. There was a lot of excitement around that.
We can also see the private sector investing with confidence based on the new infrastructure. I have already spoken about Swires committing to a new route, but we also have the Exel (Australia) Pty Ltd, which is a global leader in supply chain management. On 15 May, well in advance of the completion of the railway, they were so confident in the emerging opportunities, they opened a new global freight management and contract logistics facility in Darwin. I was very proud to be invited to officially open that new business. For a company like Exel - one of the global leaders in supply chain management - to come and invest in Darwin in May, some six months ahead of first train, shows they are very serious about growing this business. Again, they are working in partnership with government, FreightLink and shipping companies to grow that business. So, to Exel again, welcome to Darwin.
We have also seen an announcement just a few weeks ago from FreightLink where a company by the name of FCL Interstate Transport Services, one of the top five transport companies nationally, have opened a branch in the Northern Territory. They are contracted by FreightLink to provide transport and freight services – consolidation, freight forwarding and distribution - out of Tennant Creek and Katherine. They are very excited about the opportunities that are going to emerge as a result of this railway. Speaking with their Chief Executive Officer, he believes it really is the beginning of opening up the economy in Northern Australia and is particularly excited about the opportunities for the Katherine regions. Therefore, we have companies with the vision coming here that are well established, both globally and nationally, and they are prepared to invest in the Northern Territory and work in partnership to develop their vision. It is great that this infrastructures has attracted that investment.
Other people are actively pursuing opportunities. I spoke in the trade statement the other night about Rooney Shipping and Trading. Graeme Lacy, CEO, has extraordinary vision and is working very hard in the Asian region in eastern Indonesia, Brunei, Malaysia and beyond, in trying to build the Rooney business on the back of the railway. I have great admiration for Graeme and the crew at Rooney. They are really working in the very competitive area of global shipping. They believe this railway will provide them with significant opportunities and again, are working in partnership with the government and FreightLink to try to develop those opportunities.
We will also see an announcement next week. I will not go to the details of it because I do not want to steal the Army’s thunder. However, there is going to be a good announcement next week regarding the Army’s use of the railway. It is interesting talking with previous senior officers in the Australian Defence Force. The ADF deliberately did not buy into the debate of committing to any use of the railway because they did not want to be lumbered with any part of footing the bill for the construction. However, I believe our Defence Forces will become a significant customer of the railway, and there should be announcement within the next week or two to that effect.
I advise honourable members as well that the International Business Council put out a press release yesterday. I will be travelling with 15 Darwin businesses to Brunei this weekend to participate into a major international trade exhibition in Brunei. Again, there are a lot of opportunities from shipping from Labuan, Brunei through the Port of Darwin, opening up opportunities throughout Asia and into China. It is good to see that level of interest from the business communities in participating in that particular event in Brunei.
The Chief Minister spoke extensively about the first Ghan. If ever there was a sleeper in regards to the impact on our economy it has been the passenger services. Originally, nothing with legs was going travel on this railway and, almost overnight, there has been a lot of hard work from Great Southern Rail and their parent company Serco. There was $18m worth of business underwritten for the passengers service before the first train had left Adelaide. Over the two days of that first journey - which I was very privileged to be on along with the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. To see 50% growth in regard to passenger inquiries from the moment the train left Adelaide, given the amount of publicity this journey was receiving, nationally and internationally, was fantastic. We have to work hard with the tourism industry to focus not just on the journey, but the destinations at either end and in between. There are great opportunities there.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a time for celebration, thanks and congratulations to people who have worked so hard over all those years to achieve this dream. Of course, there will be a lot of hard work now to turn all that into success.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will preface this speech, as I have done before on matters relating to the railway, with the fact that I believe I am in a very fortunate position as a descendant of a family that has been involved in it for a long time and always saw it as a reality - always.
My great-grandfather worked on the railway as a contractor, lived at the railhead towns of Pine Creek, Emungalen, Katherine, Larrimah and Birdum, and built pubs in the latter three. He was instrumental in having, once the railway moved back from Birdum to Larrimah, the town also uplifted, probably at great cost to himself because he had bought several blocks in the place.
My grandfather also was a fettler on the railway. Thus, my mother lived in Mataranka, Parap, Larrimah, Katherine and other places associated with it. My father worked on the railway as a linesman.
In our family, we have never seen this as a faded dream. We have never seen this as anything other than the Territory’s due, and have lived with the knowledge that this will eventually happen - that goodwill will prevail.
We were buoyed, prior to self-government, by having people like Paul Everingham speak. It is important in debates like this, when we throw tributes around, to go back before self-government. I would like to quote from the Parliamentary Record of 26 May 1976 at page 239. This is Mr Everingham, who went on to be our first Chief Minister. His contribution was made when they shut the railway. Some praise was given to a gentleman by the name of Mr Hill, who was instrumental in shutting this railway. He name is not held in good stead among historical scholars of this matter. I will read the contribution by Mr Everingham because it is worth going through again:
Etcetera. He goes on to say:
They were prophetic words. When people see the railway finished now and they clamour to thank recent contributors - and they do deserve thanks, and I include the names that have been included in the Chief Minister’s statement - there has been a long history to this. This contribution pre-dates self-government. It buoyed those residents of the new Northern Territory of Australia that we had members out there who were happy to fight and put the case.
The local member for Katherine, for instance, Les MacFarlane, had talked to shopkeepers, like the owner of Katherine Store, Les Cox, and I will quote from Hansard again at page 250, Wednesday 26 May. He talked about two storekeepers, Mr Ah Toy and Mr Cox. Both of those families are still well known in the Northern Territory, and are still passionate about matters regarding this.
You can see the closure of the railway in 1976 was an act of a paternalistic, overbearing federal instrumentality. It was driven by work that was done by Mr Hill, who went on to fame in the ABC, and stood as a candidate for the Labor Party. It has been a long fight in this place, and it goes back to generations and generations of people. It is important to thank those who finally achieved it, but it is important not to forget that it was never, ever a faded dream for many of the people who live here.
This Chief Minister had two jobs, in fact: her government had to provide passenger terminals and the celebrations. It is my sad duty to report to this House that she mucked them both up. The passenger terminal at the termination of the railway is in the wrong place. It is next to a mangrove, which, in its beautifully pristine state, is absolutely full of the various biting insects that come out of it, including mosquitoes and sand flies. It is in a fairly low portion of country and, on a visit there last weekend, I noticed that some of the bitumen has, in fact, been patched. I do not know the reason for that, but it would not be traffic. I do not claim to be an engineer, but I would say that there are definitely problems with that site in terms of it sitting on top of a mudflat. It should be next to where people live.
We had a cruise ship come in and we put on a celebration in our mall with a craft fair. Why would you not be able to do that in Palmerston? Why would you not be able to have something like Mindil Beach, which could put in to fast use at a very quick time, and bring those people to provide those sorts of goods to the railway. I believe the government has to rethink this - admit you made a problem and fix it. I do not think it is that hard. The Chief Minister has, in her statement - and this was for about the third time on that day - said sorry. I believe she should say sorry about the passage of terminal and just get on with doing it properly.
The other sorry was just how badly mucked up the arrival event was. I do not know how many members went. I was foolish enough to be talked into going, against my better judgment, because there was a family wedding that afternoon. At the outset, I can recall saying to my wife: ‘This has all the hallmarks of being a big muck-up, given the great numbers that had flooded to see it up the track’. I knew that Darwinians would turn out in force because that is what they do. I was in a traffic jam that came from Berrimah lights, and it was very difficult to ascertain just where the end of it was. I took some comfort in the fact that the Chief Minister’s car was not far in front of mine. I thought: ‘Well, I am roughly on time and I guess we will get through’. She was given a police escort through, much to the chagrin of many of the people who were log jammed in the queue. We got to the top of the Berrimah hill at Marlow Road. You could see just what a mess it was going to be getting to the place to get on a bus.
Once you travelled for about an hour thus - and in doing so you crossed the railway line behind the cattle yards - there were many Territorians looking southward to where they thought the train would appear. Little known to them, the train was, in fact, to their right. Many people had stood there for a long time in the mistaken belief that they were waiting for the arrival of the first train. The scene at the port was not much better, because everybody had to be conveyed there by bus, and you could only leave by bus. Everyone chose to leave at about the same time - which is not unusual, I guess - and the capacity for people to get out of that place was not good; there were many elderly and young people. I believe there was a great opportunity that was missed. I personally do not have a problem with people having a beer and watching the train come in, and I do not know how that all turned into such a mess.
They were the two jobs the Chief Minister had: find a location for the passenger terminal and organise a booze-up. Interestingly, if you look at the fact that the Chief Minister has been all over this thing - particularly all the good news - when it turned to a muck-up, she was nowhere to be seen. ‘Not my problem’. It was not until poor old Mr Tyrrell gets kicked out the door to make the apology that we get any acknowledgement that it had anything to do with the government. It is interesting that when there was a problem, people who are now claiming to have their backs patted were nowhere to be seen. In the Chief Minister’s speech, where she gives her special thanks to Mr Paul Tyrrell and I quote:
I would like to put on the Parliamentary Record ‘and his valiant attempts not to be a scapegoat for the Chief Minister, but his gentlemanly nature in accepting that that was his lot’.
I turn to one of the other issues: freight damage. Freight damage is a problem for business and I do not thinks it is being properly addressed. We are all keen to be part of this thing, and we all have to be keen to admit and sort out the problems. I was disappointed to hear a spokesman say: ‘Look, the freight damage is only 1% or 2%’. When you read a statement like the Chief Minister’s where she talks about 350 000 tonnes, it is not acceptable for 1%, which is 3500 tonnes, to be a reasonable parameter of damage. I would hope that can be addressed quickly. Speaking to Duncan Beggs, there are things that can be done. However, remember, the lifeblood of this thing is the support and confidence in it, and that is where it has to be focussed.
That is also true of the passenger experience. The Minister for Business and Industry talked about it. The passenger experience has not been good, partly because of the siting of the terminal, problems with transport, and difficulties in accessing such a inaccessible site. We have to move quickly on this, because there is $18m of pre-paid investment here. We want good passenger experience. We want to articulate things out of and onto the train - including the cruise ships, which is a good success story. Some of the issues before government certainly are those: to look at issues of freight damage, customer experience and passenger experience.
I was disappointed that the Chief Minister has used the arrival of the railway to talk about the disappearance of road trains. If I was in that industry I would feel like Paul Everingham talking about the closure of railway and the jobs that were involved in that. This is a big industry for this place; it is a safe industry. It is an industry that makes us competitive. It is an industry without which my son would not have a job, because the live cattle trade depends on these big trucks on our roads. To see them going past and to whiff the product that is inside them, I always say to my family: ‘Well, that is the smell of wealth’. That is what is contributing to the Territory, so let us get away from this thing that the railway is here to get rid of trucks. There is room for both, and that is what has to be grabbed by government.
I was very pleased when Professor McKinnon talked about the university moving to a professorial chair in transport logistics. Although it is not in this speech, that is a good starting block: to look at articulation from air, road, rail and ship, obviously. We should not be looking at some of these people as pariahs or to have one style of transport usurp the other. We have to move to articulate those.
I would also like to thank some of the heritage people. I put Trevor Horman and others on that list. The train at Adelaide River is on a good site. It certainly jumps out at you a bit visually as you come past. There are some engineering types who say it has the potential to jump out at cars. Personally, I cannot see that. Those people are doing a great job there with trying to resurrect a historical line. It is in good nick and it is very picturesque; it is a beautiful little drive along that railway route. It is that sort of stuff where we could start to value-add to this product, and have a heritage product, a war time product, an actual railway where you can have a journey. It will complement what we have at Pine Creek.
Therefore, there are some jobs here for government. Maybe they just need a smart facilitator to draw it all together and present a submission to Cabinet and say: ‘Well, that is what we are going to do’. I believe there are great opportunities that can be grabbed by government. Maybe they will not break even in money, but they will break even in this product enhancement.
In one way, even though I was keen to talk to this statement on the day it was delivered, I am probably glad I did not, because I went to the Bombing of Darwin Commemorative Service and saw Mr Coulter and Dr Conn. I was able to give them a copy of the statement thus far and I know that they will be looking in to see the rest of it. I, like my colleague, the member from Brennan, would like to place on the Parliamentary Record a debt of gratitude and thanks to those two gentlemen. I know that there were times - dark, dark times where I agree with the anecdote - they were only two out there who were saying it was doable if they could only crack the code.
One of the ways of cracking the code was this report called The Report of the Committee on Darwin. It was a good Barry Coulter style of flushing out the enemy. He virtually got them to write down why it did not work, and then he went to work on putting all those things to bed. Even thought that so-called Brown Report did put the railway to bed, it said that, with certain conditions, it could happen. The government just went about fulfilling those conditions to make sure it happened.
Tim Fischer should be mentioned in this statement. Tim Fischer is immensely knowledgeable about matters relating to railways around Australia, and was an incredible powerful lobbyist in the position as Deputy Prime Minister of this nation. His subsequent efforts as a railway ambassador really mark him as a man who should be congratulated and thanked.
There is the Army also. There is an inevitably about the immense amounts of gear that has to be carried for the Army. However, that is a double-edged sword, as it is for lots of business here: if you can bring small parts in to repair big things up here, you can take big things out and repair them somewhere else. We have to make sure that this does not turn into south-bound traffic that benefits suppliers in other places. We want the gear coming here to repair here, and have the capacity to be built here. We do not want to see the railway turn into something that transports gear out of here to be value-added, repaired or, in some way, maintained in another place. That is the vigilance that is required. We should not be looking at tonnages, we should be looking at whether things are coming to this Territory to build manufacturing and construction service effort here, not to diminish it. It is a note of caution that I ring.
I am glad for the opportunity to have contributed to this debate. We have to have several more debates on it, and they should focus on what the government will do. I was pleased with the frankness of the Minister for Business and Industry and that he did thank so fulsomely the business sector. Interestingly, Halliburton - who have been thanked in the Chief Minister’s speech - copped a bit of a hiding from his colleagues over in the union movement. Nonetheless, they were important contributors.
What we have to move form here to is: let us see what the government will do. We know what others have done, we know our heritage, we know it is in place. Now we want a catalogue of government promises to kick this thing in. They have to be with helping business, enhancing the customer product for freight, enhancing the customer product for passengers, transport logistics and articulation, and making sure that those various legs of transport are not in some way disadvantaged by this great asset that we now have.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak on this statement because I believe that the completion of the railway is such an historic occasion that everyone in this House should place on record some comments. I also believe it is time to put to bed some of the myths that have been put around.
I came from a small Victorian town where the railway and the wheat trucks went through the town. It was just part of life; you accepted it. There have been a few myths peddled around that Alice Springs is going to suffer terribly from all these big trains rolling through. The truth is that Alice Springs has had six freight trains and two passenger trains arriving every week for years and years.
I live on the other side of the line, on the Larapinta side. If I am not clever, sure I will get held up at the railway crossing at Larapinta. However, if I time my travel properly I miss out on that. The freight trains have always come in early morning or at night. If you look at the timetables for the freight trains at the moment anyway, they usually come in late at night. They leave a bit later or early morning to go on to Darwin. Coming back, they arrive at about 4 am and leave about 7 am. They are approximate times, obviously, but the freight trains are not coming into town and disrupting people going to work or general traffic at all. They are coming in late, as they always have. The passenger trains obviously arrive in the afternoon or morning, and that is fine because we want them to; that is the time they already have.
There has been some press about a crossing at Ilparpa that the member for Araluen has raised. That crossing has been there for years. The traffic of the trains at the moment - five freight trains and two passenger trains a week - has not changed. It is still occurring that way.
There was an unfortunate incident when one member of the public almost hit a train at the Bradshaw crossing which has lights. However, that crossing has been there for years, so you cannot suddenly start blaming the influx of numerous trains, saying they are going to create a hazard. As far as I am concerned, we have worked around them for years and we will continue to work around them because they have always happened.
The buzz that was about was the fact that it went from Alice up to Darwin, and quite rightly so. I was absolutely thrilled to see the enthusiasm of the Tennant Creek and Katherine people when The Ghan arrived. I was thrilled to see the support given by their town councils to this event. You could see the smiles on the people. The welcomes by the Mayors were wonderful. Unfortunately - and I am talking particularly about the arrival of The Ghan - when the Alice Springs Town Council was approached to participate, they said no. Why would you do that when we know this is going to benefit tourism so much?
I am really disappointed with the Alice Springs Town Council because I cannot think of anything constructive they have done to promote the town, particularly in the area of tourism. When the Alice Festival went to them for money, they first said no, yet this festival brings people from all around Australia. They are willing to spend $1m upgrading their offices, but when it came to putting in $10 000 to help the celebration in Alice Springs, they said no. That is an absolute disgrace and a reflection on the town council, particularly, as I said, when I saw how enthusiastic the other small towns along the route were.
I did go to the luncheon put on by the Great Southern Railway at the Convention Centre and it was fantastic. It was such a contrast to the dinner in Darwin, which was a little more sophisticated and aimed at that audience. The one in Alice Springs was really highlighting the Centre. At each table was an ambassador who lived in that town. Who were the ambassadors? Schoolchildren. They were such a hit with the visitors from out of town. Whoever thought of the idea of placing these children around the place - it was a winner; an absolute winner. People who were guests on The Ghan just thought it was great.
The program at the luncheon was also fabulous. It included Fiona O’Loughlin, our local comedienne. If you know Fiona, her humour comes from telling anecdotes and stories. She had the audience rolling. They linked up to the interactive video with the School of the Air, so they had the teacher from the School of the Air talking to students out on different stations. It was just so great, even though the interactive network is not two-way at the moment - and I guess in time it will be - you could see the teacher and hear the students from many pastoral properties talking. One of them said: ‘Yes, we got up at 6 o’clock so we could go in to Kulgera so we could see the train go by’ and things like that. It was great.
Then they made a presentation to The Ghan Society President, Warren Snowdon of a special plaque for this commemoration. I do not know whether they realised how much The Ghan Society appreciated that gesture. They have a little museum at their siding and they were just chuffed to receive this commemorative plaque from Great Southern Railway. That was, in my opinion, a bit of a coup. It was also a bit amusing at the end of the dinner to see the members from The Ghan Society go around the tables and pick up the empty Crowny bottles, because they had the little Ghan on them as well. They said they were taking those out to their museum, plus the flags and the poster that was given away; so that was great.
To finish off, they had Barry Skipsey, who is a local photographer and musician, perform. As Barry sang, behind him was flashed all his beautiful photographs of the Centre. It made the hairs on the back of your neck creep up, because it was so good, just to see all this visual image of the Centre, as he sang his song. Of course, we all know Barry wrote the song All Aboard, which I believe he also sang on Late Line, or Stateline, specifically for the occasion. He is one of the quiet achievers in Alice Springs, who perhaps does not get the recognition he could. His photography and his ability to sing, to perform, is certainly exceptional. I want to thank Great Southern Railway for putting that on for the town and the tourists. It was a coup, there was no doubt about it. It was very, very clever.
The Ghan has brought extra benefits to the town. Because it is in town for a short period of time, people who are on that train can go on different tours around Alice Springs. The Desert Park has organised a very nice package, where they take them out there, show them around, show the film, give them lunch, and bring them back in time for the train. There is a move to also include other businesses in town so that tourists will have an option of where they will go in that short period of time, if they are actually going on to Darwin.
Although some people tend to want to dwell on the negative side, there are benefits for the town, and there will be. We talked about the freight services and the damage to freight companies at the moment. We also must remember that there are some up sides of that, because some of the transport companies have said they will still use road transport. NTFS have said - although they have a big contract with the railways - they are going to bring their perishables to Darwin by road because, in fact, they can get them there quicker.
The Minister for Business and Industries mentioned the garnet mining. Olympia Resources, who are hoping to mine the garnets soon, out Winnecke way, will be bringing truckloads every day into Alice Springs, which will then be offloaded from the trucks, then loaded onto the freight train. One of the things the government probably does have to address is the bulk loading facilities at the port here for when the train arrives with all this material.
I believe the whole transport versus the rail thing is an ongoing feast, I guess. It is not static. Perhaps there were some hiccups to begin with but, as things like Olympia Resources get going, there will be other opportunities for people to come around. The Alice Springs Council are doing a study of the impact. Well, what might be today may not be so in five years time, and you certainly cannot stop still and say: ‘Oh, horror, horror, this is what has happened’ when, in fact, there will be benefits that will be ongoing and new opportunities created. We have already seen it, as I say, with many of the passengers who are getting off the train in Alice Springs. I believe we have to have optimism. It is so easy to knock, but it is far better to promote and achieve.
I also bring up a point for the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. There is a family in Alice Springs whose father, James Bransome Orr, worked on the Commonwealth Railways in Alice Springs in 1929. It was when Alice Springs was called Stuart. He spent a lot of time working for the Commonwealth Railways at that time. The family wrote to the Place Names Committee and said: ‘Because he has this affiliation with Alice Springs, we would like to have a street named after him’, or could they consider naming something after him. The Place Names Committee wrote back to them as far as 1996 and said:
Unfortunately, knowing there have not been many new roads in Alice Springs because of the lack of development, there has been no recognition. However, about 18 km north of Alice Springs, there is an overpass that has been built – it is where the train goes underneath. Obviously, the overpass belongs to Transport and Infrastructure. It is my plea to the minister to consider naming that overpass after James Orr because there is a definite link between him and the railway. It is a historic link, but it also recognises his work on the railway in those very early days. I hope the minister will give that his due consideration, because the Place Names Committee recognised the worth of commemoration of him.
There are many people that the Chief Minister and other members in the House have thanked. I will not go through them all. I believe that there should be congratulations to all people, on both sides of the House, public servants, private sector - everyone who has been involved in making this project happen and getting this vision here. I really believe it is one of the biggest projects Australia has had a for a long time.
I wish governments would think with the same sort of vision that they brought to the railway. I am just waiting for the water to be pumped to Alice Springs from the Ord River, even though they keep telling me it has to go uphill, so that is why it makes it so difficult to do so - Alice Springs is so much higher. However, it is that sort of vision that makes this place special.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the Chief Minister for her statement on the railway, and I certainly support the railway and what has happened.
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have to admit I am a railway enthusiast. I like trains and have travelled on many trains in Greece and in Australia. I have travelled in rail cars, steam trains, diesel trains, trams, suburbans. I have travelled in some funicular railways and some cogwheel railways - something unique in Europe.
However, I have to admit the best trip I have ever done by train was from Perth to Adelaide with the Indian Pacific in 1997, leaving Sunday night and arriving in Adelaide on Tuesday morning. It was great being on the train. I was not a rich traveller; I took a sit-up section and spent most of the time in the bar with some other young friends. Then I went to Port Hedland. That is a heaven for railways, considering the fact that there are enormous railway lines - very heavy duty - from Port Hedland to Newman; from Dampier to Paraburdoo; from Karratha to Tom Price. They are all heavy duty haulage railways. In Port Hedland, in particular, they have five engines, 400 to 500 carriages and one driver with a telecontrol system controlling the whole train. The joke in Port Hedland is that, when you stop at the level crossing for the train to pass, you take your book and you start reading because you are going to be there for 10 minutes.
We came to Darwin in 1993 and, of course, one of the first things you do when you go to different, new place, is go to the museum. I recall very well going to the Fannie Bay Gaol Museum . In the Fannie Bay Gaol Museum was the old steam engine and the carriages still there. I read the history and believe it was the train that was used in the film We of the Never Never. Of course, the illusion was shattered when I read in the story that the train was not operational and, when they filmed, there was a truck behind the train pushing it along the railway line so that it looked like the train itself was actually operating.
I learned the history of the train from Darwin to Larrimah. There were all different nationalities that worked on the construction of the railway line - the Chinese, the Greeks. Later, after the closing down of the railway line in 1976 with the sale of all the remaining railway stock to Tasmania, there was the destruction of the railway line by people who used the line as fence material.
In the past few years, we have seen the renaissance of train travel, with many new lines constructed mainly in Europe, the upgrading of lines, the introduction of new fast trains, to such a degree that now trains in Europe can compete with airlines. For example, the train from Paris to Lyon travels at great speed and can do the trip at 150 km/h to 160 km/h and competes very easily with the airlines, especially for people who are not in a great hurry to go from place A to B and return.
It was really disappointing when I read the history of the Territory and found that the first promise of the railway was over 100 years ago and things were not advancing. Promises were made again in parliaments as recently as the 1980s but nothing ever eventuated. I have to say that I was very pleased when, finally, the Territory and federal governments and private sector agreed to the construction of the Alice Springs to Darwin Railway - not only because it is a dream come true but because you can see the potential of such a railway connecting the north to the south of the continent and, ultimately, east to west. In America, when they were building the railways across the United States, they said that railways build a nation. It is true; even today the railways can build a nation despite the fact that we have a very good road network. The fact is that the railway provides the capability to open new areas and new industries and to transport vast amounts of trade fast and efficiently.
The dream now is a reality. I would like to congratulate the people involved in the dream and the planning of the railway and, finally, finding the money, persuading the banks to loan money. Our departments had to come together and work to make the railway a reality. I would like to congratulate Paul Tyrrell who worked tirelessly for this railway to eventuate, and all the people in the departments, the public servants, who worked for the railway - and who still work for the railway. Another person who always had a dream about the railway is Barry Coulter. He was on the Board of the Port Authority and, when I was a minister, I worked very closely with Barry. Even now, Barry is a very strong advocate of the railway. The only difference we have is that Barry does not want to entrust to the railway anything with legs. I believe the railway transport in people or cattle has a great future, particularly people.
I have the portfolios of Mines and Energy and Primary Industry and Fisheries, and I believe my portfolios will benefit the railway greatly. Also, people working in the mining and primary resources industries will benefit from the railway greatly.
The combination of the north-south corridor of the railway, together with the East Arm Port, will create a new seamless system for Australia linking the southern economic interest and centres with the 150 million people who live to our north and are closer to us than Melbourne, Sydney or Adelaide. It opens for us unique opportunities, new markets and the ability to move fast from south to north and through our port to Asia trade and, at the same time, to import quickly from Asia to Australia through our Port of Darwin and through the railway, consumer goods and other goods that we already trade. The reality is that the combination of shipping lines, the port and the railway can do miracles for trade in Australia by shortening significantly the time it takes to send something out or bring something in. For example, from Adelaide to Darwin, the railway will take 43 hours and from Darwin to Singapore will take three to five days, while Singapore to Adelaide by boat takes 10 days, Singapore to Melbourne takes 11 days, Singapore to Sydney takes 12 days, and to carry it to Adelaide 13 days. That is significant savings in time and certainly in costs and, as the trade through the Port of Darwin increases continuously, the price per container will come down which will further attract business and bring more people to utilise the railway and the Port of Darwin.
I was not here during the arrival of the first freight train, but I was here during the arrival of The Ghan. It was a fantastic atmosphere to see the first passenger train come into Darwin. It is something that will remain in my mind. It was a historical event. Adelaide, at last, is joined with Darwin and people can actually travel 43 hours in luxury and comfort from the southern Port of Adelaide to the northern Port of Darwin, something that many years ago people had dreamt when they first started discussing the issue of the railway.
From my point of view, mining in the Territory is a significant commodity and brings the Territory a significant amount of money - 23% of the gross state product is generated by mining. In 2001-02, the mining industry generated $3.2bn, while the energy, production, oil, natural gas and uranium was $1.7m, mineral ore was $900m, and mineral manufacturing accounted for about $501m. They are significant products at this stage in the Territory, and people are talking enthusiastically about the ability to transport huge quantities of minerals all the way to the Port of Darwin.
Bootu Creek is one that is expected to commence operations in mid-2004. The owners of Bootu Creek, which is about 110 km north of Tennant Creek, are talking about 400 000 tonnes per annum of bulk manganese ore that they will bring via road to the railway siding, load it on the train and bring that train to the Port of Darwin to export by ship to Asia. The operators already have explored different ways of loading the ore on to the train. Certainly, people from the Port of Darwin and owners of Bootu Creek and other mines in the Territory recently visited South Africa to explore different bulk loading facilities. The iron ore loading facility is still operational, but it must be altered if we want to load a boat very quickly. We will have to acquire new equipment.
Another big project is the Harts Range garnet project, 157 km north-east of Alice Springs. They are talking about 60 000 tonnes per annum of garnet that will be sent through the Port of Darwin to Asia and America. They expect to increase the ore to 200 000 tonnes per annum. This is expected to commence operations in late 2004.
Other significant volumes to be exported are things that, a few years ago, companies in the Tennant Creek area considered to be spoils without any value, and they would just deposit them outside the mines because they did not have the capacity, the ability or the technology to further process it. As a result, in Warrego there is about six to eight million tonnes of magnetite. Magnetite is used in washing coal or as a metallurgical iron for the production of steel. Six to eight million tonnes of magnetite is a significant volume of ore to be exported. The only way you can export this volume is magnetite is through a railway and, since Warrego is not far away from the Tennant Creek to Darwin railway line, the expectation of the companies is to utilise the railway.
Peko has a rehabilitation project. They acquired the Peko tailings that include two to three million tonnes of magnetite. Once again, they expect to process it and export it to Darwin via the railway. As you can understand, the railway provides that opportunity now to move very quickly, efficiently and very competitively, large volumes of material that before was prohibitive because of the distance and the fact that, if you utilised trucks, you had to use a large number of them, and the time and cost was increased significantly.
Closer to Darwin is the Frances Creek iron ore mine that closed down in the 1980s. It is not confirmed yet, but I believe people are looking at it because it has significant reserves of ore – two million tonnes of iron ore. They are looking at the possibility of freighting it to the Darwin port.
As I announced today, we issued the 700th exploration licence recently, since this government came to power. Of course, this exploration licence translates very quickly to mines. Not only that, but also the exploration licence for gas and oil has significant benefit for the Territory. There are a large number of mining exploration companies looking at the prospects of various areas of the Territory.
Once again, one of the reasons that they are here, as it was explained the other day by Sweetpea Corporation, is the fact that we have the infrastructure; the railway passing the area they are going to explore. That means they can bring equipment very quickly and efficiently and, certainly, if they strike oil, the railway will be one way of providing equipment and material.
Something that we have not considered seriously yet is the primary resources sector. I am aware that, during the Timor crisis, a very entrepreneurial person in Alice Springs cultivated hydroponic lettuces, and he was exporting 5000 head of lettuce every week to the Australian Armed Forces in East Timor.
With the expansion of horticulture in the Territory - we have the table grape production in Ti Tree and date production in Alice Springs – some Aboriginal communities are now exploring the potential of their land to grow olives and grapes. Again, the railway provides the opportunity and ability, with refrigerated modified atmosphere carriages, for export either south or north. I am aware that also people from the Ord River Scheme are looking at the possibility of exporting down south, or even north - from Kununurra to Katherine, and from Katherine, transfer to a train down south. Therefore, the railway currently provides the ability, even to sensitive product like fruit and vegetables, to be transported quickly and efficiently to other markets.
There is a possibility of exporting not live cattle, but value-added meat, with the possibility of a multi-species abattoir to be established in the Territory. Good quality meat products form the Territory can be exported to other states with refrigerated carriages, and the other way around. We currently import to the Territory, and re-export our quality products via Darwin to major Asian ports and centres. We have done very well with exporting seafood; barramundi is doing very well in the United States of America. Territory products are doing very well there. Of course, the railway gives us the opportunity to transport big volumes of these products to other markets outside Australia.
It is a significant step forward. It was a very important issue for the Territory to participate in the construction of the railway, and, as I said, before the train came through. I am a very strong supporter of the railway and tourism. We have seen that the first Ghan brought 400 people to the Territory. I understand that the second or the third Ghan had an extra carriage connected because of the demand. I tell you, it was a great view coming up from Alice Springs to Tennant Creek: driving along the Stuart Highway and, about 300 m to our right, this silver bullet was coming along, with a lot of tourists. It was really fantastic to realise that 400 tourists were coming all the way to Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin.
At the same time, the railway line provides us with different potential. I was talking to the CEO of The Ghan in one of the airport lounges, where we found each other. We were discussing the potential of The Ghan and the railway, and I suggested that, as the railway line is going to be used once or twice a week either side, and it will stay there for the rest of the week, has anybody thought about the possibility of a rail car from Darwin to Katherine, since there was a rail car from Darwin to Larrimah. A photograph of that rail car - and I believe it was in the 1960s, and it was one of the first rail car services that was airconditioned - is still in the Larrimah Railway Museum, where you can see it. However, a rail car service from Darwin to Katherine can accommodate tourists, backpackers, and the people who do not want to travel on The Ghan but who want a comfortable way from going from Darwin to Katherine.
Railways have become very popular for people who live in one town who want to go somewhere to do their business. I recall very well when I was in Bunbury in Western Australia, The Australind train was cancelled by the Liberal government and was reinstated by the Labor government of Western Australia. The Australind was modified and updated - they used new equipment, new rolling stock - and they modified the itinerary so that it would leave Bunbury at 7 am and be in Perth at 9 am or 9.15 am, so people could go to Perth, do their business and then catch The Australind at 4.30 pm or 5 pm and, by 7 pm, be back in Bunbury. Something like that would benefit greatly not only people from Katherine, but those from Adelaide River, Pine Creek or anywhere else where they can catch a train to come to Darwin. It would also benefit the regional centres by bringing down, very efficiently, quickly and comfortably, tourists, backpackers, people who want to go for the day to Katherine and they could come back in the afternoon.
Of course, everything will come down to cost; it is something that will have to be costed. I suppose if it is supported and demanded by the community and has the support and proper advertisement by the operating company, it might be the future. It does not have to be something very expensive or very sophisticated; the regular service can be something that can be established very quickly.
I am very impressed by the quality of the engineering that has taken place for the construction of the railway line; I have seen it. I am very pleased to see, at last, the railway find its way all the way to Darwin. I would like to congratulate, once again, everybody who was involved in dreaming, planning, financing and constructing the railway. I would like to congratulate also the people who worked in the railway during the construction phase - wherever they came from – because, by participating in the construction of a railway line, they were participating in the building of our nation. I would like to commend the Chief Minister for her statement on the railway.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is with pleasure that I talk today on the AustralAsia Railway. It is a dream of 100 years that has finally been realised with the extension of the railway link from Alice Springs to Darwin.
Many people have been mentioned over the last couple of sittings in relation to the railway line and the building and development of it. Therefore, I do not intend to mention people’s names. However, I would like to acknowledge all of the people who were involved in it from South Australia, the Northern Territory, federally, all the public servants – everybody who was involved with it - and the cooperation of the three governments. They worked very well together with private enterprise to bring about the reality of this dream.
I would like to talk mainly about what has happened in Katherine and the benefits that have been afforded to Katherine due to this project. The sleeper factory, which was established in Katherine, employed 50 people at its maximum, with 90% of those locally employed, and 40% of those employed being local indigenous people. Therefore, the economic benefit to Katherine was pretty well received. The factory, while it was producing, produced some 860 000 sleepers.
One of the local companies, called Downes Graderways, set up an accommodation camp on the corner of Zimmen Drive and Victoria Highway, which was only a couple of kilometres from the sleeper factory. This camp began with 100 men, who worked on the track laying, and achieved a maximum of 200 men at one time. It provided employment for locals and, in addition, the associated benefits to business for the supply of goods and services to the camp. In addition, most other accommodation places in Katherine benefited, from time to time, with personnel visiting during the construction.
The track laying began in Katherine in 2002 on my birthday, 8 April. I celebrated! It was the 8 April. The local Katherine people were given the opportunity to watch an amazing piece of equipment lay this track. I do not know if people here had that same opportunity, but most of Katherine was at a vantage point somewhere on the open day allowed for us to go out and have a look at this track laying machinery. It only required three men to operate the machinery, but it was worth mega-dollars. To complete the whole process of laying the sleeper with the track and securing it in one action - this modern technology was almost too much for me. The days of hard labour in the sun by gangs of railway workers are definitely a thing of the past. The record completion time of that railway line is well and truly documented, and quite remarkable considering the dynamics of the huge project.
The arrival of the first freight train in Katherine on Saturday, 17 January, was a very exciting occasion. It was fortunate that it was on a Saturday, because I am sure there were not too many people who slept in that day. Most of them arrived at vantage points either on the overpass - where they were not supposed to be – or in every spot that they did not think they were allowed to be, and they were – which was great because they were up close and personal. We had trouble finding parking, which was wonderful – very exciting. I could not even find a park for my car in Katherine. The majority of the residents were there lined up for great lengths of time to get through the gate to get their souvenirs. Some had actually been there since 4 am to make sure they got their souvenir key ring. Everybody had that opportunity to get right up close to the train. Nobody was prevented from it and, what is more, it was on time. The excitement of the Katherine people certainly added to Tim Fisher’s enthusiasm as he called out from the train as it pulled in. He leaned out of one the carriages, waved his hat and said: ‘It is finally here’, with a great cheer. We were very fortunate that it arrived at the cooler part of the day early in the morning, and everybody was able to get very close and be part of the celebrations without risking their safety.
As the freight train left the Katherine terminal it was farewelled by two big Mack prime movers, from Downes Graderways, which had been placed on either side of the track at the overpass. This was a pretty amazing sight because most of us had been able to walk up fairly close to the overpass and, as the train went very slowly went under the overpass and tooted its horn continuously, the big Macks tooted theirs as well. It was a pretty moving experience for those of us there. It was a great tribute of the road carriage to the rail carriage and an acknowledgement of the future direction of freight carriage in the Northern Territory.
After all that excitement, I was not sure whether The Ghan passenger train would generate that much interest to bring that many people back out to the track, but it certainly did. It was during a weekday. I underestimated how many people would be prepared to come out to the railway line. We did not open my business until after The Ghan had left because we did not want our staff to miss out on a historic opportunity. They would never see that again. It was very special; there were several thousand there. It was very exciting to see so many familiar faces get off that Ghan and to be welcomed and entertained by a fabulous corroboree. That was definitely the highlight for the people getting off The Ghan. I noticed all of the international visitors who were there were attracted to the corroboree immediately. Of course, they were scared witless with three FA18s that flew past very low and left their sound behind them. It was pretty exciting.
The entertainment that was put on by the local people is to be highly commended. The Cantarbillay Choir, the beautiful voices of the young people of Katherine welcoming visitors. The celebrations were extremely well organised by Katherine Town Council and they deserve every praise and thanks, as do all the workers who had to get into some pretty muddy and murky areas the night before to put up all of the covers and the sound systems.
As the train was leaving – it took a while to get everybody back on –three helicopters escorted the train very slowly out of Katherine. That was pretty special because they were able to hover for quite some time while everybody was getting back on. That was very exciting - probably more for us watching than the passengers because they could not appreciate it. However, we did.
Before the passengers left, they were presented with a replica of a rail spike – it was a replica of the old ones they used in the old railway line - and it was made by Earl Gano of Pine Creek. He did a great job and, as a matter of fact, while people might not think it is a very special replica, it related to the railway line. Marjorie Jackson, the Governor of South Australia, was running around trying to find where she could buy some for her grandchildren. We were able to give her a couple.
The building of the railway terminal in Katherine was very much rushed and under a lot of pressure for Trevor Troy to finish that job. Trevor and his subcontractors worked tirelessly to get that terminal building to the stage they did for The Ghan to arrive, and it was extremely difficult considering the weather conditions that they had – very heavy rain stopped work for several days. They had extreme weather conditions and I give them full credit for finishing as much as they did in the time they did.
I am pleased to report that the freight depot under the management of Chris Bennett is very busy and getting busier each week. At present, there are six established companies using the freight train and, so far, over 180 containers have been handled in Katherine. There is great potential, of course, to develop that beneficial link with the Kimberley.
Now that all the excitement of the first trains is settling down, the passenger terminal has finally been finished off, with outdoor lighting, paving, kerbing, landscaping and a general tidying of the area. One of the challenges that is becoming apparent with the railway is that we are faced with weeds starting to grow prolifically all along the track. Obviously, the weed management problem has been discussed with government, so I would like government to advise if appropriate measures have been put in place to deal with the problem.
I have placed three framed posters of the history of the north-south railway, including one photo of construction of the Katherine railway bridge, in the reception area of my electorate office, along with a locally crafted quilted silk, hand-dyed wall hanging - that was a mouth full – depicting the railway from Adelaide to Darwin. This magnificent work was designed and created by local artist Kerryn Taylor. Everyone is welcome to come and have a look because it is a magnificent piece of work.
The new railway line has opened up great opportunities for not only the freight companies, but also for the development of new tourism ventures to cater for the large number of leisure market people we have arriving at our train station each week. It is up to all of us to make sure we give The Ghan passengers a very happy and memorable trip to our great Territory.
One of the previous speakers talked about a passenger train. Several years ago, a company did a feasibility study on a passenger service from Darwin to Katherine. Quite frankly, I have not seen the results so it may not have been good at that time. However, I would like to see a passenger train that services the needs of the sporting community in Katherine. We have a lot of teams that compete in the Top End and it becomes a cost factor that prevents many of them from travelling to Darwin. I would like to see that happen in the not-too-distant future.
I would like to touch on the Steve Irwin incident that occurred prior to The Ghan’s inaugural journey. Great Southern Railway had chosen Steve Irwin as their marketing figure to promote The Ghan internationally and nationally, and named the first locomotive to bring The Ghan to Darwin Steve Irwin. While I appreciate that Steve Irwin is recognised favourably internationally, and is well known and was a great marketing strategy for Great Southern Railway, Steve lost all credibility with me and thousands of others when he decided, very inadvisably, to dangle his one-month old baby son too close – or appeared to be - to a very large crocodile. Whether he was as close as the cameras portrayed or not is not the issue; it was his comments following the uproar of the showing of that footage that generated anger in the community.
I have had several names proposed to me that people consider would be more suitable for the naming of The Ghan locomotive that travels the length of Australia. While some of them are general and common to many proposals, there is one name that stands out, which has not been used anywhere else. That name is Polly. Polly was the name of John McDouall Stuart’s favourite mare, a bay, on his expeditions through the centre of Australia. I had no idea until this person told me about Polly.
The following is an extract from William Hardman’s The Journals of John McDouall Stuart and related to Stuart’s fifth expedition. This extract relates to 25 February 1861:
Apparently, when they arrived back in Adelaide, Stuart would be bedraggled with torn clothing from going through the scrub, but Polly arrived back safe with scratches all over her. The fact that she survived all the expeditions is pretty marvellous, considering the conditions in those time. She was eventually put out to pasture. She survived the trips very well, so I thought Polly was a rather nice name.
To finish, when The Ghan first arrived in Katherine - and I was a little alarmed as to whether Steve Irwin was going to be dragging it into Katherine - I was particularly pleased to see the lead locomotive was called Port Pirie. My husband and I boarded The Ghan in 1989 in Port Pirie, where we were living at that time, to travel to Alice Springs for our very first trip on The Ghan, so I thought it was rather symbolic that it was Port Pirie that brought it through Katherine for the very first time. I am very pleased to see The Ghan arrive. I am pleased to see the freight established the way it is already, and I believe it can only go to bigger and better things for the Territory.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I recall very clearly when the announcement was made that the Alice Springs to Darwin rail project would be given the go-ahead. I was travelling to Blue Bush, an indigenous homeland about 100 km north-west of Tennant Creek. I happened to come across Geoff Liddle, a member of the well-respected Liddle family from Alice Springs. Geoff was out on the rail corridor doing some preparatory work for McMahon’s, and, in his own laid-back way, simply said: ‘It is all going to happen; the rail is a goer. There is going to be an announcement this afternoon’. Naturally, I was as pleased as Geoff Liddle who, along with thousands of other people in the Northern Territory, perhaps thought that we would never see this great project brought to fruition in our lifetime. We always knew it would happen but, perhaps, not as soon as we expected.
At the opening of the sleeper factory in Tennant Creek, I had the opportunity to meet up with Bob Kuch. Bob is a wonderful person, who was also heavily involved and committed to this project, and would often visit Julalikari Council prior to the project getting under way, trying to secure local indigenous employment. On the occasion that I saw him at the sleeper factory, we really did not saying anything to each other, we just shook hands. It was a wonderful moment, I guess, not so much for myself, but more so for Bob who had obviously put in a very great amount of work. I congratulate Bob for all that he has done in respect to this project.
After 75 years of heartache, broken promises, and false starts in respect to the Alice Springs to Darwin Railway, it has finally happened. I wish to pay tribute to the courage and commitment of members on both sides of this House who fought so hard and long. Sometimes, there are accusations that whilst we were in opposition we were not supportive of this great project. Nothing could be further from the truth. There would not be a member, past or present, who did not support this project. That is why it is important that this great rail project should not stand as a monument to any one politician or one political party. It is a monument to the people of the Northern Territory, the people who we, collectively, represent.
At this point in time, I also pay tribute to a number of people involved, such as Paul Tyrell, Neil Conn, Larry Bannister, Des Smith, Phil Cross, Bob Kuch again, Duncan Beggs, David Ross and Tracker Tilmouth from the CLC, and also Norman Fry and Galarrwuy Yunupingu from the Northern Land Council. All of these people played an important role. I particularly pay tribute to the traditional owners whose country the train now traverses. Thanks also to people associated with Asia Pacific Consortium and, of course, a whole host of people attached to ADrail. It is not appropriate for me to name everyone here, obviously, other members have done that. However, I very sincerely thank very much all those members involved over a very long period of time, on behalf of the people of the Territory.
Of course, it would be remiss of me not to express my appreciation to our Chief Minister for her stewardship of this project, and having the foresight and vision to factor in the passenger tourist component. I also pay tribute to the previous Chief Minister, Denis Burke, and, obviously, to other Chief Ministers, such as Shane Stone and Paul Everingham, and to Barry Coulter who also played an important role - a very crucial role in respect of the finalisation of this project.
I would like to extend my appreciation to all the workers in whatever capacity they served: from surveying to clearing the line, undertaking earthworks, working in the quarries, making the sleepers, and doing the catering. All of these people deserve a special mention. Perhaps we should give some consideration to rounding up a list of people from the Northern Territory who were involved and are working on the project, and write them a short note thanking them for their contribution, because it was an important one.
The crowds up and down the track celebrating the arrival of both the freight train and The Ghan were superb, but none more so than the people of Tennant Creek - particularly our younger people who turned out in their hundreds - probably in excess of 2000 people for both events. Particular thanks to the organisers, the Tennant Creek Town Council and their CEO David Wormald; Eric Schoppe, the works manager; Wendy Matthews, the Project Liaison Officer with the Tennant Creek Town Council; and also Mike Baker and all the workers. They worked very hard. In fact, on the night that the freight train went through, they did not complete their operations until about 3 am. I extend my thanks to them and also to Bonnie Kappler Thompson from DIPE. Bonnie played an important role. To the service clubs, thank you very much. Also, most importantly, to the cadets from the Tennant Creek High School who acted as traffic wardens on both occasions. These young people performed their duties beyond their years and are a credit to themselves, their parents and, more importantly, the community.
The freight train arrival and the opening of the freight terminal was very special for the Warumungu people, and none more so than for Ruth Dawson whose artwork appears on one of the locomotives.
The celebrations are now over and the task begins to value-add to the freight and tourism opportunities that will clearly flow from this new and exciting project. In Tennant Creek about a month ago, I had the opportunity to witness the unloading of 44 tonnes of bananas from Lakeland, a small community about 75 km south-east of Cooktown. Previously, this freight had gone from Cooktown to Parkes, then on the train through to Sydney on through Adelaide to Perth. Clearly, there were economic advantages, and those bananas are now coming to Tennant Creek where they are put into refrigerated containers and continue on their way to Perth.
FCL are now actively marketing for produce from the Bowen/Burdekin area in Queensland - products such as corn, pineapples, and beans. Ross Keenan, the manager of the FCL in Tennant Creek, has basically said: ‘If it comes out of the ground, we will freight it’. I congratulate Ross for his foresight and aggressive approach in developing Tennant Creek as a freight haven. FCL are also accessing furniture and other such household goods from Mt Isa via Wridgeways. These containers are then trucked in to Tennant Creek, then on the train to Adelaide and Perth. I also understand that there are some items and goods that are actually coming on to Darwin. Copper oxide is rail freighted from Burra in South Australia to Tennant Creek and to Mt Isa for the mines. Cement is freighted down from Darwin to Tennant for Giants Reef.
FCL are converting the sleeper factory into a warehouse, and the sleeper factory will revert to a three-bed factory as opposed to the previous 10-bed configuration. My advice is that the sleeper factory will be in production again, possibly with the potential to provide up to 10 jobs. In the not-to-distant future, Bootu Resources will be operating a manganese mine 110 km north of Tennant Creek, freighting about 400 000 tonnes of manganese per year to the port here in Darwin for export.
Trevor Tennant of Bootu Resources, also Territory Iron, will also be freighting approximately one million tonnes of magnetite from the Warrego tailings 50 km west of Tennant Creek, per year, for the next five or six years bringing, potentially, another 10 jobs. The Minister for Mines and Energy has also referred to the Peko rehabilitation project and I know that Jack Savage is very keen to freight the magnetite tailings which, I understand, are around about $4m for export as well.
Giants Reef have increased their gold production from about 60 000 ounces to 100 000 ounces per year and will spend about $2.2m on exploration drilling their Comstock/Eldorado corridor, and also near there existing mine at Chariot. These initiatives by Giants Reef provide real confidence for other mining and exploration companies to link with the rail. I have no doubt that, in the medium to long-term, copper and iron ore will also be rail freighted out of Tennant Creek to the port for export.
I just want to say something about Giants Reef. It is a gutsy and innovative mining company and, obviously, we will talk about their successes at another time. However, on this occasion I would like to pay tribute to Nick Byrne, one of the founding fathers of Giants Reef who stuck with Tennant Creek and Giants Reef through the hard times. Nick is a visionary. He always respected the rights of indigenous peoples’ undeniable connections to their land. Nick never played games, never played politics with the Warumungu people. Nick always told me, as indeed he did to whoever wanted to listen, that the rail link between Adelaide and Darwin would return Tennant Creek to its glory days as Australia’s and the Northern Territory’s premier mining province. Bear in mind that, at today’s prices, in excess of $5.5bn of gold bullion have been mined from areas surrounding Tennant Creek.
To you, Nick, and the Board of Directors of Giants Reef, past and present, you were right about Giant’s Reef and I have a gut feeling that you are going to be right about Tennant Creek. In fact, only last week, Joe Ariti, the CEO of Giants Reef said to the Minister for Mines and Energy and I that they were fishing. They were getting the odd nibble and catching the smaller fish; they were waiting patiently to catch the big barra. I sincerely hope that they do. What a great day that would be for that mine if indeed it occurred, so every best wish to everyone associated with Giants Reef.
As mentioned previously, the challenge for us in the Barkly is how to grow jobs as a result of the completion of the rail line. We made a start last week at a mining industry seminar which was held in Tennant Creek and attended by 100 participants. About a quarter of those participants were local businesses and, clearly, their focus was how they were going to utilise the rail or the industries value-added to the rail in providing goods and services. Ross Keenan, the manager of SCL, will soon be visiting many of the pastoral properties, marketing Tennant Creek as a freight hub. Members may or may not be aware, but the vast majority of purchases for goods from the pastoral properties in the Barkly are from Queensland, and Ross’s message will be very simple: ‘We will freight your goods by rail to Tennant and distribute by road’. An immense potential exists for companies like Wesfarmers and Elders to set up in Tennant Creek and, obviously, grow the local community.
The Minister for Mines and Energy previously mentioned the abattoir in Tennant Creek, which is possibly Australia’s best regional abattoir and has an export licence. Clearly there is some capacity, and a lot of potential in regards to that operation coming back into existence and, hopefully, adding to the economy in Tennant Creek and the Barkly in being able to freight meat and other products for export.
Ms Jenny Purdie and Peter Davenport from DBIRD are also planning a pastoral industry Meet the Buyers seminar, similar to the mining industry one that occurred in Tennant Creek previously mentioned. They are talking about coinciding this pastoral industry Meet the Buyers seminar with the Tennant Creek Show. It may be a bit soon, but certainly next year in May, it could be tied in with the proposed Barkly May Day Muster, a new major event centred around the horse sports industry. It is a real possibility.
Horticultural production is now very feasible around Tennant Creek. Places like Ali Curung, Singleton Station, Gilberts Swamp, Helen Springs, Elliott have immense potential to grow mangoes and other goods for shipment to the southern markets. For this to occur, we have to be very aggressive in terms of developing strategies. It is perhaps something that the Office of Territory Development might like to look at: how they can provide assistance and support to the local communities and, of course, local companies and to the private sector in general, in developing an industry around Tennant Creek.
Without doubt, the upgrading of the Warrego Road to Lajamanu holds the key to Tennant Creek becoming a large freight hub. At the moment, all the freight from the eastern seaboard comes via Tennant Creek to The Granites and Tanami Mines. I have always believed that, by upgrading the Lajamanu road, companies will use Tennant Creek as a freight hub to service those two mines and those potential sites that will undoubtedly come on line between Tanami, Granites and Warrego. Again, that is another opportunity and another challenge for government. I am absolutely certain and convinced that we will make every effort to ensure that it occurs. Quite apart from that, I suspect that economics will demand, at some time in the future, that the road be upgraded.
The other topic on which I wish to speak very briefly is that, obviously, there will be opportunities for tourism for Tennant Creek as, indeed, there will be for all the other regional centres throughout the Northern Territory. The Tennant Creek Regional Tourism Association is now in the process of being restructured. Consideration will be given to representation from people across the Barkly. My understanding is that it will be renamed the Barkly Regional Tourism and Marketing Association. Clearly, apart from the drive market, a real focus will be developed over time in respect of The Ghan. Coober Pedy in South Australia attracts tourists to their community very well, and there is no reason to believe that Tennant Creek cannot go down the same path.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank everyone associated with the rail over a very great period of time. On behalf of the people of the Northern Territory, we extend our appreciation and thanks for your input. I commend the Chief Minister’s statement to the House.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Mr Deputy Speaker, like everyone in this House, today I congratulate all those who have been involved in delivering the Alice Springs to Darwin leg of the railway to the Northern Territory. It has been a wonderful achievement which many of us have held our breath about for quite some time. It was marvellous last month to be able to let go and enjoy the moment as both the freight train and the passenger train, for the first time, came all the way from Adelaide to Darwin.
As far as I am concerned, the railway line from Alice Springs to Darwin is one piece in a complex jigsaw that is all fitting together very nicely now. When you add in the port that we have built, the wonderful harbour that we have here, the secure government of the Northern Territory - regardless of which party’s in power - the government system of Australia, which provides security to Australians, it makes us very attractive for investors from Australia and from overseas, as we sit here at the gateway into Asia. With our port and railway, with our soon-to-be completed gas plant, these are all pieces that are falling into place to deliver prosperity to the Northern Territory so that one day we will not have to rely on the largesse of southern taxpayers. Instead, we will be generating the income to assist our southern Australians.
One piece that is missing, and I am quite sure will come on board in the near future, is the arrival of gas to the Northern Territory, which we can actually use to generate power here in the Top End which will provide cheaper power so that we get a manufacturing base kicking off in real strength in Darwin. My prediction is that, within the next 50 years or so, we will really see Darwin bloom. My congratulations to all the people and the companies who have been involved in the delivery of the railway to the Top End of the Territory.
There are a couple of less than satisfactory points which I feel I must speak on. First of all, is the site of the railway station. Everyone is very well aware that it is not actually in Darwin per se, but just outside of Palmerston. As far as I am concerned, it was the cheap, easy site for the passenger train arrival. It certainly lends nothing to the joy of arrival for passengers on The Ghan. My understanding is that, for many of them, they have to get out of the train a long way from the station, traipse along the surface there to get to the station, hauling their baggage. If they are lucky they can get a taxi. I know that when the first Ghan arrived, it was many hours before they could actually get into Darwin itself. Therefore, the site is a disappointment; it was easy and cheap. My hope is that, one day, as Darwin and the Territory prospers, we will have the money to avail ourselves of a far more dramatic entrance to Darwin. That may be, as I have mentioned in the past, a rail on pylons around the edge of the harbour so that people would have the most amazing arrival or departure from Darwin crossing areas of the harbour. This would not be an engineering impossibility; it is something that could be considered. If that is not something that can be done, we still have a rail corridor that goes into the CBD area. There may be an opportunity there to allow for the rail to extend so that people can actually get off in Darwin and not have to go through the logistical trouble that they have at the moment in getting from the bush site at Palmerston into the Darwin urban area which, quite frankly, is where most of them intend to go.
The arrival of the first train, the freight train, as we all know, ended up being a disappointment for many people who had gone to the rail sidings in an effort to catch a sight of the train as it went through, particularly in the rural areas of Darwin and Palmerston. I have had a number of people complain to me about the fact that there was so little warning that the train would actually go through sooner than expected. To think back on to that day, which was an incredibly hot and humid day, and of the people who possibly spent hours waiting for the train to come, not realising that it already passed, I know it was hugely disappointing for them.
Another point which I touched on last week, and I will only comment on briefly here, is the naming of one of the engines Steve Irwin. As members would be aware, this is a hugely disappointing name now, given this man’s notoriety and his behaviour in dangling his one-month-old baby, while feeding by hand a crocodile at his zoo in Queensland, for the titillation and excitement of paying customers. The use of the name Steve Irwin does nothing to enhance the image of the Northern Territory. In fact, I would suspect many people from other countries would think that Steve Irwin is meant to be synonymous with Territorians. I am sure all of us would be horrified to think that people would draw that conclusion. We have far greater respect for crocodiles, and I cannot imagine that there would be any Territorian who would condone the behaviour that occurred.
I plead with the Chief Minister to do all in her power to negotiate with the parties involved to have the name Steven Irwin removed from that engine; to stop having his name linked to the promotion of the Northern Territory and South Australia; and to replace the name with something far more uplifting which, to my mind, would be Albert Namatjira. He was a man who contributed vastly to the cultural wealth of the Northern Territory and Australia and who, I am sure, we all admire, and whose artwork could feature - obviously in prints - in The Ghan for the enjoyment of the passengers as they travel through the land that his artwork represents.
On a more cheerful concluding note, one of the joys that has come out of this railway and its saga has been the penning of the song, the Railway Song, by two friends of mine, Wayne Zerbe and Terry Mills. I am sure I have not heard the last of it. I look forward to hearing it years from now, and I congratulate those two men on their creative abilities with regards to the train. Once again, I congratulate everybody involved in this wonderful achievement.
Dr BURNS (Transport and Infrastructure): Mr Deputy Speaker, I add my comments to the important debate in parliament concerning the Alice Springs to Darwin railway and vice versa, Darwin to Alice Springs, or Darwin to Adelaide, or Adelaide to Darwin - it all sounds music to my ears.
Through the debate on this statement, there has been a lot of talk about parentage of the railway. It is very important to put things on the record. I have listened with a lot of interest on those issues. Certainly, Barry Coulter is someone who deserves a lot of credit for his energy, vision and perseverance in bringing this railway to a reality. There is no doubt that Barry Coulter has been very appropriately recognised for his contribution. He could certainly claim a lot of credit, along with others over the last 100 or so years, for this railway that we have all waited so long to see and applaud.
It was Barry who used a saying: ‘Success has many parents, but failure is always an orphan’. That saying of Barry’s really has come true. This is very successful, and there are many people who - I suppose most of them legitimately - want to claim some part of the railway. Bob Collins, I suppose, in a mix of cynicism - or just to balance the ledger probably would be a better way to put it - recently said they would need to do a DNA assessment to discover the parents of the north-south rail link. It is proper that we should recognise those who contributed, but it is probably impossible to name them all. I am not going to try and do it here tonight because many others have. However, I have saluted the hard work of Barry Coulter over many years. He put his energy and resources, in a willing and enthusiast way, along with the public sector, to help develop and promote this particular project.
I would particularly like to pay tribute to the member for Brennan. I was moved by his contribution here. Politics and the hurly-burly of politics aside, once all that politics has gone to the horizon, Dennis Burke, the member for Brennan, will be and is recognised for the contribution that he has made to this project. It is evident to me, particularly after his contribution in this debate, that he put his heart and soul into this project. I commend him for that. It is an achievement of which he can justifiably be proud. He has played a great part in the development of the railway, and bringing it into reality.
There has been talk about the history of the railway over many years but, going back through the records, in more recent time Brian Ede also played a part. He gave the project a little of a jump start in October 1991. He brought forward a matter of public importance and, basically, asked some questions about where the project was. In a way, that probably really facilitated things to move forward to the next stage. It was in that same debate that I mentioned that the then Opposition Leader, Brian Ede called it the north-south railway and proposed port redevelopment, the Australia/Asia trade link, which is fairly similar to AustralAsia Rail Corporation and the freight operator is FreightLink. Therefore, Brian Ede can certainly claim some worthwhile contribution to the development of the railway. In that context, there was a spirit of bipartisanship in all of this because I know that Barry Coulter worked with the then opposition and gave them briefings, and talked to Labor Caucus in relation to issues concerning the rail project. That is evidence of a bipartisan approach associated with this project.
However, moving to my contribution as Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, the completion of the north-south rail and port link provides real opportunities for trade development and, in particular, the development of stronger exports. Our primary producers, among others, are now able to easily transport goods from regions directly to the Darwin East Arm Wharf, ready for export within a day or so, which is a huge a boost to their trading capacity.
Recently, I talked with representatives of a major shipping company who attended the Global Freight Connect Conference which was hosted by the government some four or so weeks ago. This particular company is already heavily involved in shipping through the Port of Darwin, and they are very excited about the opportunities that the rail and port connection has now made available. They advised me of current and planned investments that are being made by freight forwarders to capitalise on this project. These investments are a clear vote of confidence in both the railway and the Territory, the Territory economy and opportunities within the Northern Territory.
Enhanced freight capacity is not the only benefit that the railway brings to the Territory. Clearly, communities and small businesses of the towns which the rail link travels along have already benefited from the construction process. The influx of rail workers brought with it demand for goods and services, and provided a short-term boost to these communities that will now be replaced in part by the tourists travelling on the world-renowned Ghan. The degree of international interest in this unique rail journey has exceeded all expectations, and there is every sign that this interest will continue.
I know that tourism operators, particularly smaller operators, are very excited by the prospects brought to the Territory by The Ghan. The completion of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway also provides new challenges to Territorians in relation to road and rail safety. While the people of Alice Springs, particularly those who travel south of The Gap, have lived with the railway for many years, those living and working in the towns along the Alice Springs to Darwin route are still becoming familiar with the traffic changes and safety issues that have accompanied the arrival of the railway.
As members would know, the biggest safety issue is that of road and rail crossings. Traffic control at railway level crossings in the Northern Territory is determined using Australian Standards based on car and train numbers as well as the physical characteristics of the crossing location. Level crossings on the Tarcoola to Alice Springs railway line in the Northern Territory comply with Australian Standard recommendations and national best practice guidelines. It is a credit to the designers of the new section of the railway that the standard of the level crossings on the Alice Springs to Darwin section of the railway line exceeds best practice guidelines. This was done to promote public confidence and safety awareness, as a whole new set of road users encountered railway level crossings on the Stuart and Victoria Highways and in other built-up areas of the Northern Territory.
A Northern Territory Rail Crossing Safety Committee has been established through my Department of Infrastructure and Planning. This committee meets regularly, and its members include operators, police, owners, regulators, users and safety groups in both the road and rail industry, who promote operational and safety issues associated with the railroad interface.
The Rail Crossing Safety Committee will maintain an ongoing review of safety issues at level crossings throughout the Northern Territory in accordance with best practice guidelines. Level crossings in the Alice Springs area will be reviewed as the initial priority. There have been a number of issues raised by the public regarding these crossings and a recent serious incident that will be included in the review. I have already given a commitment to the member for Araluen that I will accompany her to inspect rail crossings in Alice Springs when I am next there, and discuss any concerns that may have been raised with her by local residents.
Further to the work done by the Rail Crossing Safety Committee, a memorandum of understanding regarding level crossings is currently being developed within the Department of Infrastructure and Planning, between FreightLink, as owner of the infrastructure, and local government authorities. This agreement will establish governance principles for level crossings and will identify responsibilities and maintenance obligations for all level crossings in the Northern Territory, taking into account the existing obligations of FreightLink in respect of level crossings.
The member for Katherine raised a very important issue in relation to weeds in the rail corridor. I place on the record that the Bushfires Council and pastoralists have made their concerns known to me in respect of fire issues associated with the corridor. Now that ADrail have passed ownership of the corridor to FreightLink, government is in a position to negotiate with FreightLink, who I understand have contracted weed and fire control of the corridor out to another company. These are important issues and I am mindful of them. I thank the member for Katherine for raising them. Given the quite wet Wet Season we have had this year, we need to attend to these things carefully because we do not want either fire or weeds getting out of control. They are issues that we need to take up with the owners of the corridor to ensure that control measures are in place. I will pursue them.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion, regardless of the parentage and forensic DNA profiling, it is without doubt that the Alice Springs to Darwin railway - and, added to that, the Adelaide to Darwin railway - has become one of Australia’s greatest land transport achievements and captured the imagination of all Australians and many international visitors. It is a great credit to all involved from the government and private sectors. I commend them all. The railway is already paying dividends into the Northern Territory economy, helping to build business, promoting tourism and providing a conduit for export trade development.
The Chief Minister has emphasised a number of points, including that the first freight and passenger trains are not the end of the story; they are the beginning. Now it is incumbent on government, Territorians and business to grow and use the railway, to employ the railway for the best possible result for the Territory. That is our commitment as a government. We will be building on the very good work that preceded us; I have acknowledged some of the key players. I am proud to be part of it, looking into the future, and I commend the Chief Minister’s statement to the House.
Ms MARTIN (AustralAsia Railway): Madam Speaker, I thank everyone for their contributions. Particularly noteworthy were the positive contributions because, whatever side of the political divide one is on, this is a great project for the Territory, and one that has been celebrated right throughout the Territory. I really want to commend those who, in their contribution to the debate, recognise this as a great achievement.
We have talked it for the best part of 120 years. The commitment was given in the early 20th century. It was 1907 when the federal government discussed with the South Australian government that they would build us a railway, just for the price of having us hand it back to the federal government. It was signed and sealed, supposedly, by 1910. It has just taken a little while to get here, and a lot of effort. That what was really recognised in the debate; that a lot of people have contributed commitment and hours of hard work. They have committed to what seemed like a dream at times, and made it a reality. This has been an extraordinary feat, from those involved in the Territory working with South Australia, the Commonwealth assistance, but also all those in the private sector and the public sector who made this great project come alive.
It is appropriate to talk about this as nation building. It is not just a Territory dream realised. This is about nation building. All it takes is looking at a map to see how this has really added such a strong component to the sense of Australia as a nation, now that we have rail connecting all the capital cities, except Hobart.
I want to make a point about those who whinged about a lot of things; it was really disappointing. It was done from a partisan basis by those who could not say this is a great project, it has been done with commitment and energy and done well. However, there were members on the other side of the House whose entire contribution was negative and whingeing, and that is very disappointing, because this was an opportunity to say thanks for the hundreds of people - those who worked on it, and brought it to financial close - everybody who was associated with getting this great project done.
Of course, as the member for Johnston just said, this is only the start. This is not the finish of anything. It is actually the finish of building a rail, and one that has taken a lot of dreaming and a lot of commitment to happen. However, this is really the beginning of the challenge. If you thought that stage one - that is, getting to financial close and construction - was the tough one, really, the serious challenge now is making it work. The start has been great. The start has been beyond expectation. The freight moving into the Territory has happened quickly, and freight going south has been beyond expectation.
The Ghan - not in the original calculations - has brought enormous and immediate success in tourism. The flow-on to our economy just from those passengers - the extra 30 000 who will use The Ghan to come north and go south each year - has an immediate flow-on to the economy and, certainly, a great benefit for tourism and the broader retail area.
The criticism of the passenger terminal at Darwin. We had problems with Tennant Creek, and I think we sorted that out – nod from member for Barkly; yes we sorted that out. It is interesting that there was significant criticism about the passenger terminal at this end. As we have always said, this was not part of the original calculations for building the rail. It was an addition after financial close, and it was really in response to Great Southern Rail’s real enthusiasm about being part of all this. I believe we have put in very effective rail terminal buildings. Yes, you would not say that the one in Darwin is forever. It is not a permanent structure for the next 10 or 50 years, but certainly to meet the needs of a once-a-week train, it is adequate and Great Southern Rail are very impressed with it. Initially, there have been some teething problems with public transport there and how passengers are getting off the train. It will be sorted out. We are working with Great Southern who are actually operating it, to make sure we sort out those issues. Descriptions of ‘it is a grotty place to see Darwin’ are absolute rubbish! To look back over Darwin from that side of the port is a wonderful sight. For anyone criticising where it is and saying it is a grotty, mangrove-ridden, sand fly-ridden area, has it wrong and is not really seeing the potential of that site. It was done cost effectively. It was not a mean and cheap option, but was done cost effectively.
With regard to the discussions about the need to have a spur line in to Darwin – just start adding the tens of millions on. When you are looking at whether you spend those tens of millions, and whether it is realistic, anyway, to bring the train into Darwin, then compare that with putting that money towards a convention and exhibition centre, there is no difficulty in deciding where those funds should go. The flow-on to our economy from a convention and exhibition centre is significant. Where the passenger terminal is to meet a train once a week is adequate for 2004. We will be monitoring the situation into the future.
One of the great things about coming up, both with the freight train and with The Ghan, was the true delight of South Australians and Territorians to see those trains. The celebration was contagious, Madam Speaker, as you experienced in Alice Springs - it was contagious. However, it was not only from South Australia and the Territory; it was the rest of Australia which was also caught up by this wonderful experience – this new experience – and the rest of the world. On The Ghan, there was international media making documentaries, reporting daily on what was happening. There was the BBC, CNN; there was world coverage for the Territory and our wonderful environment, with the opportunity of one of the world’s great train journeys just starting - 3000 km.
This is a time for celebration. It is a time for marking the end of a long journey in getting the train to happen. It is congratulating those who have been involved, but also looking to the future and looking to - because of this new trade route and passenger route - a more prosperous and brighter future for all Territorians. The thanks we need to make have been made by every member who contributed to this debate, but we should never forget those who put their heart and soul and hard work into making this happen.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Continued from 27 November 2003.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, at the outset, it is the intention of the opposition to support this bill. Nonetheless, it is beholden upon us to draw attention to areas of concern.
Before doing so, I note that it is a comprehensive reform,, and the process that was implemented to arrive at this bill could justifiably receive some criticism. However, I do not want to put too much weight on criticisms of the amount of time that was allowed for community consultation, when we acknowledge that there were over 40 public submissions, which are commendable. There could always be comments about the process, the time frame, the cost, and so on.
One criticism that I make is that the report that we have - the final report, which was finalised and tabled in October 2003 - contains so many recommendations. Often, the recommendations conflict with each other. I would have thought it would be more useful if we had a refining of those recommendations because, in fact, we have the whole range of possibilities against most of the options flagged, which makes it rather difficult to respond to if we have a choice. It is like when you put your kids in front of the fridge and tell them they can have a drink from the fridge. That slows the process down because they look at every possible drink that is in the fridge and it takes them so darn long to choose. Whereas, if you want to speed the process up you say ‘Fanta or Coke’ and we have the decision made quite quickly. So I would have to say that though the recommendations that follow from the community consultation and so on are admirable and, in some case well considered, the do cover just about every possible base.
I would like to move to a couple of areas of concern. The first one is the fact that we have had registered the amendments - I think they came through on Tuesday, which is only yesterday. Contained in those amendments was the third amendment being the registration of political parties. That is an amendment that really threw me and members of the opposition. In the original bill, I believe it refers to the number of 50 that would be required to constitute a political party. Now the figure is 200. That is a quantum leap and it leaves me, and anyone who would be looking at this bill, to speculate as to why there is that quantum leap from 50 to 200. We could go down conspiracy theory lines and think that now the Labor Party has come to power, the power has seduced so that, by the utilisation of this mechanism with 200 required to formulate an official party, it basically takes it out of the reach of community groups and puts it largely into only the domain of more established parties such as the ALP or CLP.
It seems to fly against the community perception of the Labor Party that they are the supporters and encouragers of community activity. Fifty is fine; we recommended 100. The report, which I am happy to go into in a moment, recommended 20 I think; and the Greens recommended 10. In the spirit of the reform, it needs to take on board that this whole process is not about the retention of power; it is about the empowering of the citizens so that, if they do have the desire to gather together and express their voice in an organised sense, they are authorised and enabled to do so by the construct of the legislation. By having it change from 50 to 200, it is such a departure from every held view - including previously held positions by the Labor Party - it just leaves me puzzled as to what on earth is behind this change.
I want to hear and understand the thinking behind this quantum change at the last moment. I am sure many Northern Territory community groups would also be wanting to know what is behind such a change. Is it that the organisation of like-minded people into official groups that could appear by name on a ballot paper could either pose a strategic threat to the Labor Party? We had the ploy that was used by our political opponents during the last election - admittedly, effectively – against One Nation. By raising the bar so high that the birds of a philosophical feather that may flock together around the Labor cause would cause some embarrassment - such as extremist leftist groups that may lower the tone a bit and make the perception you are endeavouring to project to the community of being responsible citizens a bit hard - the strategy that you used against the CLP in the last election could come back and bite soundly. Some people may speculate that is the rationale.
Whatever the rationale, a question that lodges soundly in the minds of the community is going to be: what on earth is going on here? I will say it again: it flies against the fine-sounding rhetoric of the Labor Party when they say they are the champions of the people. Today, we have had extensive discussion, and the basic defence and line of argument was that ‘we are looking after the people’. This amendment denies and refutes that sentiment. I look for further clarification from the Chief Minister on that very important point. I am sure it will be raised by my colleagues and others. I know the member for Nelson would be concerned about that amendment and the thinking behind it.
I move now to the timing. In my analysis of the bill, I cannot see the mechanism for transition between the current situation and the new situation. I am left to see that, when we reach the point of making a decision in this Chamber – and let us presume that it is passed and becomes law this evening – from that point on, we have a completely new system.
Ms Martin: Yes, when the Administrator signs it.
Mr MILLS: Therefore, does that take effect from that point forward in election timings? It is difficult to see within the bill the mechanisms to transit from one to another in the need for a redistribution. When does that occur?
Ms Martin: In the bill.
Mr MILLS: Go on. You are going to have your opportunity to explain it in detail. I will endeavour to outline as best I can, Chief Minister, the concerns that I have.
Ms Martin: That is fine. You were asking me directly. I thought you wanted an answer.
Mr MILLS: There seems to be an absence of clarity in understanding when this will actually apply. When this is created as law, does it mean that, contained within is the whole new timetable regime regarding redistribution and the earliest possible date for the next Territory election? I look forward to receiving clarification on that matter.
I would like to touch, whilst I am still on timing, on terms. It was interesting to see what the community had to say about timing. I will give my own views on that. I have spent time observing two elections recently; one was in Victoria and the other in New South Wales. In Victoria, there was this prolonged sense of anticipation, and jostling and speculation as to when the election was going to be called. I was involved in that - observed it from a distance - and spent a little time in Victoria.
Then, on my way back, I called through New South Wales and said: ‘So you have an election coming? When, about?’ They said: ‘No, we know exactly when it is coming’. They had, in one of the officers I called into, a calendar and it said something like: ‘143 days to go’. I said: ‘You mean it is set, that is it?’. ‘Yes’. It was a completely different approach. The community did not have to go into that sense of speculation; they knew when it was going to be on. The campaign was so different, and I felt that the whole agitation and unnecessary travail that the community goes through when they know that the political parties, particularly government, are jostling for the best position and playing the game to the gallery so that, finally, when the gallery is leaning their way, then whacko! they will jump it on them. Or perhaps they hold it off and it creates a level of frustration in the community.
However, by contrast, in New South Wales, I have to say it was a completely different approach. I felt that it was cleaner and put less pressure on the public service. It tidied up the public agenda, and the media did not have to spend all their time speculating. They probably had time to write about other things of more importance, as to when. It is reflected here in the Territory when we have council elections; it is clear when that is occurring.
I was persuaded that fixed terms, as a result of my experience, would be a courtesy that would be well worth extending to the Northern Territory community. Then, when I looked at some of the other arguments, I thought, I certainly do not like the idea when it could be any old time, and the community is strung out and they start talking this nonsense. Every time you go to a barbecue they say: ‘When is the next election?’ ‘Don’t know, it could be now, it could be then, or whatever’. You get tired of that. I believe the community actually wants to just talk about how things are going, and when we have the opportunity to decide, finish it, and talk about the issue rather than the timing.
In the end, I guess I am happy with the compromise, but I would have felt better if it had been the fixed term. I am sure that I recall the Chief Minister, whilst in opposition, was wedded to the idea of fixed term. It appears to me, once again, that in the issue of raising the bar from 50 to 200, something is lost when there is translation from one side of the Chamber to the other. I refer once again to the seduction of power. To give yourself that option to position yourself so that you are able to be in the most strategically beneficial time to your own agenda is probably just a little too tempting. Therefore, you have gone back a bit on the position that I understand you were previously wedded to.
Going to the voting, I was also really hoping that we would see some fairly strong recommendations. They may be in there, Chief Minister. However, I spent many hours looking at this and I could not see that there had been changes made to look after the citizens when they turn up to vote. We have had so many discussions at Central Council - and I am sure you have had, amongst your party - of whether we should take this position and pay the citizens a compliment and say: ‘Look, stress-free voting’. I could not find it in there. I thought we could at least have gone some distance to take the pressure off them. I know freedom of speech and all that is difficult.
There was one comment made in the consultation feedback that I thought had real merit; that being the express lane. If you wanted to turn up to vote, you could have that express lane like you have at the shopping centre - if you only have eight items, just swoosh - straight through. If you are going to vote and you know what you are going to do - you do not want to be hassled - you could go through this line where you are not allowed to be hassled. Therefore, you were given that freedom to attend your place of voting without the hassle. I reckon that has real merit. However, I cannot find it in the legislation that we are debating now; it is just the same as it was, and will be for some time.
I go now to an issue of concern of assisted voting - a vexed issue. However, at the heart of this lies the question of - as was mentioned - education and the empowering of the citizenry to be in a position to make, ultimately, their choice without outside interference. Going down the other path, we meet such ideas as paternalism and we violate - if there is assistance, as it is offered in this legislation - that very central principle that it is ‘Your choice; you choose, in private, in secret’. That is the sacred cornerstone of our democracy. The well-intentioned offers of assistance violate that and can be seen in quite another light, because I believe it is actually not providing the right message or the right context for a citizen to be empowered to ultimately make their own choice and take responsibility for their own decision. Worse than that, it leaves the opportunity open for the distortion or the manipulation of the electoral process, because it does not take too much of an imagination to see how it could be organised to find appropriate assistance of ‘let me help you vote’, rather than ‘you help me to vote’. I do not see the adequate protection in there between ‘I actually want to make my own mind up but I request assistance’, rather than the organised assistance. I cannot see adequate protection for the rorting of the system by having organised assistance. It could have been avoided by having only the electoral officer, the person in attendance, manage that assistance.
Recommendation 52, in fact, is an adequate measure recognising that, of course, there are those who have the need for assistance. They want to vote, but there is a protection against the system being rorted. In recommendation 52, I read:
In this recommendation I see that central is ‘the electoral officer’.
Going back to read from the report - I have observed this too, and it is not so much in the domain of the system being rorted, but is the violation of that sense of the individual making a choice. I have seen those individuals - this is in a federal election - coming up to make their choice and, because there is a capacity for assistance, and the assistance and the scrutineers are there, you get a crowd of people standing around. I have seen the person who is actually there to make that choice feel quite intimidated. That is the last thing we want. I do not see adequate protection against that, and that disappoints me.
If we wanted to work towards that end of empowering an individual to have the capacity to choose with limited assistance from the electoral officer, then we would put additional resources into the capacity of the independent commission to provide strengthened education processes so that we then put the tension in the right place: if you are unable and really do need assistance it is available to you through the electoral office but, ultimately, you are being steered down the line where you are being provided with education because you need to understand this process, rather than not creating the desire for education because ‘Do not worry we can organise assistance for you’ and there would be voters friends nominated. We then reduce the internal dynamics of a citizen to aspire to want to understand more so that they have greater autonomy as an individual. We end up working against that by having the voter’s friend enshrined in this legislation, something that I am not happy about because I believe it sends the wrong message and we do not end up on the location that we need to be where we have autonomous, self-determined, informed individuals making their own decision. It is open to being abused and to the intimidation of a citizen in their opportunity to make their decision.
I now turn to the bill. There is an issue that I uncovered last night that I would like to draw to your attention. On pages 63 and 64 of the bill, it talks about Part 8 - Redistributions. It says in section 138(4) of the act:
That was the only transitionary clause that I could uncover. Undoubtedly, you would be well informed on that side and, of course, you will show me that I am completely out of my depth and that I do not understand this for a moment. You will be able to show me others I am sure, Chief Minister, as you are obviously now looking at section 138(4). However, I draw attention to ‘despite subsection (1)(a)’ - if you go back and look - I cannot see subsection (1)(a). There is section 138(1), but there is no subsection 1(a). Maybe it is just a typographic error, or maybe I am not understanding it. However, it is quite clear that there is no subsection 1(a). I look forward to clarification of that when the Chief Minister makes her closing remarks.
To that end, the concerns that have been raised are well-considered and, I believe, widely-held concerns. Because this reform package contains, in majority part, recommendations that were contained in the CLP submission, we are in a position where we offer our support. However, as I have done, we raise our concerns and to seek clarification on a couple of elements that have been mentioned. I also register, once again, my very strong concern about raising the bar to 200 for the formation of a political party. That, at the last moment, is something that has made it a little more difficult to offer support because it is a distinct paradigm shift on the initial bill. It deserves greater clarification when the Chief Minister comes to her closing comments.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I only want to make a few comments about this bill. May I first of all say, Chief Minister, that I welcome the fact that you are implementing this bill. It is long overdue. It is great that we should have an independent Electoral Commission not attached to the Chief Minister’s Department, and that it should report to the parliament as do some of our other independent officers such as the Ombudsman and Auditor-General. This is a really great step and it is a very important bill.
I did make submissions to the review committee, and quite a few of my concerns were not included in the bill. I want to mention one, which is section 13 of the bill: Supply of roll extract to MLAs and registered party. I wrote to you, Chief Minister, after I saw this, asking why you have created this playing field that is not level.
At the moment, the bill says roll data can only be accessed by major political parties or elected members. Therefore, anyone who stands as a candidate who is not a member of a major political party or a current elected member does not have access to the electoral data. Of course, we all know that that data includes things that are useful to candidates. It has a range of fields, not just the name and address, but it also talks about the sex, the date of birth, the occupation. As a candidate, if I want to target a special area such as seniors or health workers or educators, I can go through the roll and do that.
As it is at the moment, access is restricted to incumbent members and major political parties. Basically, all the other candidates who are standing for elected office do not have the right to access that information. I know in your letter you talk about privacy of information, but you are overlooking the fact that major political parties have hundreds of members who are able to access that database, so I cannot see that privacy is a concern when it is accessible by so many people in the first place. We should have a level playing field for all candidates, whether they belong to a political party or not. I urge the Chief Minister to re-think that area because it smacks of inequality and discrimination. It does not provide equality to the whole system.
I noticed the member for Macdonnell has an amendment that says that an officer of the Electoral Commission should, in fact, assist with the voting. I have to support that because I have seen abuse occur many times with assisted voting. I have even seen an ACPO and a teaching assistant being given assisted voting when they did not even ask for it. In my opinion, anyone who wants assistance with voting should ask the Electoral Office staff, who should then take it upon themselves to assist. The idea of having friends or things like that – other people there to do that – leads to misuse of the system. However, if we have electoral officers who are trained to do this, or even electoral officers who have an interpreter beside them, then we would know the system would be fair, and there could be no instances of people walking in to vote and being told: ‘Come over here. This is how you should vote’. It should be proven that they are not illiterate. It is as simple as that. The electoral officer should be able to establish whether they are literate or not and, if they are, then they should not be interfered with. They should be able to go off and cast their vote without any interruption from anyone else, or any coercion.
The other area that I was concerned about is the timetable for elections and getting postal votes out to station people who have to rely on mail planes. Quite often, they miss out because of the fact that the timing of mail planes does not allow for that flexibility. The Electoral Commission should bear that in mind, even if a special run has to be done to make sure those people have their democratic right to vote. Too often, the small remote little outstations and stations themselves miss out, and it is to do with the timing of the mail plane or whoever gets the votes there.
I am tending to jump around the place here, but I also believe there still needs to be a lot of education in many places, and that the Electoral Commission should take on the education role. If it is a truly independent commission, then they should be able to develop the materials and get out, before any election, and assist to make sure the people know their rights, how to go about it, how to assess it. They could take a more proactive role in education programs.
I know electoral boundaries will probably be looked at. Some of them are rather strange at the moment. I know I have about 4700 voters in my electorate at the moment. It seems to be slowly growing so there must a disparity across …
Mr Stirling: We are losing Alice Springs people, Mr Elferink tells us.
Ms Martin: They are all leaving.
Mrs BRAHAM: Well, no they are not. They are all coming to Braitling then - that is all I can say.
Mr Stirling: The member for Macdonnell tells us they are all leaving.
Mr Elferink: Well, they are. You want to have a look at the numbers in Alice Springs, mate!
Mr Stirling: Huge numbers on her roll!
Mrs BRAHAM: Yes, it is. What I suggest is that …
Mr Elferink: Are they still there? They signed up months ago, years ago.
Mrs BRAHAM: No, this is all a case of updating regularly. However, it is always very difficult to redistribute. I would like to think that the current member has some say in what is going to be carved off if you lose some. I know …
A member: Amen!
Mrs BRAHAM: Yes, I dream, I dream! I know government usually does it to suit themselves, as we have seen in the past. However, perhaps in the case where you think you are going to lose a chunk of …
Mrs Miller: Supporters.
Mrs BRAHAM: Friendlies! … you might like to see that there is some consultation. I know that some of the bush electorates are huge. I do not really know how the members for Stuart and Macdonnell actually service their electorates. I know we have tried to talk about keeping numbers even, but there should be some consideration, when there is such a huge electorate, to having less numbers in those.
Mr Stirling: It is a Queensland National Party idea, that idea.
Mrs BRAHAM: Shush! Regarding truth in political advertising, I guess I have said this before. At the last election, the CLP put up this poster, which was not true; it was quite misleading: ‘Late news - Braham in secret vote deal with Labor’. Might I add, the Labor Party put me fourth, so it was a great deal! ‘A vote for Loraine Braham is just a vote for Labor’. That was just not true. I tried to get in touch in Barry Hamilton - who was very busy on that particular day - to get an opinion of whether it should be taken down. When I finally got hold of him, he had to get a legal opinion and, by the time it got back to me, the day was over. There should be a system whereby people are on standby to answer these queries immediately. It is only fair on all candidates - and there are a lot of us around who get confronted with these misleading posters - that, according to the act, it should not be allowed. To get an answer within a short time on whether that is valid or not under this current system, is hopeless. It is to do with us having to go through people in remote areas going to find the commissioner in Darwin who, obviously, on voting day is extremely busy.
There could be designated lawyers or somebody candidates could, in fact, ring and get an opinion from quickly. I believe that is fairer because truth in advertising is something we should all be aiming at, and there should be strong penalties for any party if they put out material that is misleading, and is designed to mislead the voter. That is so very wrong.
The only other thing I want to mention was polling booths and their location. We had an instance where a polling booth was at the Tangentyere Council office a couple of years ago. What happened there was quite wrong, because it was such a biased polling booth - I do not think it will ever be used again. We have to strive to get independent places as our polling booths so that people do not feel as though they are being coerced, harassed, or bribed before they take their vote. That was a terrible polling booth in that the barbecue was on for everyone and, when they went inside the polling booth there were so many people there to assist them. It was badly done and I am sure the Electoral Commission remember that.
What I am saying is that we should be looking for polling booths that have impartiality, where people do not associate it with one party or the other - like a council office or perhaps a school - but certainly not in a situation where it can be associated with a party at all. I suggest that, perhaps, there could be a small group who work out the locations - a small committee of people who could say: ‘These are the locations’, and somehow or other try to get something without bias there.
Otherwise, Chief Minister, I am pleased you presented these bills, and we look forward to their implementation in the next election.
Mr STIRLING (Education, Employment and Training): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this strikes as going to be a debate of some interest. I listened closely to the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Brailing. However, I will lead, picking up some of the points they made, with the exception of one I will go to later which I will leave to the Chief Minister, who has carriage of this particular legislation.
We often say that a lot of things are done differently up here in the Territory, and we are different, with our free and easy-going attitude to life, our general sense of humour and, I guess, an inclination at large to stick our nose to authority when it suites us. However, one thing very different in the Northern Territory is how we run our elections, because we have elections held over some of the remote, inhospitable, hostile, inaccessible places that you could ever hope to cover. It is no accident, on that point that, when the newly created majority rule came about in South Africa, they recruited a Territory-based electoral officer to implement the electoral system in some of the more remote parts of that nation. Why would they do that? Simply because that person would be as well experienced as any electoral officer anywhere in the world in getting the democratic will of the people expressed through an election in that sort of country.
I have contested elections in planes, Toyota Land Cruisers, Nissans, helicopter - but only on one occasion because, after that one election when I had the pleasure of chartering a helicopter for a short time, the Electoral Commission decided this is a good thing to travel in, and they have chartered it ever since. You just simply cannot get your hands on the helicopter that the Electoral Commission likes to use. It gets them into those places that you would not otherwise get into, because they simply do not have a strip at all or a serviceable strip. It does have one disadvantage: the fixed wings are faster. The time I was in the helicopter I was overtaken by the opposition in the fixed wing. So that was a decided disadvantage. You could get to places where they could not, but they could beat you to places more often. It did have drawbacks, but those helicopters are a lot of fun.
This mobile polling system that we have in the Northern Territory and across thousands of kilometres, often is to get to a handful of people to vote. I have been where there have been more officials for both sides, and more electoral officers on the ground, than there are voters to cast the vote. Nonetheless, those people have been able to express their democratic right, and it has always a bit of fun to try to be the most tightly organised crew on the ground in getting your stuff together and getting your campaign team out on to the strip, into the plane, the doors closed and the wings up before the other mob are off the ground, because it is very important who gets to the next community first. In that sense, it takes a fair bit of time - it takes a lot of dollars – but we do allow people the right to express their democratic vote. It is compulsory in the Northern Territory, so there is a responsibility to give everyone that opportunity.
There are stories that have become legends over the years of conducting elections in the Northern Territory. A bit like the Old West, I suppose, and the older people are the more bizarre are some of the stories that you hear from them. I remember one in 1994. It was a tough election and I was struggling for every vote I could get, particularly in town. There was a dear old Spanish gentleman, an old friend of mine. He had worked with Nabalco in those days for many years and he had retired. There were three standing for the election, and he came out and he sat down with us outside the booth and put his arm around me and he said: ‘I like you’. He said: ‘I like you, I gave you three votes’. He has passed away now, the dear man. I did not have the heart to tell him how much he had almost broken my heart by giving me three votes. The other bloke he liked a little less so he gave him two, and that bloke that he really did not like at all, he gave him one. ‘Thank you, Antonio and God bless you’ and off he went.
I remember a by-election in Stuart that brought the current member into this Chamber. I fronted at the airstrip to find out that someone had cancelled all of Labor’s charters the day before. We never found out just who made that phone call, but it proved a bit troublesome. We all turned up at the airport and, ‘No, you charters were all cancelled yesterday’. We never employed it ourselves, but I always tuck that one away in the back of my mind. That was not a bad ploy.
Neil Randal Bell, the outgoing member, was flying himself - always a bit of a risk I thought - in that election. Maurice Rioli and I were stuck out - I cannot remember just where we were. We had done our bit and the news came through, ‘No Neil;. Neil had gone off the radar and no one knew where he was. Of course, Faye was quite upset and Brian was starting to get a bit short back at headquarters. Belly has landed on some strip that no one could pronounce the name of, and no one had landed there for about five years.
Ms Martin: There were trees in the strip.
Mr STIRLING: There were trees coming through the strip. That same election - and I must share this one - Maurice and I were in a particular community and there was a bit of dispute with that community and the Central Land Council at that time. I guess in the manner of these things, we were a bit on the nose in that community. So I went in to scrutineer inside the booth and left Maurice with the how-to-votes outside. The community was all lined up to vote and they looked hot to trot. That was always a good sign, I thought, for us, that a community is out there and we had this clobbered. Through they came and there did not appear to be any Labor how-to-votes in their hands. All I could see was the colour of the CLP, and could only assume that the vote was going down the same way. Well, after 20 or 30 of these, I had had enough. I ducked out to find Maurice and I said: ‘What is going on out here, Mr Rioli?’ He said: ‘Mate, they will not even look at me, let alone take the how-to-vote cards’. That is what can happen in elections up here. That was a pretty tough, hard day for us out there, but we did pick up, just towards the end. I would have been broken hearted forever if we had not received votes at all.
I guess there are lots of stories. There are a couple of others that I could probably relay. However, the legislation before us tonight does enshrine that sense of the uniqueness about the Territory, and it puts it into law. It also guarantees, most importantly and fundamentally, independence in the electoral process.
Many Territorians would be surprised, I would think, to know that, until we came to power, the electoral process was run from within the Chief Minister’s Department, no less. That means that the resources of the Electoral Office and its ability to do its job was governed by an agency of government. Under the new system, the appointment of polling places and mobile polling places will not be subject to any minister.
Members need to be aware of how this changes possibilities in the conduct of elections, because any member in a bush electorate knows that where mobile polling takes place can accurately determine the number of people who vote in an election. Bush populations can be quite fluid, and move from one community or outstation to another, often depending on business being conducted by residents in different parts of the electorate. I have not been through one election in a Northern Territory or federal election in which we have turned up at a community to vote on the Monday or Tuesday and voted accordingly. You have your pretty normal round of people, and then you go to the community the next day to find that they all left early in the morning to travel to the community where you voted yesterday or where you are going to vote tomorrow, but they will be back tonight. There has not been one election in which that has not occurred. It has been Northern Land Council meetings, mining company meetings, funerals - any range of matters that take people away. It does happen, and it is something that we have to live with, and the best system in the world is not going to overcome that mobility factor, where people are there today but not tomorrow.
If there is no ability to be flexible about polling places, many voters in an electorate will miss out. It could determine an outcome. An independent commission will have a view to more flexibility to make those decisions without a minister of the government looking over its shoulder.
Electoral rolls are also changed in the bill. Until now, the rolls could be closed on the day the election was announced. In the case of the Millner by-election in 1991, this is what occurred. The member for Millner resigned at 11 am, the rolls were closed by 6 pm. That really is ludicrous when you have, on the other hand, compulsory voting. When you have compulsory voting, it is incumbent on government and the Electoral Commission to ensure that everyone in the community has an opportunity to vote or, at least, you maximise the opportunity to vote. By closing rolls within seven hours of a resignation, you wipe out the opportunity for people who have moved to a new electorate to register. That is particularly important in a community such as the Northern Territory, where we continue to have mobility and transience throughout the population.
Under this system, two whole days will be allowed before rolls can be closed. In federal elections, the Territory has usually recorded, numerically, the highest number of last-minute enrolments anywhere in the nation. This will certainly now be an opportunity available for Territory elections as well.
Electoral roll data will now - and I think the member for Braitling picking up some of these points - be limited. We have had public access to electoral roll data for many years, and this data has included such matters as a person’s age and occupation. That will no longer be the case. In an age of increasing privacy, that is a reasonable thing. Electoral enrolment information should be available to the extent that it makes it possible for MPs and political parties and Independents to have reasonable access to voters. However, to know someone’s age or occupation is not particularly important, in my view.
I do remember one election in the early 1990s during which certain roll data was gained and it identified all of the aged pensioners. Our political opponents, at that time, used that to direct mail everyone of pensionable age across the Northern Territory.
As of now, the Northern Territory will have an independent redistribution process. Again, this was touched upon by the member for Braitling. I do not think the CLP ever did sink, even in their worst redistributions, to the depths of what we saw with the National Party gerrymander in Queensland for many years. You would have to say - and I would agree with the member for Braitling - that there were some particularly odd decisions - odd, I would describe them -- made over the years that could be interpreted to have substantially benefited the government of the day in some parts of the redistribution process. I will say no more than that. Whether by accident or by design, that was the outcome. The process itself …
Mr Elferink: My redistribution was a monument to government interference. Do you think the way it worked was an advantage to me?
Mr STIRLING: Well, it ill behoves the members opposite, who had many, many years to address this, but chose not to. They chose not to, and you can only assume because it suited them so well. I hear, with a little reluctance, anything too much from the other side.
However, that system of redistribution was never put under the microscope, never properly analysed, and never made properly, fully independent, as is most appropriate, and as will now be the case. Now there will be no perception of tainting or corruption. I am not saying that was necessarily the case before but, certainly, there existed the potential for perceptions - quite strong perceptions - to be drawn about why particular communities were taken out of what was an eminently sensible electorate for them to be placed in, and placed in another electorate. Therefore, it makes absolute good sense to have this whole redistribution process in the hands of independent people.
The registration of political parties and new nomination process also makes sense. Every member of a political party in this parliament, I believe, would understand the nightmare that is the current signing up requirement for members of parliament. There may only be five members of your electorate eligible to vote and on the electoral roll who are required to sign your nomination form, but that is times 25 for the political parties contesting all seats and, for the poor old party secretary, at the end of the day, it is an absolute nightmare. They have to check all of those names and, if they are not valid, get more. The clock is against them; nominations close that night. It is an absolute nightmare to ensure that nominations are valid under that system. Look at what happened to the Liberal Party shadow Treasurer in Victoria. He failed to nominate in the last state election. It was not a good start for the Liberal Party in that state. Getting off on that sort of footing did not help them in the outcome. I have never heard of him again and I do not know that anyone else has either.
Under a central process, it does make eminent sense, and we ought not be making it all the more difficult to stand. In a local example – we have to be careful here because we have people who will remember this better than myself - remember the 1990 election. It was in Arafura that the Greens candidate failed to nominate at the last moment. After a bit of publicity and, despite the best efforts to find that person and get their nomination, they failed there; it was too late. Our Labor candidate spent the whole campaign in hospital – Stan Tipiloura – during that campaign. The Country Liberal Party candidate had a stroke during that campaign. The Greens, as I said, failed to nominate. The whole election really was run by proxy. It was just one of those bizarre outcomes, but the end result was an 8% swing to the sitting member.
The subsequent by-election for that seat following Stan’s passing, when Maurice Rioli was elected, I can remember standing between – we had just left Yathalamarra, a Ramingining homeland, and it was Melbourne Cup day. It would have been 38oC out there I reckon. Steve Hatton was there, along with a couple from the other side and a couple of my team – I think we had 7 or 8 together. We pulled up the vehicles and, of course, held the mandatory Melbourne Cup sweep and just managed to get the race across on the radio. The only thing that got up my nose was Hatton won it! I was not on the winner either - I was far too far from a TAB. However, that was a nice little interlude.
There was one gentleman who was a delightful, charming chap by the name of Alfred Djupandawuy who was from Milingimbi. But he knew that area and knew the families extremely well. We tracked around; we started out with a couple of packets of smokes each. Alfred was a Winfield smoker. At the end of the day, the opposition had left, the electoral officers were there and they asked us to sign off the slip and certify that the boxes were locked and closed. I said: ‘Alfred, any smokes?’, and he dragged this crushed old packet of Winfield out of his pocket. Thank God, there were two left - one for him and one for me. He said: ‘Oh, strong Labor country, this one. Strong Winfield too’. So we burned up every available cigarette between us.
Many other provisions of the bill the Chief Minister has covered in her second reading. It is a bill of common sense and, if members opposite step back and try to look at this truly objectively, they will see that it is in the democratic interest of the Northern Territory that this bill is passed. It will not change, I can guarantee, the very unique nature of our elections: the sparse populations, the weather patterns, the eccentricity of party officials. I will not go there, I can assure you, Madam Speaker. All that uniqueness when it comes to elections will live on.
I cannot leave the one issue though, that comes to mind. That is the voter’s friend, as it operates in the Commonwealth. My Mum is in her mid-80s now - very hard of seeing and hearing - and she, for quite some elections now, has taken my oldest sister - the oldest one in the family – what do you call the ones who are responsible for the aged one’s affairs?
A member: Carer.
Mr STIRLING: She has always taken Jennifer in with her, and has her assist in that voting process. It works very well right across the Yolngu communities and all of the indigenous communities in the Northern Territory where English is a third or fourth language, and illiteracy and innumeracy are very much a fact of life for so many people. It is a system that works. Notwithstanding some comments made about potential for harassment and things like that, on balance I would say that is the way to go. They have someone with them they trust, they know, they understand, and they get that vote in the box. That is what, at the end of the day, the bill ought be trying to do: to maximise the vote to ensure that we get the strongest turnout possible and ensuring, in that process, a health democracy. I commend the bill and I would urge all members to vote for it.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, in talking on the bill before the House today, I say at the outset that the opposition has no problem with the lion’s share of the bill. The bill makes good common sense. I am not particularly worried, as a member of parliament, regarding how this will affect me and my electorate. However, there are a couple of areas where I choose to differ from the Treasurer. I have already made members aware of the areas where I will differ, and we will debate that out, I am sure, during the committee stages of the bill.
I would not be the Electoral Commissioner for all the tea in China. It has to be one of the most wretched jobs in the world, especially once every couple of years when somebody has the audacity, I suppose, to call an election. It is a difficult job; it immediately places the Electoral Commissioner under incredible pressure. Indeed, the Electoral Commissioner in the Northern Territory - as the Treasurer has quite rightly pointed out - has to make decisions that deals with an electoral system which is quite unique in the world. I do not know how many Electoral Commissioners in Europe or the United States have to deal with issues like kangaroo tails, almost immediately when entering an election
However, I wish to place something on the record, and it is based, basically, on some of the comments made by the Chief Minister when she brought this bill into the House, dealing with the new independent system that she wants to introduce. I want to put on the record clearly and plainly that, although the Chief Minister wants to paint a picture that the political system in the Northern Territory has somehow been compromised because the Electoral Office was attached to the Department of the Chief Minister rather than being a freestanding creature, I refute that because I believe, from my observations through numerous elections now, that that office has handled itself impeccably.
Although I know that I am not allowed to acknowledge the presence or otherwise of members or strangers in the House, if Mr Barry Hamilton was here in this Chamber and listening to this debate I would congratulate him and thank him very much for the very good way that he has conducted these elections, and the level of integrity and independence that he has shown over the years. This bill does nothing more than change an administrative arrangements as far as I am concerned. I would like to place on the record that he has done a wonderful job over the years. I have been very impressed with the work that he has done. Indeed, I believe that the Chief Minister must feel the same way for simply no other reason than if she truly believed that the system was in some way compromised, she certainly would not have kept him on after becoming Chief Minister. Yet, I believe that he still has that role.
There is another issue that I wish to raise here today, and that is the very surprising amendments which have been circulated in relation to the Chief Minister’s comments regarding the amount of voters. I want to paint a picture, which will start with this quote from the Chief Minister’s second reading speech:
The amendment that comes into the House today tells us that the Chief Minister no longer thinks that 50 members for a political party is an appropriate number. If fact, she believes that four times that number is an appropriate number. Let me place this into context. I believe that the case in South Australia at the moment - a state with a population well over one million people - has 150 as a registered political party. Although I cannot remember the figures precisely, I know that the numbers in New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and Western Australia are measured in the hundreds - not the thousands or the tens of thousands, but the hundreds. If you proportionally apply those sorts of numbers between the states and the Territory when you consider the population differences in those areas, we would have to put up so many more members of the political party as to be astonishing in a place like Sydney or Adelaide. In fact, one has to ask oneself the question: what motivation could there possibly be for trying to create a system where the changes in the numbers are such that they become excessively erroneous on political parties?
I turn to the recommendations of the committee - Minter Ellison was given the task of doing this review. I was curious to discover that the recommendation from the committee, and I cannot quite put my finger on it just now - ah yes, here I have it. Recommendation 67 from the committee that established this piece of legislation was this:
The CLP cautiously proffered the number 100 in its recommendations to the independent review of the Northern Territory electoral system. I know that was cautious because we are fully aware on our side of the House that that is actually a particularly high number for the registration of political parties in the Northern Territory.
The Chief Minister, in her second reading speech, made it abundantly clear that she thought that 50 was acceptable. Now, through an amendment at the last moment, she wants to proffer up to us 200. The question begs: why? I have been thinking about this, and I can engage in speculation and tell members some of the reasons that the Chief Minister may want to consider this. It may arise from the New South Wales and other elections in which minor parties ran. These were minor local parties with local issues, often a single issue: the Shooters Party and the like. They were registered only in their state, unlike the Democrats and the Greens who have over-arching registration that would qualify - from my understanding of the act - those parties to have their names on the ballot paper when it is finally produced. Perhaps it is the local small, single issue party with an interest in cannabis cultivation – what is it? - the Network Against Prohibition, or there is the Socialist Alliance which I do not believe is a registered party anywhere including in the Northern Territory and any number of other groups. Perhaps there may be rumours filtering around in the community that there would be an organisation with a single issue such as planning that wanted to run a candidate.
Finding 50 people who have a problem with a planning issue in an electorate – take the electorate of Casuarina, for argument’s sake – who were prepared to get themselves together and organise themselves into a party …
Mr Vatskalis interjecting.
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Perhaps in Casuarina - and this is purely hypothetical - they wanted to form a political party. They could be the ‘Casuarina Action Party’, the CAP, listed on the ballot paper when a person walks into a polling booth.
What happened in New South Wales - which is why I mention it - is that although these minor parties did not win seats, they changed the way those seats went. They went in other directions. This Labor government is aware of that, so they want to start making it more difficult for those small parties that have the ability to distribute their preferences in all sorts of directions to appear on the ballot paper - such as the ‘Planning Party’ for the seat of Sanderson or the ‘Drug Party’ for the seat of Port Darwin, or whatever. There is this chance all of a sudden that preferences will spray everywhere.
I find curious the suddenness of these amendments. Why now, at the last moment? Surely the minister was aware of this a while ago. I believe the Chief Minister was aware of this potential a while ago, but it was not seen as such a great threat until some polling was done recently. All of a sudden, we are starting to find the Chief Minister defining a mechanism to obliterate those people who want to set themselves up as parties and get their name onto the ballot paper. Therefore, we are going to make them register with 200 members and, if they cannot, the best they can hope for is to be registered as an Independent on the ballot paper, thus undermining their ability to undermine this government.
The Treasurer just talked about the independence of the system, and how the glorious freedom and independence that this legislation is going to bring to the people of the Territory is going to enhance the democratic process. He then, in the same presentation suggested to us that 200 is going to be fine; that will protect the political system in the Northern Territory. This is a deliberate attempt to obliterate opposition by the Labor government, and that is all it is. I will not be supporting those amendments. In fact, I will be vehemently challenging them. Frankly, as far as I am concerned, although it is a hackneyed and 250-year-old observation, I agree with Voltaire: I may not agree with what people have to say, but I will fight for their right to say it.
If a drugs party wants to field a candidate and put that on their ticket, then they should be allowed to. If the Socialist Alliance wants to field candidates and have ‘Socialist Alliance’ written under their candidate’s name on the ballot paper, then they should be allowed to. I do not care if they can only muster up five members. Although 100 was the decision of the CLP in its submission, even if they could muster up a few, I would be quite happy to see that process continue, because, if a person wants to place a political party’s name under their name on a ballot paper, they should be allowed to.
If people have a problem, such as those minor parties such as the Shooters Party or whatever, then they should have ‘Shooters Party’ written under their name. Surely, in the interests of independence as far as the Treasurer is concerned, this is a fundamentally important issue regarding the future democracy in the Northern Territory. It sticks in my throat to even consider the number 200. It is way too high way, way over the top, out of the ball park and deliberately designed to protect the interests of the ruling government.
This is exactly the sort of accusation they used to level at the CLP. We heard the Treasurer do it again: ‘Oh do not trust that redistribution process, that always had hairs on it’. That was never independent. ‘Oh do not trust this process, it is a bit shonky that the whole thing was attached to the Department of the Chief Minister. That is why we are introducing this new independent system’. Yet, they come in here and say: ‘You need to have 200 registered members of your political party before you can stand’. It is a deliberate attempt to manipulate the legislation to protect Labor’s position in the northern suburbs - that is all that is. I certainly will not be supporting that amendment.
I also wish to turn to other aspects of the bill. I would like some clarification - perhaps during the committee stages or in the summation by the Chief Minister - in relation to the four extra days that mobiles will have the ability to vote. I am somewhat curious as to whether that is going to be an actual expectation, that we are going to have 10-day voting cycles in the bush. It has been my experience in the bush that, universally I might add, the voting happens in a very specific fashion. If you have a booth that is open for six hours, perhaps like the Papunya booth, the majority of the population votes in the first hour, hour-and-a-half, you have one or two voters in the next couple of hours, and then after that, nothing happens at all, except a few of the non-Aboriginal people living in those communities tend to wait until the rush is over and they will slip in later on. However, there is heaps of time to do a place like Papunya in three hours.
I noticed during the last federal election, there was a two-week bush polling session and, in too many instances, we were sitting around remote places where there were one or two voters, for two or three hours at a time - simply unproductive and wasteful in effort. I do not think it deprived, nor did it enhance, anybody’s ability to vote in terms of the hours spent in these communities. This also has the effect of making it difficult for minor parties, in the sense that it is a major logistical exercise.
The Treasurer talked about helicopters and fixed wing aircrafts, Toyotas and boats, spaceships and landing barges and God knows what else. I have been there and done that; we all know the system. Minor parties do not get those options. People with a small amount of funds are flat out whacking out a few posters, let alone organising helicopter flights, barge landings, Toyotas, or covering two mobile booths in an electorate like Macdonnell for days on end. It is undeniable that those are the problems of voting in the Northern Territory. However, to then extend that logistical exercise from six to 10 days will have a detrimental effect on the ability of minor parties to go out there.
I know that the Electoral Commission does its best. When you go out, Electoral Commission officers, if memory serves me, leave how-to-vote cards for the Democrats and the Greens and whoever else, under a brick near the polling booth. They make every effort to keep the system as fair as it possibly can be. However, at the end of the day - especially an independent standing in the federal electorate of Lingiari – it is a major exercise. I believe there was a fellow by the name of Wayne Wright who stood the last time in the federal seat of Lingiari, who was flat out getting his deposit back for no other reason than that he could not cover the booths. He was getting around in a broken-down old ute, trying his hardest to do his bit. Everybody knew he was going to get whacked, but it makes it a more difficult thing to extend it over that time.
What I hoped the Chief Minister would advise is that, although the ability to extend the process for four days is there, it is a discretionary ability rather than an absolute one; and that the normal process that we are used to in the Northern Territory - which have served the bush electorates very well - will continue to operate with the added ability to put on extra booths in places, from time to time as and when required.
On the issue of assisted votes, I know the member for Braitling discussed the issue briefly. As members will be fully aware, I have an amendment before the House. I now signal that that amendment is not cast in stone. The reason I raised this was not to try and be cute, difficult or clever. It has become a concern to me that, especially in federal elections upon which this model is based, the process of the assisted vote has been the subject of some criticism. Indeed, I criticise it because it is an abused system.
The classic example - and I will never forget this – is when I was at the Papunya booth and a young, strapping, healthy woman walked into the booth and the commissioner’s representative behind the booth said: ‘What is your name?’. She told him her name, and he had trouble finding it on the list. He was running down the list. She was standing a good four feet away, the roll which he was looking up was actually upside down to her, and she leaned over and said: ‘That is my name there’. If anybody has ever seen the typeface on those electoral roles, that font size is 6 or 8. At four feet, she could read her name quite distinctly amongst a list of other names, and she was then given an assisted vote. I said to the fellow there at the time: ‘Why was she given an assisted vote?’ ‘Well, she asked for one’. ‘On what grounds?’ ‘Well, she does not really need any - but her literacy, I think’. By this stage he could see where I was going with it and he seemed a little more nervous.
You can understand the process becomes frustrating, and it becomes especially frustrating when it is done in another language. I know that that is a necessity of life from time to time. However, when the same person regularly assists 20, 30, 40, or 50 voters, one becomes a little concerned - especially in a small electorate like the Northern Territory. You know a lot of these folk and that they may not be politically one way or the other, and you are starting to think to yourself: ‘What exactly is the advice they are getting?’
At the Tangentyere booth - one that I remember particularly well - I could not write out my objections and hand them to the presiding officer quick enough, regarding how those votes were being dealt with. I would write one out, tear one off; write one out, tear one off. That was a process that I was very concerned about.
In my amendment, I make the suggestion that the officer in the booth is the only person who can assist with the vote. I draw members’ attention to the current assisted vote under the legislation, section 79(1) which says that, if a voter has satisfied the presiding officer of a polling place that the voter is so incapacitated that he or she is ‘unable to vote without assistance or is illiterate, the presiding officer shall, or direct an officer to …’ Then it goes into it.
I am not so wedded to my amendment as to say this absolutely is the cut-off point. However, there must be - and this is something I hope the government would indicate during the committee stages of this bill - some balance between the position outlined in the bill as it exists. Not because it is going to favour me or any other person, but because it is going to avoid complaints and whinges and undermining the integrity of the system which, in the assisted vote under the existing legislation, has worked very well.
I hope during the committee stages the government will indicate that they are prepared to be flexible and, even if they do not like the amendments I am bringing in, are prepared to revisit this particular issue, because I do not believe that the report that touches on this issue understands the mechanics and the very day-to-day problems which occur in these booths. It is something that has to be seen to get a flavour of the problems that I am outlining. Consequently, I hope that the government could indicate that they are prepared to find another option, and even bring back into this House at some point in the future an amendment which captures these concerns that I know the member for Braitling and other members in this House share. With this particular amendment, if those assisted votes are allowed to go unchecked, any member of this House or any candidate could take advantage. This system needs to be above approach, as the Treasurer has so eloquently put in his presentation.
I also wish to touch on something else that the Leader of the Opposition touched on; the transitional arrangement. I draw members’ attention to page 31 of the recommendations by the review committee into this bill and I quote from that:
Therefore, this will allow time for the process of registration of political parties to take place and those sorts of things. There is clearly, in the minds of the people who authored these recommendations, that this piece of legislation will be in operation at the next general election - all aspects of it. What concerns me a little - and I am sure that the Chief Minister will allay my fears on this particular issue - is that, in the next general election, all of the ducks that are needed to lined up in this pieces of legislation have been lined up.
The Chief Minister will need to get a commissioner organised; ratify the commissioner’s position; this bill will have to be assented to so that it becomes law, and that the redistribution process is properly followed as outlined in the bill; and that the three-year time limit will apply at the next general election and apply to this particular term that we are in now. All that the Chief Minister really has to tell me is that the bill will go from this place to the Administrator for assent within the normal period. That normal period, without interference, I think in the Northern Territory is - immediately or 28 days? I have to think about that now. However, within the normal period in the Northern Territory so that we know that the bill that this House is passing today is the act that we are going to be operating under for the next Territory election.
On my reading of the act, the timing means that the ducks have to be lined up fairly quickly if that three-year window is going to be achieved. Because, once the three years of this term has been achieved, the Chief Minister will want the latitude she needs to decide within that last year when she wants to go to the polls. That, I think, makes the window November of this year. I will take guidance as to whether it is from the time of the last election or the first sittings of the House. However, if it is the time from the first sittings of the House then I think November is it. I will have to check …
Ms Martin: October.
Mr ELFERINK: October. Okay, October is it. In which case, the window of opportunity will be closing quite tightly in terms of getting all of the requirements of the act lined up. Assent has to happen sooner rather than later.
Those are the issues that I wish to touch on today. Clearly, the issue of assisted vote is something that should be visited. I look forward to a bipartisan approach on revisiting the issues of assisted voting. I indicate to the Chief Minister now that I will be seeking some assurance that she is prepared to have some latitude on it, either during the committee stage or in her summation.
Madam Speaker, I cannot bring myself to support the suggestion that a political party in the Northern Territory has to drum up 200 members to become a registered party to have its name on the ballot paper. It is undemocratic and drives against the very spirit of what the Treasurer had to say, what the final report from the committee had to say, and is definitely against the spirit of the rest of the bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the first line in my speech did say: ‘The government is to be congratulated on this major legislation’. However, yesterday I received some amendments. So I will start it again.
The government is to be congratulated on this major legislation, but – and I will talk about the ‘but’ later, so I will continue where I was going to head. The Territory is the last jurisdiction in Australia, apart from Tasmania, to have an independent Electoral Commission. As far back as 1991, in debate noting a Public Accounts Committee report on the 1990 election costs, the then Labor member for Wanguri, John Bailey, made the following comments:
The CLP government did not pick up the issue so, in April 1997, the Leader of the Opposition, Maggie Hickey, presented a bill to create an independent Electoral Commission. She introduced the bill again after the 1997 election, which was then defeated. It proved that Labor was serious about this issue, and that has led us to where we are today.
In my submission to the independent review of the Territory’s electoral system, I started with this:
I am also pleased to see the Electoral Commissioner will not be subject to the direction or the control of the Chief Minister except in the matter of special reports, and the commissioner will report annually to parliament through the Speaker.
The longer election timetable is welcome. It is not as long as I would have liked, but it gives us a few extra days to get around the electorate if the election is called unexpectedly. I pick up some of the issues about which the member for Macdonnell spoke, such as the difficulty of being an Independent. I stood as an Independent in Goyder some years ago and got in my little truck and went way out to Cannon Hill near Jabiru and tried to put up my posters, then went somewhere else. When you get to mobile polling, you are not in the running if you are an Independent, because you cannot be in six places at one time. One of the problems that also occurred for the Independent was that there simply was not enough lead time before the mobile polling started, which started earlier than the standard polling. The bill has gone some way towards that, but I would have liked to have seen it further.
I particularly welcome the fact that there will now be a minium of two days for potential voters to get on the rolls, whereas in the past, people sometimes only had an hour or two between when the election was called, writs issued and the rolls closed. This was quite unfair in the Territory, where we have a highly mobile population. Many have to change their enrolments from interstate, and a lot of young voters need to get on the rolls for the first time.
I am also a great supporter of the full preferential voting system and am glad to see it retained. I know it was raised the other night in debate. I believe we need an education program to highlight why preferential voting is such a great system. A member spoke the other night about how we have optional preferential in Queensland, but a preferential vote gives us, as citizens, the maximum power as a citizen to vote. No matter whether our favourite person is beaten, we still have another chance. Our vote is very important; it is not just one vote and gone. You have a say in the final outcome of the candidate.
I sometimes say to people, if you do not like preferential voting, perhaps try the European system, where you have seven candidates. You go on a Tuesday, and you all have one vote. If three of them get enough percentages to go on to the next one, next Tuesday all the people go out and have another vote until someone gets up to the 50%. I am sure Australians would love to go voting three weeks in a row. At least with preferential you can do it once and be done with it.
Another important new measure in ensuring the integrity and independence of our electoral system is the fact that the report of the augmented Redistribution Committee is final and cannot be changed by Legislative Assembly. I welcome the changes to the act by the Redistribution Committee. Certainly, it has been an area where, even I have noticed at times and wondered about the boundaries. I remember one political party actually, when it put a submission in, tried to move the boundary so that the sitting member was outside the electorate. I thought that was a bit rough. There are cases, such as in my own electorate, where it seems strange that the top part of my electorate has all roads that go through my electorate in another electorate. When I put those, what I call common sense, ideas to the previous Electoral Commission, nothing changed. Hopefully, this new Electoral Commission has lots of common sense.
Having highlighted what I regard as many strengths in the bill, I suppose you will not be surprised to know that I have some concerns, and that is why I said ‘but’. I will go through some of those concerns. The first one, naturally, is four-year fixed terms. I would like to read what the review said about four-year fixed terms:
It finishes off:
What do we have?. We do not have that. What we have is really a reaffirmation of what already exists, except now we put it into legislation. I am not sure when the last election was held before three years, but my understanding is most elections have been held between the third and the fourth year. That is exactly what we have in the legislation. I find that extremely disappointing. I remind the Chief Minister that she made a statement in this House on Wednesday, 11 October 2000:
Time moves on, but we did not get it, which is very sad. I believe that we should have had it. We have enough states in Australia now which have fixed terms. Local Government, especially municipalities, have fixed terms. It makes more certainty and takes the politics out of setting the date. People would appreciate that. Anyway, I agree with what the reviewer said and, sadly, that is one part of the changes that I do not agree with.
Regarding the display of voting material, I remember pictures in the NT News of masses of polling material at the Wanguri by-election when the honourable member was first elected. It looked like something out of – I don’t know –the circus.
Ms Martin: Great, wasn’t it?
Mr WOOD: It might be great for those who are in political parties because you have to remember they live and die politics; they just love it. However, for a lot of ordinary human beings outside of this place, they cannot stand it. I believe it is overdone by a mile. Surely, there could have been some limitations even on the number of posters. You get the entire school fence covered in ‘CLP this way’ and ‘ALP that way’. You all have to …
Ms Lawrie: What about your chook posters?
Mr WOOD: I only had one truck and one chook. We won the election, so it shows you the whole thing is a waste of time. You have people getting up at 2 am and fighting over who has the piece of fence and who has the best spot in the place. I reckon people say: ‘Get a life; go to bed. Just put up one sign at the front’. Hand out your how-to-vote cards; I do not have a problem with that. I probably would have even supported the express lane, but we are friendly out in the rural area, we do not need an express lane. They are well mannered and, if they do not want a how-to-vote card, they do not take one.
I believe there was an area there where people get annoyed, and especially during by-elections. We keep thinking general elections. In general elections, there are more people spread around so there is not as much bumph – if I can I call it that - around the electoral booths. However, when it comes to by-elections, I will always remember the picture of Wanguri Primary School – that would scare anyone off. We missed an opportunity there; many people would like a lessening of that. Perhaps it is actually part of the government’s economic package – they are trying to stimulate small business, especially in the sign industry. If that is the case, then I might say that is okay. In reality, I reckon it is just an overkill.
I support the amendments by the member for Macdonnell. You might say: ‘Surprise, surprise!’ Well, it is not a surprise. In my submission to the Electoral Commission I said exactly the same: there is too much room for manipulation of that system. It should be an electoral officer. Maybe, Chief Minister, if the government will not agree with that, then there needs to be some way that people who are authorised to assist voters and witness voters, should be required by legislation to sign secrecy agreements. If you are going to allow it, then tighten it right up. These people know that they are governed under a section of the act which says that, if they expose how those people have voted, then there are some severe penalties. It should be an officer. If we need to employ people in those areas with the dialects to help people who do not understand, so be it, but then they come under the Electoral Act. The way it is at the moment is too loose. We talked about fair elections, and I have spoken about that when we have been talking about local government. It has to be fair, it has to be seen to be fair, and you have to reduce all the opportunities for it not to be fair.
Truth in advertising – like the Speaker, the member for Braitling, I had nearly forgotten about those things. I certainly remember great mobs of plastic campaigning about what I have said on ABC radio. The problem was, what they said I said was right, but they had only taken the first start of the sentence and left the next bit out, conveniently. Truth in advertising? No way! What could I do? Nothing! I had to live with it. However, we were able to counteract it. At least we were able to tell people what we really said. I suppose, on the other hand, people who know you know that you have not said it. I suppose you have to put a bit of faith in their common sense, and they knew that it was just a straight-out campaign to try and win the vote for the other team. It did not work. I do have problems at times with the way things are advertised.
I just need to clarify one other area which was mentioned by the member for Macdonnell: when does the date start for the next election? Is it counted from when the Legislative Assembly starts sitting or when the election is declared? What is the story there? I give you just an example ...
Ms Martin: When the Assembly sits.
Mr WOOD: Yes. It was suggested in the 1997 election that, if Shane Stone did not hold sittings he could extend his government term by weeks, months or even years. It appears that this would still be possible under the new act because the election timing is not based on the date of the election but on the date of the first sittings. I would like clarification if that is still the case otherwise, if we do not have any sitting we could have a 20-year term, in theory. It does need to be looked at …
Mr Stirling: No thanks, not for me.
Mr WOOD: Heaven help us!
The final issue, naturally, is the amendments; that is where the bucks comes. I am really disappointed in these amendments. I read the second reading speech. I have it marked here in highlighting. The Chief Minister said this bill sets out criteria for registration including the requirement for registered party to have 50 members who are electors. Then, a day ago, without any consultation in the community, I believe the Labor Party has brought in an amendment which is a deliberately designed to kill off small political parties. There is no way, if we had the ‘Sun Ripe and Warm Tomato Party’ as in ACT, it would find 200 votes in the Northern Territory. It just would not happen. There is no way the Progress Party which used to exist in the Northern Territory would find 200 members. There is no way a party made up of, I think, ex-Labor people - the Territory Alliance Party that stood in the last election - is going to find 200 people. However, they have every right to stand as a party for the next election. I do not care what they stand for. Yet, we now have said you have to have 200 members. You need a 100 in Tasmania where it has – what? - about two-and-a-half times our population. As the member for Macdonnell said, 150 in South Australia - heaps more. The ACT, I believe, is a 100 and that has about two-and-a-half times our population. What are we trying to do? Why has it has been introduced at the last minute? One can only believe that this has been brought in to kill off political opposition. I just think this is a crying shame. This is anti-democratic.
I looked at it today, and I thought that perhaps there is an error. Perhaps they actually mean 20 because that is what the review said - 20. Now we had the review, we have now up to 10 times more than the review asked. I just cannot imagine many small parties having 200 people. I would love to know what the number of members of the Labor Party and the CLP is. How hard is it to go and get 200, in a bad year when you are not in government? What it is like getting 200 members? I would love to hear the explanation because, as I said at the beginning, I was very pleased to see this bill. Generally speaking, I have no problem. However, if I am to support this bill, and supporting this bill means that I will sign the death warrant for any small party that wants to start in the Northern Territory, I will not support the bill in protest. This is putting politics ahead of principle.
I do not know whether the member for Macdonnell has it right and that this has something to do with the northern suburbs; it does not worry me in the slightest. It could be; conspiracy theories are always great for the front page of a newspaper. However, I wonder how many people out there in the community knew about these amendments. How much of this was put to the public to discuss? None, as far as I know. They would not have known about it until yesterday or this morning.
Madam Speaker, I cannot support the bill even though I want to. I support all these moves to have an independent Electoral Commissioner, and all the other changes, generally speaking, I believe are great. I congratulate this government for producing the bill, but they have killed the golden goose. They have manipulated the system which will make this whole bill against the fundamental reason for which they introduced it. They introduced it to loosen up, you might say, the perceptions that the previous government had control over what happened in the Northern Territory politically. They have turned around and made it so hard, or impossible, for people to participate now as a party; unless you want to be an Independent, and I am not saying - they are a good mob, those Independents. I cannot support it and I will not support it, in protest about this anti-democratic amendment.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, I will pick up from where the member for Nelson finished, particularly on this latest, very deceitful move to bring into this House this 11th hour amendment, going against all standards nationally and what has been reported by the authors of the independent review with regards to the number of members you need to form a party. Indeed, it goes against the Chief Minister’s own second reading speech. It also goes against what was first written into the bill, that should stay as it is.
You have heard all the reasons why 200 is an unsustainable figure for the Northern Territory in regard to minor parties. I agree with everyone else, but would like to add another element to what has been discussed here regarding the number of members you must have to form a party if this goes through. That is that, in the current Electoral Act, any person can have access to the electoral roll. Any person can go and view it. For a fee, you can actually purchase the electoral roll.
My reading of the bill - and I stand to be corrected - is that, under this bill anyone can go along and have a look at the roll without a fee, the same as in the current act, but the only people who can have access to take that roll away is either a sitting member or a registered party. There is nothing in there about the individual; ordinary Territorians that I can see…
Ms Carter: Or Independents.
Mr BALDWIN: Absolutely! You will find it in the current act. There is nothing in this new act that says that an individual, who might want to be a candidate and want the information for a seat for which they propose to stand. On my reading of it - and I stand to be corrected, as I said - is that they will not be able to purchase a roll for any situation and it is restricted to only sitting MLAs and registered parties. If we are saying that registered parties now have to contain 200 or more members, then the minor groups, independents, individuals, now have one less tool that they had access to before; and that is to be able to purchase a roll, take it around with them and go and do what it is they want to do in the electorate, like walk the streets and know who is where. We are talking the restricted roll here, which has less information than the more expanded version. It is certainly a helpful tool as all of us in this House know, having access to roll information. Therefore, the individual, it would seem to me, would have to go in and take copious notes without taking a roll away with them. What is the current quota? 3400 voters. They would want to have a good writing hand and a few pens with them, I would suggest, if they want to update themselves and get the information they need. Individuals, whether they are candidates or not, I believe are entitled to purchase this very important set of information, whether it is Territory or electorate specific.
I would like the Chief Minister to explain that. It is very deceitful, as I said, to bring in at the 11th hour this business of 200, when 200 is the figure that New South Wales has. What is the population there? Millions and millions of people. Here we are asking the little old Northern Territory of 200 000 people to now find 200 enlisted members before they can be registered and have their democratic rights available to them, whereas before, you did not even have to have a register of parties and members. It is very deceitful to bring this in here now that we have done all the community consultation and everybody has had their say. The Chief Minister has given an undertaking in her second-reading speech and then, for purposes as has been outlined, particularly by my colleagues, they found that it would be necessary for them to upgrade that by hundreds of people - in fact, by 150 people. It suits their purposes, and I believe for a government that has been talking about fair and open government – well, this just ain’t it.
I will move on to what my colleague, the member for Macdonnell, has introduced in the way of an amendment for the voters’ friends. Obviously, I agree with him on this amendment, and I note that the member for Nelson also agrees. I reiterate what the member for Macdonnell said regarding ‘if you do not like this amendment, at least put in what is currently in the act’, which is very well defined in the act. That states that if a voter satisfies the presiding officer that the voter is so physically incapacitated that he or she is unable to vote without assistance, or is illiterate, the presiding officer shall direct an officer etc, and if the presiding officer of a polling place is satisfied that the physical incapacity or illiteracy of a voter is such as it will not enable a voter to communicate, and so on. So it is very well defined in the current act.
We go to the report. The report had a 50/50 each way bet. Recommendation 51 states:
Therefore, there was no determination there.
The current act we have, which was written at the behest of the government is, in my view, poorly written and certainly very broad in determining if a voter needs assistance. All it says is a voter who is unable to vote may be assisted in voting if the voter would otherwise be unable to vote. Unable to vote does not mean anything. It could mean all sorts of things. If you compare what is written here as a very bland and broad statement - unable to vote - to other jurisdictions around Australia, you will find that we are out of step. In fact, just about all other states in Australia are in step with our current act that prescribes ...
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: It says, in fact, in Western Australia, under its heading ‘Assistance to voters’, that assistance can only be given by the presiding officer, assistant presiding officer, or poll clerk, with scrutineers and, if there are no scrutineers, in the presence of other elected officers, or another person.
In New South Wales, it says that if an elector satisfies a returning officer that their eyesight is so impaired or that he or she is so physically incapacitated that they are incapable to vote without assistance, then they can appoint a person to assist. If an officer is satisfied that the elector is so illiterate that they are unable to vote, then in the presence of scrutineers, a poll clerk will assist. It is very specific when it comes to what the criteria is for a voter to gain assistance - in some cases by a friend, and in other cases, only by polling officials.
In South Australia, a voter may be accompanied by assistants in certain cases. If the voter satisfies the officer that he or she is unable to vote without assistance, they can have assistance. The officer may express disapproval of a person chosen to assist and, in the event, some other person acceptable to an officer must be chosen. A fair bit of scrutiny there.
In Tasmania, for assistance to certain voters, an elector is to satisfy the officer that: (a) his sight is so impaired; (b) he is so physically incapacitated; or (c) he is illiterate. Then the officer can appoint an assistant.
For us now, after all of these years, where our act regarding assistance to voters has worked so well - and like the member for Nhulunbuy and other members in this House, I have been on many campaigns, both urban, but mainly rural and bush campaigns. I can say, without a doubt, that our Electoral Act as it currently stands, when it comes to assistance to voters, works extremely well. Why would you change it? That is the question I want answered. Why would you change it from the one that we have and the one that has served us so well? Why would you broaden it out? Why would you not provide a specific set of circumstances under which assistance can be given and, if it is to be given, then it is given …
Mr Stirling: In circumstances where you cannot give assistance, which is what you want.
Mr BALDWIN: No, it is not.
Mr Stirling: Yes, it is.
Mr BALDWIN: What we are saying is that the electoral officer …
Mr Stirling: You are not even standing up for your own voters.
Mr BALDWIN: The electoral officer - to pick up on the rude member for Nhulunbuy - is the one who provides the assistance. That is how it has been working in this Territory for such a long time. If the electoral officer …
Mr Stirling: Not every Commonwealth election, it did not.
Mr BALDWIN: So what? You want to be like the Commonwealth?
Mr Stirling: Well, you want us to be like Tasmania.
Mr BALDWIN: You want to be like the Commonwealth? The member for Nhulunbuy should move to Canberra if he wants to be like the Commonwealth …
Mr Stirling: How much further south do you want to get?
Mr BALDWIN: … because our Electoral Act has worked well and he can testify to that, because he has been on many campaigns too, and I have been there with him. I have not heard one complaint from the member from Nhulunbuy, either on the campaign trail or in this House, about how the assisted vote works under the current act, with our electoral officers. It works very well and the electoral officers have done an extremely good job over many years, over thousands and thousands of mobile polling booths.
I have not heard one serious complaint yet, in they waltz and broaden it out to the undefined criteria that says: ‘A voter who is unable to vote’. Well, tell me what ‘unable’ means? What does it mean? That is what I want clarified. It is so broad that you cannot describe every possibility. Because this is poor legislation, you have to put in this act the criteria under which a voter can be assisted or, if you are not prepared to do that, then the assistance must be contained to the very good officers of the Electoral Commission, indeed the new commission, so that there is no unfair bias at all.
Mr Stirling: What are you frightened of?
Mr BALDWIN: I assure the member for Nhulunbuy that if this bill goes through like this …
Mr Stirling: What are you frightened of? Voters expressing their real vote?
Mr BALDWIN: If this bill … Madam Speaker, if I can override the rude member for Nhulunbuy, if he would be quiet for a minute …
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, enough!
Mr BALDWIN: If this act goes through, and particularly this provision within the act, I will guarantee that one of the biggest complaint areas at the next elections, and particularly with mobile polling booths, will be clause 87, Assistance to certain voters, because it is not defined as to who can get the assistance. Certainly, it is defined as to who can give the assistance, but not for what reasons. If you are not going to define the reasons so that it can be contested, debated and discussed with the electoral officer present, then you are going to get very serious complaints in this area.
It happens with the federal election. The member for Nhulunbuy loves the federal act – it happens all the time. Members of his party, his parliamentary wing, and his staff who are directly involved in elections, particularly in bush electorates, would know very well that that is an area that comes in for a lot of complaint. This is going down the same road and there is no need for it because the current provisions under the current act have served the Territory very well. It is a sham to come in here and say we need to broaden it out.
If it is to broaden it out for any particular people like Aboriginal people, you know, members for Nhulunbuy and Arnhem, that Aboriginal people know better than most Territorians, how to vote. They know the systems of voting. They vote more times than most urban Territorians in land council elections, ATSIC elections, their own local council elections, and so on. Why you would want to go down this road, one can only guess, but it is an area that is going to cause serious problems in the future. I would ask you to either put in the amendment that we are suggesting or, if that is not good enough - you do not want to take our amendment – that is fine; put in the provisions of section 79 of the current act that has served us so well.
You can ask your Chief Electoral Officer if it worked well and I am sure that person will verify exactly what I am saying. To go outside of that and outside the normal practice that most other states have employed in their act, is just poor legislation and opening yourself up to much dispute in the future. I am sure we will have it.
I am going to be very interested to hear the detailed explanation of the Chief Minister with regard to that late, devious amendment of 200 members required for a registered party. That is the one - and I thank the member for Nelson if I heard him correctly - that the people out there, ordinary Territorians, are going to be most interest in. When the Chief Minister goes out and says: ‘We have introduced this new Electoral Act and what great people we are’, the one piece they are going to be most concerned about is the rights they have had taken away from them in being able to form their own small groups. As we know in other states, they are small – they might be the ‘Anti-Foreshore Development Party’ – and why shouldn’t they have a say? What have you got to worry about from those sorts of people? A lot of them are on one issue, such as ‘Anti-Tail Docking Party’. Why shouldn’t they be able to form themselves into a political party and lobby the same as any major party?
Ms Martin: They can.
Mr BALDWIN: Well they cannot unless they have 200 members.
Mr BALDWIN: How far would you have to go back to find when the Labor Party had 200 members? What, five years at the most? They would have been out of existence with 200 fully paid financial members. Probably you would have to go back no more than five years ago, and they would have been out of existence as a major registered party, although this provision allows them because they are registered federally …
Mr Stirling: Oh, you have decided to pick that one up?
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, but we are talking about local groups, looking after local Territorians. Remember? Looking after local Territorians and local groups, member for Nhulunbuy. There is probably a group in Nhulunbuy that would like to register a party and fight the next campaign, maybe against yourself. Why should they not be able to?
Ms Martin: They don’t register now.
Mr BALDWIN: Well, why should they have to find 200 members in Nhulunbuy before they can?
Ms Martin: They do not have to. They do not have to register.
Mr BALDWIN: They do not have to register?
Ms Martin: They can do what they like.
Mr BALDWIN: Will they be a registered party?
Ms Martin: They will not appear on the ballot paper …
Mr BALDWIN: Will they have access to the rolls? No.
Ms Martin: No.
Mr BALDWIN: No, not according to your new act, they will not. This is very restrictive legislation Madam Speaker - very restrictive legislation - and I am looking forward to the very detailed answer that the Chief Minister will give, particularly in terms of these 11th hour devious amendments.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I could graze over a number of matters and, to be honest, I was not anticipating speaking in this debate. I have read the report; I have looked through the bill.
Having heard some of the arguments put tonight, I would like to use this opportunity to formally register my protest in relation to clause 87. It is a disgrace. I will not go through and repeat everything my colleague, the member for Daly, has said. I thought he made some pretty compelling and persuasive arguments. Do I anticipate or have any expectation that the Chief Minister and her colleagues will listen with an open mind? No. Do I have a real expectation that they might reconsider this clause? No. However, it is important that, as one of 25 members of this Assembly, I register my protest in the strongest possible terms with respect to clause 87.
The member for Daly outlined the existing provision with respect to assistance to voters and I do not think, with respect, a case been made as to why the new clause is so restrictive. It is poorly drafted, it is extremely vague and, quite rightly, the member for Daly has touched upon what he expects - and I share his views - that after the next election, it will be a bun fight about this issue of assisted voters.
Having said that, I also note that there is a lack of criteria contained in this bill as to who is a voter requiring assistance. I am concerned about anyone, in essence, being able to help that voter. I am concerned about it, essentially, because it means you can have one person helping many assisted voters. We know that what that could mean is that the person assisting actually exercises or casts two votes. Politicians say with a grin on their face: ‘Vote early and vote often’. However, we do not actually reasonably expect anyone to be able to cast a vote more than once. My view is that this clause affords the opportunity to those assisting voters requiring assistance to cast their votes twice.
In the absence of criteria, the system is open to great abuse, and we all know why. My view is that a representative from the Electoral Commission should be the relevant person to assist voters requiring assistance. I do not say that just because it is convenient; I say it because the community has a right to have confidence in the democratic system. It has a right to expect that the system works well, that it is not open to corruption, influence, arm twisting, or whatever. Clause 87 leaves the door wide open. The public will not be able to have any confidence in this system proposed by the Labor government. It is important that the community sees - they all go in there to vote - the system working well. When they see, as I fear they will, one person assisting, say 20 or 50 people, then they will have every right to say that this is not quite right, there is something wrong.
It will be to Labor’s eternal shame that they brought in this provision. We all know why you are doing it. It is good to be opportunistic in politics, but really, this is just beyond the pail. I do not know how you can sleep at night coming up with garbage like this. You will need to hold your head high at the next election, and I do not think you will be able to do it with the inclusion of this provision.
I could ask questions in the committee, but I would be grateful if, in her response, the Chief Minister would make some comment on the criticism that not only I make, but I believe others will make, that those assisting assisted voters will, in essence, be able to cast more than one vote. That goes against everything our Western democracy stands for. The CLP has been accused of many things in this parliament, but it never entertained utter garbage like this. Therefore, in her response, if the Chief Minister could attempt to convince me that those people assisting will not be able to exercise more than one vote, I would be grateful. However, as I said at the outset, I register my strong protest with respect to this provision.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, when the Opposition Leader spoke and said we had opposition support for this bill, I am now questioning whether there is, considering some of the statements we have heard. What disturbs me about some of the debate we have heard, is that it is very sadly misinformed. I am very happy to go through and deal with some of those issues, particularly the assistance to a voter. There seems to be quite significant misunderstanding about what is involved, and what, in fact, is in the act. What is very clearly …
Mr Elferink: When was the last time you were at a Papunya booth?
Ms MARTIN: … spelled out under the act. The member for Macdonnell can ask when I was at a Papunya booth. What we are dealing with here is an act that has a lot of detail in its clauses. If we are going to talk about what the bill means, we should actually understand what we are talking about.
I will deal with the issues that have been raised, starting with the Leader of the Opposition who had concern that the report that we commissioned on the review of the Electoral Act simply had too many recommendations, and that was not what we were looking for. The reviewers talked to people - there were 49 submissions, we had public meetings - and gave us options as government. That is the process of government quite regularly: you look at options, you make decisions, you bring it to legislation. While the Opposition Leader might say there were too many recommendations, it was a process that worked well. If you look at what various jurisdictions are doing, and what works for the Territory - very importantly - these are the recommendations in legislation we have brought to the House.
Let us look at the issue that has had a lot of discussion, and that almost every speaker on the opposition raised; that is, the issue of assistance to voters. There are a lot of words being said about what happens in other places. Let us look at that in specifics. The Commonwealth, New South Wales and Tasmania, when it is talking about categories of assistance to voters, is descriptive in the grounds that you are allowed to assist a voter; namely, that you are sight impaired, physically handicapped or illiterate. In Victoria, Queensland and South Australia, that assistance can be given to a voter if the polling official is satisfied that the voter would be unable to vote without assistance. In both those circumstances - and through Commonwealth, New South Wales, Tasmania, Victoria, Queensland South Australia - what it means is the voter does not actually mark the ballot paper; that you are getting assistance. It has been determined that you need that physical assistance to mark the ballot paper. If you look at what the ACT does, the simple condition is that you need that assistance because, otherwise, you would not be able to vote. We have taken that one as a good example because, if you go to clause 87 in the bill, it is spelling out that you have a choice. You can get some official assistance …
Mr Elferink: I know what it says.
Ms MARTIN: I would like the member for Macdonnell to this listen, because he does not understand that you have a choice now under our legislation. You can have the polling official assist, or you can choose to have someone of your choice. If you then go with the person of your choice into the polling booth, you will have to satisfy the official about what kind of assistance is being given. If you look at clause 87(4), then the assistance may be given in a variety of ways:
(a) by acting as an interpreter;
It can be by marking if that so determined, in consultation with the official, and it can be by folding the ballot paper.
Mr Baldwin: There is no criteria as to why they are unable to.
Mr Baldwin: No, there is no criteria.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly, let the Chief Minister speak.
Ms MARTIN: That is the interpretation of the act and that is what will happen. The interesting thing from the opposition is this fighting about getting people assistance to make a vote. This is what this act is all about: empowering voters to make that vote; the voters who want. Very sadly, in the Territory there are a lot of people whose literacy and numeracy - as the member for Nhulunbuy said - is not what it should be. What we are doing now for people for whom English is a second, third, fifth language …
Mr Baldwin: That is not spelled out in the act.
Ms MARTIN: That will be determined.
Mr Baldwin: By whom?
Ms MARTIN: By the polling officials in terms of what assistance is given.
Mr Baldwin: On what criteria?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly, you can question this in the committee. This is the Chief Minister’s reply.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, it is a simple criteria. What the member for Daly is saying is you have to go in and explain, ‘I am sight impaired, I am this, I am that’. It is a simple criteria for the voter to say: ‘I need assistance’. What is so conspiratorial about that? ‘I am a voter, and I need assistance’, and that assistance will be determined. You are not trusting the polling officials, that is it – not trusting the officials! On one hand, we hear from the opposition that you have to trust the polling officials who have done a great job. We are still in the position of saying the polling official will work with the voter and the voter’s friend to determine what kind of assistance is required. We are saying to the voter: ‘You determine that; talk about it with the polling official and that will be done. You do not have to go in and say: “I am illiterate”.’ That is humiliating …
Mr Baldwin: What else can you say?
Ms MARTIN: That is humiliating. The member for Daly said you say to the voter: ‘You have to go in and say you cannot read’ …
Mr Baldwin: Or my sight is impaired.
Ms MARTIN: We will determine that. The level of assistance that is needed will be determined. This is a proper requirement to have in this act.
It is very sad to hear the member for Daly arguing against - the same as the member for Macdonnell - empowering voters to vote. That what it is!
Mr Baldwin: All for it! Absolutely all for it.
Ms MARTIN: Arguing against empowering voters to vote, and it is very sad …
Mr Baldwin: Nice spin you are putting on it.
Ms MARTIN: I am sure the electors of Daly will be very disappointed – will be extremely disappointed …
Mr Baldwin: And I am really worried about it. You do this every time.
Ms MARTIN: … that the member for …
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, would you direct your remarks to me. Member for Daly, you will cease. You are going to have your turn later.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, this is a very important clause and one that we stand by absolutely. We reject the opposition’s criticisms of it and their conspiratorial theories about it, and the other things that have been put forward in this House, partly in ignorance.
This is about empowering voters across the Territory to take part in something that happens, basically in the Territory context, once every four years. It all very well - I think it was the Leader of the Opposition - to say this kind of job should be carried out by the Electoral Commission. Of course, the Electoral Commission is going to carry out electoral information and education. However, if we are talking about some of the things that are to do with numeracy and literacy, I hardly think it is the job of the Electoral Commission. This sadly, for the Territory, in many cases is a fact of life for some people where English is their second, third or fourth language.
Therefore, while we will put more resources into education with the Electoral Commission and the education about elections - that is very important - this is a separate issue. It does bring consistency with the Commonwealth election. I think it was the member for Daly again who was trying to say that there were complaints federally all the time about the assistance to voters …
Mr Baldwin: Yes, there is.
Ms MARTIN: After every election, the federal government holds a review of what has happened and, from my information, those issues do not emerge there.
Mr Baldwin: They do. They absolutely do.
Ms MARTIN: Well, according to my expert advice, they do not.
Mr Baldwin: They do.
Ms MARTIN: You can sit there saying they do but, according to my expert advice, they do not. Certainly they - if the member for Daly says they are rife - do not end up reported to the federal government and …
Mr Baldwin: They do.
Ms MARTIN: Have you reported them then? No.
Mr Baldwin: CLP has. Yes, absolutely.
Ms MARTIN: So this system …
Madam SPEAKER: Talk to me, Chief Minister.
Ms MARTIN: I am sorry, Madam Speaker. This system will work, it is fair, and it empowers voters.
Let us look at another issue raised by the Leader of the Opposition: when will this new act come into operation? Another member - I think the member for Macdonnell – asked how soon will it come in. This act will come in as soon as practicable, and that is as soon as the Administrator can sign it off and we get going on it. Therefore, I cannot give you an assurance it is tomorrow. I do not know whether it is going to pass this House, so I would not assume it at this stage, despite the support. What we want to do is get this act into operation, so that what needs to be done to prepare the Territory in setting up a commission, a redistribution importantly - those aspects - will be done and put into place by the time we have the next election.
For member’s information, the election is taken from the first sitting of the Legislative Assembly. That was 15 October 2001.
The Opposition Leader also raised the issue of fixed terms. He said that he was pretty happy with the compromise of not having a fixed four-year term and that, to have a minimum three year with flexibility in the last year, was something that he could live with. I have to say honestly that I have looked at fixed four-year terms and saw some merit in those; reflected by the community consultation . Some thought there was merit in having a fixed four-year term. Others thoughts ranged from arguments that it entrenches bad governments and you cannot get rid of them, to that it grinds bureaucracy to a halt if you know that it is a fixed term because bureaucratic decision-making can start winding down some considerable number of months out from an election as campaign moves into government rather than pursuing policy and actioning government. Some real issues like that were raised.
This is a balance. Our recommendation is that we have a minimum three years and a maximum of four. Whereas other places do have a fixed term, others have a minimum three. Victoria has a similar situation where you do have a minimum and a maximum of four. You can argue both sides of that but, as the Leader of the Opposition said, it is a compromise position. He did not have particular trouble with that.
There were a lot of inconsistent arguments given. As I look through my notes about the Opposition Leader, about that assisted voting, I refer specifically to what the Opposition Leader said; that an inviolate core principle of personal choice was that you made a vote and nobody else saw it. He does not understand the current principle of seeking assistance at a polling booth. This just expands the choice of who renders assistance. I do not know whether the Opposition Leader did not understand it, but he described that personal choice of privacy as a sacred cornerstone, which was an inconsistent argument. I was concerned about the lack of understanding of what is being proposed from many members who contributed to the debate.
Madam Speaker, you, as the member for Braitling, raised the issue of postal votes and delivering them on time. That will be a challenge for the commission, but now that we will have an independent commission, it will be able to tackle those issues. Because it is independent, the commissioner will decide where the mobile polling is done, and under what time frame. There has been an extra time frame added for the days of mobile polling. They can start on the Thursday before the Saturday before an election, so you have nine or 10 days, which gives the commissioner discretion about the demands of mobile polling and how best he or she is going to meet that. That will also apply to postal votes.
This is about enhancing voting and enabling people to vote. It incorporates many of the principles of the past act. I am not saying the past act was outrageously flawed or anything like that. The critical difference between this bill and the previous act is that as Chief Minister, I do not control the electoral office or what happens there. That is the right when you have an office situated in the Chief Minister’s Department; they are directed by me. That is the theory of it, and I will not go into the practice in the past. This is an independent Electoral Commission standing independently, reporting to this House through the Speaker, and that is the core difference. We are not saying the rest of the electoral laws were particularly flawed. If you look through this bill and compare it with the existing legislation, there are a lot of similarities.
Redistribution is another issue the member for Braitling raised. Because redistribution falls within the independence of the Electoral Commission, it will be done by a redistribution committee made up of the commissioner, the Valuer-General and the Auditor-General. All members will be able to put submissions and argue their case, and it will be done as an independent process. Mentioned was made here of the peculiarities that we might have seen in some of the redistributions in the past. Well, it will be an independent process now. That process will be informed by many different factors: the community, members, political parties, whatever. They will be charged with a redistribution under particular guidelines that are in the bill.
Another issue is truth in advertising. That is a difficult issue and the only state in Australia to have legislation in respect of it is South Australia. What we hope to do is look to the Electoral Commissioner for guidance in that. It is a very complex area. It makes it very difficult, and legislating is not always the easiest or most effective way to go. It is an important issue, but it is also very difficult. The problems that you faced before the last election, you would like to think that there are good mechanisms to tackle that but, in the law, it is not always easy.
The final issue is the change to 200 for the registration of political parties. This is not a conspiracy and it certainly is not devious. Initially, the proposal of 50 was one that was considered but, in looking more closely at registration requirements in other parts of Australia – for example, New South Wales is 750, WA is 500 and other places like Tasmania are 100 – there is a balance, but some of them are quite high. We considered, because of the responsibility …
Mr Elferink: Out of a population of six million!
Ms MARTIN: … because that registration of a political party gives you access to protected electoral information – protected voter information - then it should not be taken lightly. The charge from some members in here that we will stop political parties even being formed is absolutely ridiculous.
Mr Elferink: No, it is not. This is a genuine attempt to cut people out of the picture.
Ms MARTIN: Political parties currently conform; they can stand for election. Because we do not have anything other than the candidate’s name on the ballot paper, under the current system everything would be the same.
Registration gives parties the ability to meet those criteria to have their political party on the ballot paper. It does not stop parties from forming, from having candidates stand for them. It does not stop them handing out information. It can have how-to-vote cards with their political party on it. It can have all those things. Just on the ballot paper, it will not have that political party. The same as now.
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: For a bunch of people who never wanted to change the system, suddenly they are protesting with this holier-than-thou attitude. You never even thought it was important before to register political parties and to have the names of political parties on ballot papers.
We have to make sure, because we are charging political parties with responsibilities, that there is a requirement for a proper amount of membership. We consider that, on the balance of things, to be 200. It does not stop or undermine the democratic process.
Mr Elferink: Yes, it does.
Ms MARTIN: It does not do any of the things we are being charged with. It simply says that on the ballot paper … Member for Macdonnell, if you want to form the ‘Kangaroo Tail Party’ - or whatever you want to do, considering your past behaviour at elections - you can form it. However, you do not get to be registered unless there are 200 people who want to sign up to the ‘Kangaroo Tail Docking Party’ or whatever party you actually want to form. You can do that. You can have your name on the ballot paper; it just will not be with the …
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr Elferink: What about the recommendations of the report, Treasurer?
Ms MARTIN: There are a number of parties the member for Macdonnell might be pursuing. You just hope the member for Macdonnell was not going to be setting up parties in competition with himself, as a member of the CLP.
The conspiracy theory is absolutely unwarranted. We want political parties to think very seriously regarding their registration. There are very serious requirements for political parties. They are charged with protected electoral information, as we members are, and that is not to be taken lightly. Therefore, 200 members of a political party is very reasonable.
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: The misunderstanding from members opposite that suddenly it stops political parties forming - it stops people being able to set up the ‘Anti-Planning Party’, the anti this or the pro this - is a lot of rubbish. You really need to read the legislation and understand what it is about, rather than just come in here and mouth uninformed rhetoric which, in many circumstances, is what we have heard.
I am looking at whether there is anything else we have not covered. Are there any other particular issues that were raised?
Mr Baldwin: Electoral rolls.
Ms MARTIN: Electoral rolls?
Mr Baldwin: Electoral rolls to individuals.
Ms MARTIN: Well, the recommendation - if we are going to look at recommendations that came from the review - was that individuals should not be able to purchase electoral rolls.
Mr Baldwin: Why?
Ms MARTIN: Because it is information that is protected. That they be available to anyone to purchase and take away, is something that is not recommended. We are following through with that recommendation.
Mr Baldwin: So a candidate cannot get it?
Ms MARTIN: As members of parliament, we have access to that; Political parties have access. It does bring us into line with the rest of Australia. There are reasons of privacy. In times when we protect the information that is made available quite readily to us, then I would have thought we would be applauded for making sure that that information did not get to just anyone. That is an important principle to have enshrined in this act.
As members of parliament, we are accountable for what we do with that information. Political parties, because of their registration, are accountable with what they do with that information. If you are just talking about someone who aspires to political office, they are not accountable, and cannot be held accountable, with that information. As a candidate, you do not get access to it; as a member you do; as a registered political party you do. That is fair.
To sum up where we are with this bill, it is an important bill. As I said, it establishes, for the first time in the Territory, an independent electoral process and an independent electoral redistribution process. This is something long overdue. It does not change every law we have about the election process. In fact, many of them work very well. I pay tribute to our election officials. They have done a very good job - as graphically put by the Deputy Chief Minister - over very difficult areas. It is hard to imagine, sometimes, more difficult terrain and circumstances that our electoral officials have worked in over many years - and done a very fine job.
What this bill does is provide a changed framework for elections. Instead of having an election being able to be called any time in four years, it now provides a minimum of three and a maximum of four. The usual 17-day campaign, which has been the norm, will now be a 19-day campaign. You could have arguments about that. An election will be called on a Tuesday and held two Saturdays later. We looked at the balance here. The recommendation from the review was you could have 53 days. We would drive every single Territorian and every single political aspirant absolutely crazy if we had 53 days. Therefore, to get the balance of not grinding government to a halt, driving candidates or the community mad, 19 days is a good balance. To allow two more days to get on the roll is something that recognises, within that time frame of 19 days, the fact that we do have a turnover in population and, sometimes, people forget to put themselves on the roll.
The registration of political parties is different; it does bring us into line with the rest of Australia. The way that we will have full rolls at …
Mr Baldwin interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: The fact that you had to do a declaration vote if you went to a polling booth that was not in the electorate you were voting in has been changed now. Full A to Z rolls will be held and you will be able to vote, and your vote will go back to the appropriate electorate.
Mr Baldwin: Good. That is good.
Ms MARTIN: That is an innovation that is good. The declaration vote when you were perhaps at Parap and you should be voting at Wanguri, were time-consuming. That is now fast-tracked.
Registered postal voters have the same criteria as the Commonwealth. That simplifies things but, again, the whole point of this legislation is to make sure that Territorians can vote and can make an informed vote and get the assistance they need to make that vote.
There are serious penalties in place for people who do not follow the rules, and we do not back off that. If you unduly influence somebody in your vote, there is a severe penalty. If you break any other rules to do with elections, there are severe penalties. We are making that very clear. However, on the other hand, this is about empowering Territorians to vote, and it is a bill we are very proud of.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Electoral Bill (Serial 195):
Clauses 1 and 2, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 3:
Ms MARTIN: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 71.1.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I know that the Chief Minister went through the process in her summation on the second reading. However, I remain unconvinced and unsatisfied with her explanation. It is clearly overstating the need for registered numbers here in the Northern Territory. I remind the Chief Minister of Recommendation 67 on page 85 of the Minter Ellison Consulting independent review of the Northern Territory electoral system, which reads as follows:
In her second reading summation, the Chief Minister relied on recommendations to justify her position about another matter in this debate. I am curious to know from the Chief Minister why one recommendation is superior to another regarding changing the number of eligible voters to support a political party, from 20 to 200, a factor of 10 which vastly - when you work out the ratios of populations to required members in other states - distorts the position in the Territory to the point where it is simply unreasonable.
Ms MARTIN: Mr Chairman, I made my position clear in the second reading. However, to deal with the issue raised by the member for Macdonnell about why we accept some recommendations from the Minter Ellison review and not others; there was a very strong recommendation from the Minter Ellison review that we have public funding of elections. We rejected it. We looked at all the recommendations and, quite properly for government, we made a balance in what we put forward for legislation. As I said before, a registered political party has particular rights and responsibilities and it should be properly represented. It does not stop political parties from forming or from running for election, but to be registered and all that requires, which means the responsibilities. Looking at the balance across Australia, it is 200 for the Territory.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I realise that the Chief Minister is prepared to depart from the recommendations of the review. Indeed, she did so when she introduced the figure of 50 into this parliament in her second reading speech. Fifty would still distort the ratio regarding how it operates with other states. However, 50 was palatable and understandable. Indeed, the CLP’s own recommendation when responding to the review was 100. However, what the Chief Minister is doing in this case is not merely choosing not to follow a recommendation because it brings us into line with other states - it simply does not bring us into line with other states. It is clearly an attempt to nobble other political parties from getting their political party’s name on the ballot paper. It is clearly at attempt to obliterate any form of political party, other than the majors, getting their name on the ballot paper. This Chief Minister is running scared as the result of her own polling, and I would suggest that this number be lowered to the original number that the Chief Minister so reasonably suggested.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I would have hoped that all members of this Assembly at least would see politics as a fairly serious business; something you have to commit to and dedicate a very large part of your life. We talk about work/life balance sometimes. I do not know about politicians having any work/life balance; it is all work.
What the member for Macdonnell is clearly putting to us is that if you have a bunch of people who want to register a political party - whether is be a single issue or whether it be a set of principles or a full-bodied platform of what they want to see achieved. He says that, because they do not have the will, the dedication, the commitment, the energy to get out there and sign up 200 members, they cannot make it, and that is unfair.
I will give you an example. There is a group in the Northern Territory. It is called Network Against Prohibition. They are familiar to this place because they broke quite a number of laws in invading this place. I would not have any problem about NAP, Network Against Prohibition, forming a political party in the Northern Territory, getting on the ballot paper. However, they must have 200 members. If they have the commitment, the dedication, the drive and the energy such as they showed the day they invaded this place, I am sure that they could go and do it.
It is not an impossible ask. These are the sort of people who stand on the street with large pig heads and thrust them in the face of police officers outside an annual police conference. That is the sort of behaviour in which they indulge, the same as when they broke the law and the privilege of this place by barging right through the doors. I do not have a problem with them. All they have to do is convince 200 Territorians out there that they have a strong reason to be able to form a political party, based around their attitudes to drug laws. If they get 200 people signed up, they are a political party, they are on the ballot paper and they are recognised as such. However, if they do not have that commitment and drive to get 200 people on their books, then they are not a political party and that means they do not have the access to the roll that we are talking about.
I would be concerned with some of the lies that I heard spoken by those people - to me and inside a court of law - that they would be fit and proper people to have access to such information as is on the roll. Nonetheless, all they have to do is get out there, show a bit of commitment to their cause - a little more commitment than barging through the doors of this place or standing around on street corners shoving pigs heads in the face of police officers - get out there and get their 200 members. Then they are a registered political party and they are on the ballot paper.
Mr ELFERINK: That is an extreme example, and it is one that I used. I thank the Treasurer for reminding me of the name, because I had quite forgotten the Network Against Prohibition as the name.
However there are other organisations in the community that will also be nobbled by this process; organisations that have very specific - maybe even electorate specific - issues. Perhaps there is an organisation that concerns itself with such things as power poles on a particular road in the rural area that would like to run a candidate in those areas.
Surely the Chief Minster and the Treasurer are not suggesting that people who have a concern about such things like planning, road maintenance, undergrounding of power, which are specific to particular streets and areas, have to go out and find 200 people sympathetic to their position before they can find their political party’s name on a ballot paper.
It is an absolutely absurd suggestion to try and plead Territorians who have particular issues to involve themselves in the process to the extent where can get their cause’s name, through a political party, onto a ballot paper. If they want to call themselves the ‘Leonino Road Lightpole Action Group’ and register it as political party, then they should be allowed to. Under the existing arrangements, what was traditionally done was nothing more than the candidate’s name.
They have decided to change it but, in the process of changing it, they have decided to marginalise smaller groups in the community because they are afraid of the consequences that will flow in the redistribution of preferences against them, because they know that they are in trouble.
Mr BALDWIN: Mr Chairman, I would like the Chief Minister to answer the question specifically: why, after all the consultation by the review, then your own consultation - one would assume in putting this together into a bill to form the legislation - did you, between the time of making your second reading speech when it was 50 - which you must have thought at the time a fair number - and then now at this late hour bring in 200? Specifically, what changed your mind to increase by 150 members?
Ms MARTIN: Mr Chairman, I have explained this. Maybe the member was not in the House or was not listening. Bills do get amended and you reassess some aspects. We looked at …
Mr Baldwin: Yes, what specifically made you change your mind?
Ms MARTIN: … the responsibility of being a political party, the rights you have as a political party, and the numbers that were needed elsewhere in Australia as a benchmark. If you are saying that we should do what they do in the rest of Australia, well, maybe we need 750 as they do in New South Wales.
A political party, if it registered, has certain rights and responsibilities. That does not stop a group of people who are opposed to undergrounding power forming themselves into a party. To be a party you have to have a constitution, you have to meet all the needs and proper processes of a constitution. That can still happen - of course that can happen. They can campaign as a political party, they can do how-to-vote for the political party.
This is where the hypocrisy is: you never thought it was important to register when you were in government. You never thought it important to change the act. You thought it was fine that we had an Electoral Office under the Department of Chief Minister, not separate, not independent, as we are making it now. Yet, you are arguing the point of how many people can be registered as a political party, how many parties. It is hypocrisy. It is hypocrisy to the utmost.
Two hundred is where a median point is. As eloquently put by the Deputy Chief Minister, if you want to form that party, if you really what to make a commitment to politics, then 200 is fine.
Mr MILLS: Mr Chairman, she might pay credit to the Deputy Chief Minister for eloquently putting it, but she is proposing to the House that this 200 is a median point. We are asking quite directly: please help us to understand why you changed it from 50 to 200, apparently overnight, and you are also asserting that it is in line with what is in most other states.
Ms Martin: No.
Mr MILLS: For most states, it is 500.
Ms MARTIN: No, no I am not saying it is line. You missed most of the debate Terry. You went outside, so I cannot help that.
Mr MILLS: I beg your pardon?
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Mr MILLS: Please help us to understand why you have changed it from 50 to 200?
Ms Lawrie: Already explained.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, it is curious that the Treasurer, in his speech, made the observation that the old system was that in each electorate you had five people from each division to nominate that person as a candidate. If you work that out - I think he said five but the actual number is six - that brings you up to 150 people. So, the theory alone that the Treasurer is running on, is that if the whole party with 25 candidates has to go and grab six people from each electorate to support the nominations, it would bring you 250 people. Therefore, you have to be committed enough to field 25 candidates, according to the Treasurer, to find 150 people - and he talks about levels of commitment which now have to reach 200. He is saying that nothing is changing. Well, the fact is that something is changing, and what is changing is the inability for small parties to run one or two candidates, or a single candidate against a sitting member, because they are unhappy with the performance of that sitting member. They are trying their hardest to sideline those people and that is what this is about - nothing else. This is an obliteration of the minor parties in the Northern Territory, and it is a deliberate attempt to try and get them off the ballot paper. It is a disgusting, cheap trick.
Mr HENDERSON: Mr Chairman, I will be very quick. The hypocrisy of the member for Macdonnell is absolutely outstanding when he talks about trying to obliterate minor parties from running under that banner on the ballot sheet. I remind the member for Macdonnell that they cannot do that at the moment under his legislation that he was proud to stand by.
It has been very clearly argued by both the Chief Minister and the Treasurer as to the reasons why the number 200 was chosen. However, the feigned outrage from members opposite regarding a system when, for the first time in the Northern Territory’s history, political parties can run under a banner on a ballot paper - the first time in Territory elections that they will be able to do so. It is hypocrisy that somehow we are trying to stifle small parties from getting their names onto a ballot paper, when small or large, no political party could get their names onto a ballot paper under the act as its stood under the CLP. Therefore, we are not going to fall for this feigned outrage.
The member for Nhulunbuy gave a very clear example of some of the groups that could get access to electoral rolls under their proposal - and even they went to a 100. If you are serious about forming a political party, getting out there across the Northern Territory getting 200 members to sign up should not be too difficult. We do not want people like NAP and other fringe parties getting access to private citizens’ information. The feigned outrage is absolutely astounding, and I urge them to look at their own hypocrisy if they try and run the arguments any longer.
Mr BALDWIN: In response to that silly claim, Mr Chairman, we know what the reform is. We welcome the reform under this provision. It is a reform, it is great!
Mr Henderson: You could not spell ‘reform’.
Mr BALDWIN: You are a goose! You are an absolute goose! Just listen …
Mr Henderson: You are a goose! You are a hypocritical goose!
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
Mr BALDWIN: Just listen, you might learn something.
We welcome the reform that allows registered political parties names to go on ballot papers. Before, yes, they were not allowed. It was consistent for everybody. We are saying: ‘Let us be a little more consistent in bringing forward those reforms’. When we saw the Chief Minister’s second reading speech where she said: ‘Membership for political parties to be registered will be 50’, we said: ‘Fairly consistent. Fairly consistent with what has been reported in the review. Fairly consistent with what we were proposing. Parties that could get, in a small population, 50 committed people, would be able to have their name on the ballot paper’. We thought that was a great reform.
However, now we find out that the reform is actually very hollow; that only major political parties will get their name on the ballot paper, and minor groups in the Northern Territory that are not federally registered, will not be able to, unless they could get a commitment of 200 people out of a population of 200 000. I just think it is disgraceful. I still have not heard the specific reason why it changed from 50 in the second reading speech to 200 now. I know I am not going to get the answer, because they are ducking and weaving on this issue.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 18, by leave, taken together:
Mr BALDWIN: Mr Chairman, I would like to raise the issue under clause 13, regarding the supply of the roll extract to MLAs and registered parties. I would like the Chief Minister to clarify that this clause 13 provision will now restrict an individual Territorian from purchasing a copy of the electoral roll, whereas, currently under the act as reported in the review - and if you look at our act - the electoral rolls are made available for public inspections and sale. I seek clarification that what we are saying in this new act is that, unless you are a MLA – a sitting member – or, indeed, you are a registered officer of a registered party, you will not be able to purchase a copy of the roll. I would just like that clarified.
Ms MARTIN: That is right.
Mr BALDWIN: Could I ask the Chief Minister to explain then why this dramatic change. What has been the issue that has caused us to go down this road and restrict Territorians from gaining access to a vital piece of information and including, I might add, restricting candidates at the next election from going along to the Electoral Commission - the new commission - and getting a copy of a roll when they have formally and publicly put up their hand to become a candidate, and might require the information pertaining to the electorate in which they wish to run.
Ms MARTIN: This recommendation and this piece of legislation, Mr Chairman, is in line with where other parts of Australia have moved. It is an issue of privacy and it is an issue of using appropriately information that is protected voter information, and to be held accountable for using it. If you are a member of this House you are accountable. If you are a registered political party you can get access to that because there are mechanisms by which you are held accountable. I would have thought this was an important privacy issue, at a time when we do resist giving that kind of information to anyone. Most of us here would express some level of discontent and resentment about the level of information that is held about us in various forms, in various organisations. This is one that we can have a level of control over. Members in this House are accountable for information like that, and registered political parties will be. This is an issue of privacy.
Mr BALDWIN: If it is an issue of privacy, can the Chief Minister then tell me how many instances of misuse of these rolls is she aware of over the last, say few years - few elections even? I knew that ‘it is an issue of privacy’ would be your answer because yes, some of the other states - in fact two or three of the other states - have moved in this direction quoting privacy. However, I would like to know how many incidences of misuse of electoral rolls have occurred in the Territory that you know of?
Ms MARTIN: I do not have that kind of information about the misuse. It is the same where you said there were absolute breaches of the Commonwealth legislation on having a voter’s friend, someone to assist voters. You said there were ‘squillions’. Yet, my expert advice is that information is not reflected in federal reviews after federal elections. I would have thought to say this is an issue of privacy - I have explained it carefully - that that would win your respect. Also the fact that other jurisdictions are moving the same way is to protect information. At a time when, I believe, other organisations have far too much information about me, for example, and probably everyone in this House - from credit ratings to everything like that, to how many dogs you have - then to protect that level of information - and it is protected information – it is important that it goes to people who can be held accountable. That is the finish.
Mr BALDWIN: Mr Chairman, I know I am not going to get further on that because of the privacy side of things. Therefore, let me suggest to you, Chief Minister, that you might take a position in this that covers the privacy of individuals that you are concerned about - and yes, that is a good argument, even though I do not know of that many instances where those rolls have been misused, but I do not have the expert advice that you have. Why would we not give it, in the case of this information being available, not to the registered parties and to the sitting MLAs, but to those candidates who have gone through the proper process under this act to apply and pay their money to become candidates? Why, then, after the electoral rolls have closed, would we not insist that those electoral rolls, if required by properly and formally endorsed candidates, be given to them? Surely, we cannot stand here on the one hand and protect privacy but, on the other, restrict everybody from playing on a level field in an election process?
It could be any independent candidate, or anybody for that matter, who wants to contest a particular seat. They should be able to avail themselves - take a copy with them, not sit there and write 3400 names with all the details - as a properly endorsed candidate to go and try their luck in an election and have the same information that all of us will have and that the major parties will have. Surely that is reasonable, and that is a provision that is available under the federal act. If you so like the federal act in voter assistance, why would you not follow the federal act in this case? I am happy to move an amendment. I have one ready.
Ms MARTIN: I am checking your reference to the federal act. My information is that members are provided with roll for their division and political parties are provided with roll for all divisions so, under the federal act it is not available. That is my expert advice on what you are saying, and …
Mr Baldwin: I can help you there.
Ms MARTIN: No, no, I am on my feet. The Territory’s Information Commissioner supported this proposal very strongly; that we should have a level of privacy about the information that is given out. You are saying a ‘properly endorsed candidate’. Well, that is somebody who just wants to stand and has paid $200. What we are saying is, and what every other place has moved to, is about members, who have to be held accountable.
Mr Baldwin interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: No, the member is not interested.
Mr BALDWIN: Mr Chairman, I might refresh the Chief Minister’s memory here and provide her with information under the Commonwealth Electoral Act, Provision of certified list of voters to candidates:
That is fair and reasonable and I have an amendment ready that could be circulated. You can read it and we can come back to it if you like. Without going to the extreme to allow all Territorians to have this information to protect their privacy, we could at least let candidates have it. Surely, all of you here who have been candidates - particularly the Independent members who are not aligned with any major party - know how important these rolls are when you are going to contest an election. It is incumbent on us as fair legislators to give everybody an even go in a campaign for an election held democratically.
Ms MARTIN: Well, I have to inform the member for Daly that I do not agree, and this side of the House does not agree.
Mr Baldwin: True?
Ms MARTIN: I certainly take back what I said about the Commonwealth legislation and accept that you are right about that. Other states and territories have moved the way we are moving and there are significant privacy reasons for that. I would have thought there were even more significant privacy reasons in electorates as small as ours, and that is significant.
Mr ELFERINK: Just one more question by way of advice. It has been a practice up until now that when I visited the Electoral Commissioner’s office I was able to view the rolls. Will that practice continue?
Mr Stirling: View the rolls, yes.
Ms MARTIN: Certainly.
Mr ELFERINK: I am a little confused. If privacy is such an important issue and you want to prevent people like Mr Meyerhoff from having access to the rolls, then it follows that Mr Meyerhoff is still able to view the rolls in the Electoral Commission office if he walks in there and asks?
Ms MARTIN: Yes, that is the case. That is what I made clear.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, where is the privacy protection in that, Chief Minister? If your justification for preventing to give electoral rolls out to candidates is that it would represent some serious breach of individual privacy, where Mr Meyerhoff would use that information available on the roll that is provided to him for some unholy purpose, surely Mr Meyerhoff - or anybody else for that matter - should be prevented from seeing the rolls in the Australian Electoral Commission Office. I take it that would be a consistent position, Chief Minister. What is your comment on that?
Well, I notice that the Chief Minister is not climbing to her feet, Mr Chairmen. It is an obvious and straightforward question. The justification for not providing rolls is privacy yet, the Chief Minister is making no amendments, or suggesting no changes to the policy of keeping the roll as a public document. This is an absurd situation, and is clearly part of an attempt to achieve another end. I would suggest that end has a lot more to do with preventing candidates from having access to rolls and, therefore, disseminating information, rather than actually being able to protect people’s privacy. However, I would ask the Chief Minister again: would she care to comment on that?
Mr BALDWIN: Mr Chairman, in light of no response from the Chief Minister, I just point out in the bill that we are pursuing here, under clause 14, Use of roll extracts, it is quite explicit what a person may or may not do:
Surely, if we let formally endorsed candidates have access to these rolls to take away with them to use in a campaign, we could describe in the use of those roll extracts some very specific things that are allowed and are not allowed to be done, as has been done further in that section 14 of the act for MLAs. We could actually guarantee by writing into the legislation that candidates would be the same as for MLAs and registered parties - candidates who have gone through the proper process. There would be no or very little risk, or as much risk as with MLAs or registered parties, that those rolls would be misused.
Surely, to be fair to all people who do contest elections, if we wrote candidates into the same restrictions as the MLAs, we could allow them to have the rolls and give them a fair go. Are you absolutely refusing to take on some recommendation that allows candidates to get access to these rolls? Would you like to come back to this and look at it, or is that it, you absolutely refuse?
Ms MARTIN: I have made my position very clear.
Mr BALDWIN: Is that that you absolutely refuse, Chief Minister?
Ms MARTIN: I am saying I have made my position clear. I have worked through the arguments, and you can continue to argue about it, because you are not accepting what I am saying, you are disagreeing. What we have to do is agree to differ.
Mr BALDWIN: I take it that she absolutely refuses.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I seek a point of clarification, member for Daly. Were you introducing an amendment or were you going on?
Mr BALDWIN: Well, if the government would accept the amendment, I can introduce an amendment to this.
A Member: No.
Mr BALDWIN: Then I will not waste the time, although I will state that I would have liked to …
Mr Stirling: You have to make sure that the members stay in the House.
Mr BALDWIN: Mr Chairman, I will ask you to tell the member for Nhulunbuy not to reflect on who is and who is not in this House.
Mr Stirling: Call a division. Let us test it.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! I will put the question that is before us, and we will see whether that amendment is accepted. The question is that clauses 4 to 18 stand as printed.
Clauses 4 to 18 agreed to.
Clause 19:
Ms MARTIN: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 71.2
Amendment agreed to
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 81, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 82:
Ms MARTIN: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 71.3.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 82, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 83 to 86, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 87:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I move amendments 73.1, 73.2 and 73.3.
On the issue of assisted votes, no shortage of members articulated some of the problems with assisted votes. Then, in the Chief Minister’s closing speech, she responded to it by saying it is not a problem in the ACT. I appreciate that, and I understand …
Ms Martin: I did not say it is was not a problem in the ACT. So do not verbal me, thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: I appreciate what the Chief Minister is trying to tell us. I am not here to try and scream and screech and say it is all unfair. I am quite happy to go to the next poll in relation to this as it stands at the moment. What I am concerned about is that there will be allegations that come out of this process, and those allegations will go to the process of assisted votes, and what happens with assisted votes and those sorts of things, as they have done in the past, repeatedly. The Chief Minister may cite legislation from the Australian Capital Territory or federal legislation, and say how important it is to fall into line with that legislation, but the fact of the matter is, as the Treasurer pointed out, that the Territory is a unique jurisdiction, and very unique things happen. We have to be aware of the large number of people in our environment who have language difficulties and such things as physical impairments and other impairments.
In the existing legislation as it stands, clause 79 says that certain people may be assisted if the voter satisfies the presiding officer of a polling place that the voter is so physically incapacitated that he or she is unable to vote without assistance, or is illiterate, the presiding officer shall, or shall direct another officer to assist the vote. That is not a major problem, and it has produced a lot less conflict than the federal elections have done in the past in the Northern Territory, because there is always a question mark that has been raised about the legitimacy of some of the assisted votes.
I am not particularly worried about it, but the problem is that, as a member of this parliament, I am concerned that, because of the specific environment we have, this application that is made by voters - a voter who is unable to vote may be assisted - is too broad in many senses. What are the criteria, I ask the Chief Minister, for the term ‘unable to be satisfied’?
Ms MARTIN: Mr Chairman, I have pretty effectively dealt with this issue, but I am happy to go through it again. I pick up the point erroneously made by the member for Macdonnell - and if he is going to quote me, he should at least quote me accurately - about why we decided to go with the use of an assistant to help the voter, known as a voter’s friend. We looked at what was happening in other parts of the country. In somewhere like the Commonwealth, New South Wales or Tasmania, there were those descriptive grounds in the legislation. If someone wanted assistance they had to say: ‘I am physically handicapped’ or whatever. In Victoria, Queensland and South Australia you have to satisfy a polling official that you are unable to vote without assistance. That is a fairly simple criteria. The one in the Australia Capital Territory, which seemed to be the most constructive way to go, simply said that you are unable to vote. I do not know what the problem is. That will then be discussed with a polling official; and that is fine.
We trust our polling officials to make those decisions. If it is inappropriate, then that will be rejected. However, the polling official will talk to the voter, who will explain what the problem is. If you look at clause 87(4) there are a number of different ways that that assistance can happen and it will be overseen by the official. The member for Nhulunbuy gave the example of his mother, who takes his older sister in. You can choose people you feel comfortable with to go in and make that vote. As you get older, that is very important. If voting is very important to you, you want to make sure you get it right – that you get what you want put down. Therefore, taking someone who can understand your language, or somebody who understands your impairment, is very important.
This idea that somehow or other it is going to carte blanche and there is going to be people forcing other people to vote the way they want, is absolutely absurd and simply conspiratorial. It reflects more on where the member for Macdonnell is coming from than what this legislation is doing.
Just move away from having to be prescriptive. This is about a voter and their rights. They will talk with the polling official - who, in your own words, have done a great job and really understand what the process is all about - and that is how the voter’s friend will be able to assist, according to the criteria that will be explained under section 87(4) of the act. It is straightforward. It is not the same prescription that you see in other acts, but it has a prescription about it, because they are the only ways that you will be able to assist; and that will be determined. It is straightforward; it is empowering voters, and it moves us forward as a jurisdiction.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, all I asked the Chief Minister to really tell me was what were the criteria to satisfy ‘unable’. It’s a fairly straightforward question.
Mr Stirling: What part of the word ‘unable’ do you not understand? Unable to vote.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, I will pick up on the interjection. The Treasurer used an example of his own mother, who is taken to the polling booth and, I would imagine, there are reasons why that voter is assisted – perfectly legitimate reasons. Perhaps the age of the Treasurer’s mother would make her eyesight not up to scratch or perhaps some other physical incapacity …
Mr Stirling: My mum would be embarrassed if she knew we were talking about her like this.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, you raised it …
Mr Stirling: She votes Liberal anyway!
Mr ELFERINK: This is the issue: that there is a criteria and she matches it. There is a physical or eyesight incapacity or she may have difficulty hearing. Whatever the case it, the issue is that ‘unable’ is a little on the broad side and I would just like a more descriptive way of doing it.
Mr Stirling: Unable means unable.
Mr ELFERINK: If the Chief Minister wants to call me prescriptive, well she has been fairly prescriptive about the rolls and about the number of voters in the political party. Now, all of a sudden, prescription is not an acceptable idea. Chief Minister, what are the criteria for ‘unable’?
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I would have though ‘unable to vote’ means exactly what it says: unable to vote. Why would you be looking for a hidden meaning here or an explanation of the words ‘unable to vote’?
Mr Elferink: I am asking for clarification.
Mr STIRLING: Advice we had was that, under the federal system, the Australian Electoral Commission will operate a very similar provision. By far and away the majority of assistance offered under this system is undertaken by polling officials in any case.
That would be my experience because, mostly the need for a voter’s friend is in the mobiles, in the remote and rural areas of the Territory where age, infirmity, illiteracy, innumeracy are factors. That has been pretty much my experience. On many occasions it would be a voter’s friend in operation - a trusted family member or a close friend of the person going in to vote. However, most of the time it would be undertaken by the polling official in any case. Unable to vote means unable to vote and that is something that is confirmed by the polling official at the booth. I cannot see why the opposition has such difficulty with this.
The member for Daly claims a great deal of experience - and he ought to have; he has been in here a long time - on polling booths. He would know, and would well remember and recognise, the difficulties that occur when you swap from one regime to another. For example, you have been through a federal poll under the voter’s friend system and people understand that, and the next election is a Territory election and they rock up with their friend and the polling official says: ‘Excuse me, you cannot come in here. I will deal with this because it is under the Territory system and it is the polling official that takes it through’.
Why do, and why would you, want to make it difficult for voters? I do not imagine that the federal system is about to change simply because we ring them and say: ‘You should change your system because ours is better’. From the point of view of consistency alone, if you have as similar systems as possible, you will prevent a lot of that misunderstanding. Therefore, the voter who rocks up at the federal election with the voter’s friend in hand and goes through the system is able to exercise their democratic right and cast their vote, also comes along at the next Territory election and is able to use the voter’s friend again. That makes for so much common sense.
The heart of this is maximising a vote under all circumstances. If the opposition has a problem with this, they have a problem with the fundamental principle of democracy.
Mr BALDWIN: Mr Chairman, we do not have any problem with the principles of democracy. The Deputy Chief Minister, the member for Nhulunbuy, has just run an argument that we have been running in our debate; that is, that if you think that the act should be changed because it is confusing for people - as you put it, particularly in bush and remote seats - that they go from one election in the Northern Territory to another, the federal election, and they are different and we should make them the same, then you support our argument. Let us make them the same.
Let us look at the federal provision. The Commonwealth Electoral Act, section 234, Assistance to certain voters:
It goes on for three for four more sections and does prescribe the criteria under which a voter’s friend can be used. Therefore, if you are following that line of debate, member for Nhulunbuy, then I wholeheartedly agree, because you are supporting our current position.
We said at the outset if you do not like our amendment - and that is to let only the presiding officer assist in the vote - then surely, you would set down the criteria because we all know - those who have been campaigns, all of us – that, to leave it in the hands of the presiding officers who do a fantastic job, they will open themselves up to some contest about this matter if you do not actually prescribe the criteria under which a voter could be assisted.
You have not yet described - any one of you on that side - the sorts or extent of things that would fit the criteria of ‘unable’. You have not described them. Describe them! Describe the sorts of things under which they could go to the electoral presiding officer and say: ‘Sir, I am unable to vote’. You are suggesting the presiding officers would say: ‘Why are you unable to vote?’. I want you to describe the sorts of things they might say that would satisfy the presiding officer that they are unable to vote and, therefore, eligible for assistance.
The other thing I want you to provide some detail on is if, like us, you put your faith in the presiding officers, why is it that we are going to, under this act, allow scrutineers to go in with the presiding officer or another officer, when they assist, but not the friend? Who do we trust the most: the presiding officer or the friend? I would trust the presiding officer any day. Why, then, say they can have scrutineers when they go into vote, yet the friend cannot? When they take a friend in, no scrutineer is allowed. What is the difference? You tell me. However, I want you to describe for me also those other criteria …
Ms MARTIN: Look, I will be brief because I believe we are going round and round on this issue. What the fundamental …
Mr Baldwin: No, we are not; you are not explaining yourself.
Ms MARTIN: It is a philosophical difference about empowering people to vote. Someone comes in to vote, they need some assistance, they bring a friend with them - maybe they have trouble with literacy, maybe they cannot read the voting paper, maybe there are all these kinds of things. However, we leave it open. We are not making it prescriptive. It is the voter’s choice then, whether they have their friend there, or a scrutineer or whatever. That is their choice. I cannot see why the members for Daly and Macdonnell and other members of the opposition are so opposed to legislation that is simply talking about assisting people to vote …
Mr Baldwin: No, it is in the current act. We built the current act that had it in there which prescribed.
Ms MARTIN: … to have access to vote If you are so insecure about your electorates that you somehow feel as though this is an attack on your voters, and your voters’ ability to vote for you, then that is your problem.
This is legislation that will work. This is legislation that has the proper safeguards in it, and this clause 87 has the proper safeguards in it. There seems to be an implication from what you are saying that, if a voter can choose who they have to assist them, and discuss this with the polling official, somehow or other something is going to be corrupted. The problem is with you, and the not with our proposal. I am convinced of our proposal. I am convinced that the proper processes will be in place; that we will not see rife corruption or abuse of the electoral process. That is the last comment I am going to make about clause 87.
Mr BALDWIN: I would expect that from the Chief Minister to try and wrap this up very quickly. However, I will just make the point that …
Ms Martin: It is 10 past 10, Tim.
Mr BALDWIN: Oh well, I am sorry for keeping you up, Chief Minister, but your job is to be in here making fair and reasonable legislation. If it is 10 past 10, well, I am really sorry.
Ms Martin: You are not putting fair and reasonable amendments in. Come on, call a division.
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Mr BALDWIN: I am sorry about the Chief Minister having to stay up past her bedtime, but it is important to note that, in the current legislation we operate under, voter assistance was allowed by the CLP, and voter assistance is still being allowed under the ALP’s legislation, and that is fair and reasonable. We do not have a problem about that. All we are trying to do is take the obligation off the presiding officer, to expose him or her to argument, by defining the criteria under which assistance will be given - something that the member for Nhulunbuy also agrees with, because it is in the federal act that he also agrees with. I know that is your final point Chief Minister, and I know we are not going to change your mind, and I do apologise for keeping you up late.
Amendments negatived.
Mr Stirling: Division, Mr Chairman. They will not even divide on their own amendment. Such commitment to your principles!
Mr Baldwin: This is the government calling division!
Mr Stirling: You will not even divide on your own amendments.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! Member for Macdonnell, amendment 73.2.
Mr ELFERINK: I am sorry, Mr Chairman, I cannot hear over the yelling and the interjections.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Amendment 73.2, or are we taking all those three as one?
Mr ELFERINK: When I got to my feet I moved amendments 73.1, 73.2 and 73.3 simply as a matter of convenience because they were all relating to the same issue.
Amendment 73.2 negatived.
Amendment 73.3 negatived.
Clause 87 agreed to.
Clauses 88 to 151, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 152:
Ms MARTIN: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 71.4.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms MARTIN: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 71.5
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I am not going to go over all the territory we were over before. Suffice to say that the CLP posts their objection on the same grounds for the amendments to the definitions under clause 152(3). This is simply a desperate government aware of its political situation and trying its hardest to find ways to salvage a sinking ship.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 152, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 153 agreed to.
Clause 154:
Ms MARTIN: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 71.6.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 154, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 155 to 157, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 158:
Ms MARTIN: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 71.7.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 158, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 159 to 160, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 161:
Ms MARTIN: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 71.8.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms MARTIN: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 71.9.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms MARTIN: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 71.10.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 161, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 162 to 272, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 273:
Ms MARTIN: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 71.11.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 273, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
Electoral (Consequential Amendments) Bill (Serial 196):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Bills reported; report adopted.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I wish to ask the honourable members to consider this simple fact: what has been established through the committee stages of these bills is that a candidate who is not a member of a political party will not have access to an electoral roll. This effectively means that the only way they can get information contained on that roll is to physically go into the Electoral Office and copy it out so that they can get addresses to enable them to pass information that they may consider important to members of the electorate, in an endeavour to win votes so that they may be come into this Chamber as the duly elected member.
That is the great travesty of this legislation; otherwise, it is good legislation. With regard to the assisted votes, I am not going to lose any sleep over it. However, on this one issue of making it impossible for so many groups and individuals out there to have access to electoral rolls, you are making it impossible for those people to communicate their opinions to the electorate at large. That is the challenge that the Chief Minister has given to this House today.
It is not unreasonable that an Independent be allowed to pass out their information. No matter how repugnant that information may appear to me, ultimately it is not me or this Chamber to decide what is repugnant, the ultimate test comes from the people of the Northern Territory itself.
To me, to diminish the chance for a candidate to get a fair slice of the electoral cake in an effort to be able to get their information out is electoral censorship. There is nothing private about an electoral roll. It is a public document, it is publicly available. You can go in and inspect it any time you like at the Electoral Office. The only thing that this legislation prevents in the public nature of the document is that you cannot take it away from the Electoral Office. Therefore, if you want the information on the electoral roll, you have to write it out; copy it out. That is the challenge for somebody who is not now a member of a group that can find 200 registered adherents.
This is a very difficult situation for Northern Territorians. If argument is going to be run, when we vote this one last time, that this is legislation supports the principles of fair and honest democracy, then we are being asked to stretch our imaginations a little too far. It is a sneaky way that the government has dealt with this; it is exactly everything that they promised not to be when they were in opposition and, rather than pursuing noble intents, they are now pursing nobble intents.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I wanted to put on the record a rather peculiar observation I have made tonight in the debate on these bill. That is that, in the almost 11 years that I spent in opposition were marked by two things: a small Caucus, between seven and nine members - and for most of the time it was seven members. That meant discipline and team work when you are taking on, in the last part of that government, 18 members of government. That discipline and team work meant that, when we wanted to put an amendment to a bill that we believed was important in the interest of the Northern Territory, we were in this Chamber. The whole 7 of us were committed to the amendment that we were putting. If we opposed the bill, we opposed the bill in strength - the full 7 of us - and we went to a division, and Hansard will bear that out every time.
Mr Baldwin: Rubbish! I can think of three instances. You are making it up as you go.
Mr STIRLING: If we were committed to an amendment, we had the guts to go to the wall in division. Time after time …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker!
Mr Baldwin: Sit down.
Madam SPEAKER: What is your point of order?
Mr STIRLING: … Hansard will recall 18:7 in the division in support of the members from our side …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order!
Mr STIRLING: … in opposition to a bill or to a government amendment being put. These turkeys, not withstanding …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, I have stood! What is your point of order, member for Macdonnell?
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the standing orders are very specific as to where a third reading debate may range. It is a very tight and limited debate. I would urge that the Treasurer restrict himself specifically to the terms of standing orders in relation to third reading debates.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding the robust nature of some of the arguments put in support of their position on the other side - most notably from the member for Macdonnell, less so from the member for Daly - they did not have the guts to go to a division on any one issue, and particularly when they put an amendment themselves …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! I return to the issue. By standing orders, the third reading debate is a very specific, tightly controlled debate. The Treasurer is not limiting himself to the parameters.
Mr STIRLING: It is about the bill – it is about debating the bill.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not find a point of order.
Mr STIRLING: I will be brief in finishing, just to put on the record, at no occasion throughout the whole debate or the committee stages, did they have the guts to go to division, either to support their own amendment or to defeat what the government was trying to do.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I raise an issue relating to party membership and party constitutions that relate to the Pauline Hanson One Nation court cases, convictions and the subsequent release of Ms Hanson and David Ettridge.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Macdonnell, the member for Nelson has the floor.
Mr WOOD: Antony Green, the ABC election commentator and observer has been looking at these things for years. In case you missed that – that is the party membership and party constitutions. He has taken a look at the Pauline Hanson legal cases, and has warned that it is time for legislators to go back and take a close look at the rules defining the membership of political parties.
Therefore, I went to this bill to find our definitions of the membership of a political party. There is only one that seems to address it in a vague kind of way and it is this: ‘Members are members under the party’s constitution’. That is it. There is no reference to how to determine who is a valid member. Then, if you look for a definition of a party’s constitution, or sections that tell us what must be in a party’s constitution, there is nothing.
I will read some of Antony Green’s article on the Pauline Hanson debacle to highlight what might be potential problems with this bill and its failure to define membership or to say anything further about a party’s constitution. I quote:
He went on:
The bill we had before us today has not considered these matters, and I say to the government perhaps it is time to already to follow Queensland’s lead and start drafting some amendments to this bill which we will pass today, to properly define who are members and spell out what is to be in a party constitution, so that we avoid any potential problems that have occurred in Queensland.
Finally, I could not call a division, by the way; it was a bit hard where I was. However, I did enjoy the debate. I take on the government’s view point that, naturally, you can still have a party, but that party is limited in what it can do. It can be seen from the debate we had about who can have access to the roll, that both Independents, potential candidates and non-registered parties are discriminated against in the system. I believe while that continues to happen, we have a law that is unfair and, basically, puts the bias towards either the MLA or a registered party. We could do well without that bias if we are to have a fair electoral system.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, since the member for Nhulunbuy has now calmed down, I would like to recall once situation when I was in this House and they were in opposition, when he talked about commitment. I remember a …
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! Has this got anything at all to do with the bill – anything at all? A remote connection – I will accept a very distant link!
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Daly, I remind you to keep your remarks specific to the bill.
Mr BALDWIN: I am happy to do that, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. I am recalling the third reading contribution made by the member for Nhulunbuy when he talked about the commitment on this side. He provided some examples of when they were in opposition. I would just like to do the same; provide one example that I witnessed myself when the opposition, in a debate on a piece of legislation in committee, called a division. As you know, divisions have to be supported, and only one member stood for support. The rest of them sat there. That is how committed they were …
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: That is how committed you were …
Mr Stirling: We still called for division.
Mr BALDWIN: I might point out, they are just …
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have given a fair amount of latitude during this third reading stage. I expect members to just contain provocation so that due process can occur.
Mr BALDWIN: I point out that they were so committed that they had 13 members on that side - and what? - three of them spoke during the whole debate. The rest of them did not say a word. That is how committed they are to this electoral roll. I also put on the record that our leader did contribute to this debate - in fact, led the debate. They have short-term memories over there, but we will put that on the record so they remember.
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! If you want to be sin binned, keep it up!
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to table an interim report of the Northern Territory alcohol framework. The framework is part of the government’s continuing commitment to addressing problems caused by alcohol.
In tabling this interim report, I wish to make it clear that I do so to ensure that the interim findings are widely disseminated and form the basis of public debate on this issue. The government makes no comment, at this stage, on the recommendations or the issues raised. We will do so once the final report is in and before Cabinet. This report will now be taken across the Territory and tested, revised and finalised against public opinion and views.
While alcohol delivers a range of social, health and economic benefits to the community is also has a range of negative consequences that demand attention. Some of the costs related to irresponsible use of alcohol include: 856 Territorians dying as a result of drinking alcohol between 1992 and 2001; alcohol-related deaths in the Territory are three times the national average; a very high rate of alcohol-related assaults – 42% of alcohol-related admissions to Northern Territory hospitals are due to assault; two thirds of road fatalities in the Northern Territory involve alcohol; and alcohol contributed to over 70% of police workload in urban centres of the Territory, this figure increasing to almost 90% in some remote areas.
These statistics are just a snapshot of some of the problems associated with alcohol in our community, but they highlight that effective alcohol policy and action are fundamentally important for future development of the Territory. This is why the government commissioned the development of a comprehensive whole-of-government framework on alcohol in September 2003.
The alcohol framework project is led by former minister Daryl Manzie, and the Deputy Director of Central Australian Congress Medical Service, Donna Ah Chee. In preparing the report, the framework team has taken advantage of a number of important past reports and responses to alcohol in the Northern Territory. These include the Living with Alcohol program, introduced with bipartisan support by the Perron government, and the recent work of the Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community. By November 2003, the select committee had travelled extensively, taking evidence from over 300 individuals representing 27 organisations, 12 remote communities and had received 99 submissions. Having access to this valuable source of community information has enabled the project to work efficiently in identifying key issues and options.
This interim report describes key goals, reporting requirements and mechanisms to coordinate government action, and its relationships with the liquor industry and the community. The report also discusses a number of specific matters such as licensing fees, Sunday trading and the role of the Licensing Commission.
One of the key issues identified in the report is the need to set an overall government direction on alcohol strategy, and ensure that there is coordinated planning and action across government agencies and in partnership with industry and community groups. The report proposes a range of mechanisms to enable community members to have greater input into decisions about alcohol that affect them, particularly decisions about licensing and the availability of alcohol in their community. The report discusses ways to promote a culture of responsible drinking in the Northern Territory through effective community education backed up by appropriate regulatory action. The report describes the need for continuous evaluation of measures taken to address alcohol-related harm, and highlights the need for practical research to assist future policy development.
The report also includes a substantial discussion of the liquor licensing system, and offers a number of options for consideration. These options are designed to increase the Licensing Commission’s accountability and transparency, to promote community participation, to coordinate licensing decisions with other harm minimisation strategies, and to formalise the role of the Licensing Commission in developing regional alcohol restrictions and responding to local alcohol management plans.
The report considers ways to promote compliance with liquor licensing laws, and whether any changes should be made to current procedures in relation to restricted areas and social clubs on remote Aboriginal communities. Finally, the report suggests that alcohol treatment services should be reviewed to ensure effective outcomes and targeting for the millions of dollars currently invested in this area.
I encourage members of the community, industry representatives, and government agencies to contribute to the further development of the Northern Territory alcohol framework by commenting on these and other issues raised in the interim report. Copies of the report can be obtained from the framework team which can be contacted through Northern Territory Treasury. Responses to the ranges of issues and options presented in the report are sought by 16 April 2004. Over the next two months, the framework team will travel to each regional centre to meet with as many people as possible. The final report will be completed and presented to me for consideration by the government in May 2004.
Alcohol is an important and controversial topic in the Northern Territory. It is likely that some of the ideas put forward in the report will also be controversial. Whatever the merits of the particular proposals, it is clear to the government that significant action must be taken to respond to the level of harm caused to our community by irresponsible alcohol use. All proposals that might achieve that goal should be considered.
I stress again that, in the report, the content is by no means final. As an interim report, the intention has been to present issues facing the Territory in a way that will facilitate public debate and discussion. It should provide an opportunity for all of us to comment on the ideas raised and to put forward any options that have not yet been canvassed. It is from a balanced and focussed assessment of such input that an effective framework should be identified over the coming months.
I commend the report to the House as the next step in our ongoing commitment to developing effective responses to the unacceptable levels of alcohol-related crime that exists in our community. I move that the Assembly take note of the paper, and seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the Martin Labor government was elected with a firm commitment to tackle crime in our community, tackle the cause of crime, and to create safer communities. Tonight I present a report card on crime prevention and community safety initiatives that are happening across government, and in strong partnerships with our community.
Our six-point plan on crime was our election commitment, and we have delivered to Territorians through those six major platforms for protecting the Territory community, punishing offenders and preventing crime: serious crime means serious time; making you safe at home; getting help from police when you need it; putting victims first; getting tough on the causes of crime; and establishing a central crime prevention agency.
This government was also elected with a mandate to tackle illicit drugs and crime. Our three-point plan, Tough on Drugs, set out three key strategies for attacking illicit drugs and drug-related crime in our community: a law enforcement strategy of zero tolerance on drug production and distribution; compulsory treatment of addicts arrested on drug-related crime; and a properly resourced drug prevention strategy.
Central to these plans is our policy to deliver safe communities by being both tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. This was our commitment and our focus. It is the intent that drives our governments responses to crime and to antisocial behaviour.
We have ensured, through the introduction of new aggravated property offences and changes to the Sentencing Act, that we have laws for the effective prosecution of offenders. Through amendments to Territory legislation, we have sent a clear message that the community will not tolerate the invasion of our homes and business, nor the associated damage to property.
New offences of home and business invasion, introduced when we were first elected, reflect the seriousness with which this government and the Territory community view any intrusion onto our property. To back up these laws, the police have formed a permanent House Breaking and Home Invasion Squad for both Darwin and Alice Springs. The Special Crimes Unit cracks down on property crime by identifying and targeting the activities of repeat offenders who are responsible for the majority of unlawful entries.
We have seen the results: a significant and sustained fall in break-ins across the Territory. You will not find better proof that mandatory sentencing did not work. In the September quarter of 2001, just before we repealed mandatory sentencing for property crime, there were 1059 break-ins to houses across the Territory. By the September quarter of 2003, break-ins were down to 547. That is a fall of nearly 50% - a huge reduction. Later, I will outline our commitments to targeting re-offending and further driving down the level of crime in our community.
This government is also absolutely committed to seeing that criminals like drug dealers, who peddle their misery to our children, do not profit from the crimes they commit and the harm they cause to our community. The Criminal Property Forfeiture Act commenced on 1 June 2003. Since that time, 55 restraining orders have been issued. Predominantly, these orders relate to police seizures of drugs in the community. Warrants have been issued right across the Northern Territory, including Darwin, Alice Springs, Katherine, Nhulunbuy, Groote Eylandt, Maningrida and Daly River.
The total amount of money now restrained under this legislations - the legislation that the Labor government introduced to target drug dealers and manufacturers and other criminals - is $1.58m. Property valued at over $200 000 has already been forfeited under our scheme, ranging from cash to mobile phones and a vehicle.
This government was also elected with a commitment to help victims of crime. One way we are doing that is making sure there are fewer victims. However, for those who are unfortunate enough to be a victim of a crime, amendments to the Sentencing Act now require courts to have regard to the sentencing option the victim wants to see in place. Northern Territory government funding of $88 000 each year is made available to the Victims of Crime NT for assistance and support for those who have experienced a crime. A further $55 000 per year is provided to this group for targeted assistance to victims of break-ins. Trained volunteers attend crime scenes and provide emotional and financial support, including offering the victim assistance in securing their premises or cleaning up damage caused by the break-in.
During December 2003, Sue Lowry, the executive officer of Victims of Crime NT, travelled to Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs and Nhulunbuy to promote the scheme and meet with key agencies, including the Northern Territory business people who carry out the repairs. I would like to commend Sue for the tireless work she does with Victims of Crime NT, and also take this opportunity to congratulate her on her recent appointment as the new victim’s representative on the revamped Parole Board.
This government has committed considerable resources to the protection of the community and the prevention of crime, particularly with our $75m commitment to rebuilding our police force over the next four years. Police initiatives such as Taskforce Ranger have targeted recidivist criminals in the Darwin and Palmerston areas, particularly those responsible for unlawful entries and robberies. Operation Spitfire has targeted juveniles to prevent them becoming involved in crime over the school holidays and Christmas periods, while Operation Sharp Edge has detected and apprehended people carrying and harbouring illegal weapons before violent crimes are committed. Operation Spitfire has been particularly effective. We saw a significant reduction in crime and break-ins over the Christmas period compared to the same time periods prior to the commencement of this strategy.
Breaking the drug crime cycle is also at the centre of our efforts. Unlike the members opposite, this government was not prepared to pretend that illegal drug use was a trivial matter. This government was not blind to the links, recognised nationally and internationally, between illegal drug use and criminal activity, including break-ins. Indeed, a recent Australian Institute of Criminology study, including interviews with Territory offenders, looked at this very issue. The study found that the majority of offenders reported using illegal drugs, and multiple drug use was common. Significantly, 62% of offenders reported regular illegal drug use in the six months prior to their most recent arrest.
We started our attacks on the links between drugs and crime by bringing in new drug laws and enforcing them against drug dealers and manufacturers. Our drug house legislation has seen two premises – one in Darwin and one in Alice Springs – declared drug premises by the courts. Two other residences had a third notice placed on them, with offenders vacating the premises before the declaration was made. This government is clearly achieving its objectives through this legislation; that of targeting drug suppliers who are able to sustain a drug business through rented premises.
Last year, we moved on to the second part of the plan: to reduce demand by breaking the cycle of drug use and offending. Our courts were sick of seeing the same offenders with the same addiction problems before them time and time again. Our new Drug Courts allow magistrates to refer alleged offenders for assessment for drug treatment at the bail stage. Based on the model from Victoria, the program is showing great promise.
The best way to alleviate the impact of crime on our community is to prevent it occurring in the first place. We have already allocated significant resources to the protection of the community. We are continuing to promote individual accountability through the punishment of offenders but, in addition, we are also working tirelessly on the equally important third element: creating a safer community through crime prevention.
We are starting at the beginning. This government recognises that early experiences can have a significant impact on children and the paths they choose to take into adulthood. Those paths can be destructive or positive. Early intervention through education and social support at the first possible opportunity is vital to reduce the risk of children and young people achieving less than their full potential. In our Building Healthier Communities five-year framework, released last week, we are committed to giving our kids a good start in life and to strengthening our families and communities.
This government is providing more options for young people; not condemning them to a future of disadvantage and disconnection from our community. The Martin Labor government had provided $670 000 towards the employment of school attendance officers and, by the next financial year, there will be eight attendance officers employed to work with those schools most in need of assistance. The funding will also provide alternative education options for students who are disengaged from schooling. The attendance officer program will contribute to supporting young people to stay at school, to further their education, to better prepare them for the work force. We know that education and employment are major protective elements from a life of crime and dysfunction. The student enrolment, attendance and retention strategy, and our jobs plan, will ensure these areas remain a major focus for this government.
On another front, the Northern Territory police have convened a juvenile crime task force to consider the issue of juvenile offending and young people who are at risk, especially in the northern suburbs. In February 2003, an expanded youth at risk task force was established to make recommendations on some short and long-term strategies for high-risk families and young people. I, along with my ministerial colleagues, look forward to the ongoing development of our responses to young people at risk of criminal and antisocial behaviour.
This government has also funded Youth Beat, a Youth Night Patrol which began in Darwin in December 2002. Youth Beat is staffed by a full-time coordinator and four full-time youth workers, and operates five nights a week. The night patrol is available to respond to concerns regarding antisocial behaviour by youth, and the Casuarina Shopping Centre is one of the areas regularly visited by the patrol. Members of the community can ring the Youth Night Patrol on 89480793, if they have concerns about young people behaving inappropriately.
Another part of this government’s broad-ranging crime prevention program is Real Justice NT, a behaviour management tool for schools. Real Justice NT targets students who have displayed disruptive or harmful behaviour like bullying. It uses a conferencing approach involving the student concerned, his or her parents or guardians, other students who have been affected by the bullying or other behaviour, and their parents, to encourage them to take responsibility for their actions, and it is showing results. The project is being run in Alice Springs High School, Tennant Creek High School and Palmerston High School. It is also being run in Sanderson High School, and funding is being provided to that school for ongoing professional development.
The introduction of the pilot has been enthusiastically embraced and welcomed by the schools and the school principals. Participating schools are already reporting a difference in the way students and teachers interact. This is a very contemporary approach to dealing with behaviour management issues in schools, and one that is rapidly gaining acceptance in Australia and around the world. In partnership with the Department of Employment, Education and Training, the Office of Crime Prevention is assisting to develop an evaluation framework for the project. Every part of this government is playing their part in this important task. Never before has the Territory seen a coordinated and centralised approach to tackling crime and the causes of crime in our community. Never before has one organisation been focussed on the task of driving this coordinated and centralised approach across government.
This month marks the second anniversary of the formation of the Office of Crime Prevention. The establishment of the office was an initiative of this government - a key component of our election commitments to tackle crime and work towards a safer community. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the Office, its director, Terri Robson, the Director of Research and Statistcs, Stephen Jackson, and of all the dedicated staff of the office who I know have been working tirelessly over the last two years, and whose dedication to the task of creating safer communities for Territorians is simply outstanding.
The high priority given by this government to crime prevention and safer communities is reflected in the framework surrounding the office: a ministerial standing committee on crime prevention and a chief executive’s crime prevention committee. To ensure that coordination, commitment and drive across government happen at the highest level, these forums bring together ministers and chief executives from Health and Justice, Family and Community Services, Employment, Education and Training, Police and Community Development and, of course, the Chief Minister. The office has been tasked with three major functions: to develop and support effective crime prevention partnerships and activities across government and with the community; to independently compile, analyse and publish crime and justice statistics; and to provide evidence-based advice to the government and community on crime prevention initiatives.
The Office of Crime Prevention has been implementing this government’s commitment to publish independent crime statistics, something the opposition simply refused to do when it was in government. Without accurate, regularly published and independent Northern Territory crime and justice statistics, crime prevention activity was not coordinated and it did not target the problems that most needed attention and resources. Information to the public about the level of crime in the community, its nature and frequency, or about the effectiveness of policing or investigation approaches was minimal or non-existent. In short, the CLP refused to let the community know the true level of crime in the Northern Territory.
The availability of crime and justice statistics, updated on a regular basis, moves us away from the ill-informed debate of the past. The collection and publication of accurate statistics ensures that sound, reliable information is available to the government and to the community about crime and crime prevention. It allows government to effectively evaluate the success or failure of crime prevention strategies. It provides a measure, more effective than ‘which way is the wind blowing?’ approach adopted by the previous government.
Five Northern Territory quarterly crime and justice statistics reports have been released since the first was made available in September 2002. The reports cover offences recorded by the police, prisoners in correctional facilities, outcomes for drug offences and court outcomes for property offences across major regions in the Territory and for the Territory as a whole. The integrity of the methodology and the statistics, and the manner in which they are presented, have been endorsed by Ernst & Young, which has independently audited each publication. The reports are made widely available through the Office of Crime Prevention’s web site, and at participating community and college libraries. Briefings to the community and the media each time a report is released ensures that as many Territorians as possible are aware of the report’s availability and the information it contains. The next report for the period up to December 2003 is due out in March this year.
The regular publication of these statistics has shown us the remarkable downward trend in house break-ins across the Territory that I have already talked about. In fact, the reports also show, over the 12 months to September 2003, a downward trend not only for house break-ins but also for break-ins to commercial properties, motor vehicle theft, property damage and theft. A similar picture can be seen in relation to offences against the person, with assaults also following a downward trend over the past 12 months to September 2003, although statistics show assaults are in an area that will need the ongoing focus of our police and crime prevention agencies. Our ongoing monitoring of these figures, combined with our research base, and the important information received from the Territory community through our Crime Prevention Councils, drives our policy responses.
In December 2003, I announced a new sexual assault task force in response to government concerns over some recent spiked increases in the number of sexual crimes. The primary focus of the task force will be to reduce the level of such crimes across the Territory through the development of a targeted, whole-of-government sexual assault prevention plan. The plan will investigate current data, police and legal response to services for survivors and those particular issues facing the reporting, investigation and prevention of sexual assault in remote areas. The task force will be headed by the Office of Crime Prevention and include the Police, the Health Department and Chief Minister’s Office for Women’s Policy.
For the benefit of members opposite, I also point out that the task force will be looking at the implementation of the recommendations of the 1999 Law Reform Committee report on the investigation and prosecutions of sexual assault. Amongst the recommendations, to which the then Attorney-General made little response, are those proposing specialist training for prosecutors, legal and judicial officers working on sexual assault cases, and the provision of screens and other facilities for vulnerable witnesses in Territory courts.
In December, I also announced reforms to our legislation to protect vulnerable witnesses, including victims of sexual assaults. I am pleased that the member for Araluen thought this was such a good idea that she announced that she will be introducing her own Private Member’s Bill to do just that. I am sure we can come to some agreement on how to progress it through this House.
Crime prevention is not just government’s responsibility. It is about building strong partnerships against crime across the Territory. This focus on partnerships, harnessing local expertise, and using local knowledge to create local solutions, guides every activity of the Office of Crime Prevention, but is particularly evident in two vital and highly effective programs: the NT Crime Prevention Grants Scheme and the Network of Effective and Resourced Regional and Local Crime Prevention Councils.
$400 000 is made available each year to community organisations for community safety and crime prevention projects. $100 000 of that is used to support the regional crime prevention councils, with an administrative grant plus additional funds for crime prevention projects.
$180 000 is allocated to targeted grants for crime prevention projects identified by the community or government, which use an evidence-based approach and which might need to take place over a longer period of time. It is under this scheme that the restorative justice program I have already mentioned, Real Justice NT, is being extended from Sanderson High School to operate in three additional schools: Palmerston, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs High Schools. The program has the potential to reduce incidents of violence and, importantly, assist families to build healthy relationships. It will be these valuable outcomes that we will be watching closely as part of the program’s evaluation.
The remaining funds, $120 000 each year, are made available to community organisations to develop innovative and locally-based projects that contribute to community safety. Two rounds of funding have now been made under the scheme, and we are seeing some great outcomes from these projects. In 2003, Mt Liebig community received $15 000 to implement a trail bike program designed to divert kids from petrol sniffing, with access to the program prohibited to those who are sniffing. This has acted as an incentive not to sniff petrol and has improved young people’s understanding of the physical damage sniffing can cause. The presence of trained youth workers, in conjunction with extra police resources and strong community desire to tackle the problem, has been remarkably successful. The amount of petrol sniffers within the community has been reduced from 40 to six. Mt Liebig Council has decided to continue the program and is buying more trail bikes.
$15 000 was awarded to the Larrakia Nation to establish a pilot project for mobile teams of Larrakia hosts to encourage itinerants to behave in a culturally appropriate manner and to respect Larrakia culture. While this pilot is now complete, the good outcomes demonstrated by Larrakia Nation have seen the group secure ongoing funding through this government’s Community Harmony project.
Crime Prevention Grant Scheme funds were also made available to the very successful first meeting of Mala elders in May 2003, which saw elders from a number of Top End communities gather in Darwin to discuss strategies to encourage itinerants stranded in the Darwin area to return home.
Another great project is Shop Safe, an information package about retail safety awareness developed by the Shop Distributive and Allied Services Union, and now being distributed throughout the Territory. The package includes comprehensive advice on how to respond to violent crime within the workplace, what to do in the event of an armed robbery, height indicator stickers to assist in describing an offender, and description of offenders forms. Protecting small retail outlets and young retail employees is a particular focus of the project, which received over $20 000 under the Crime Prevention Grant Scheme. The project was launched by the Chief Minister at Casuarina Square late last year, with a large number of Territory businesses in attendance.
Community support for and interest in the grant scheme continues to grow, with the latest funding round attracting 59 applications for projects amounting to $1.7m. The 32 projects funded in this round show, once again, the innovation and enthusiasm that local people bring to dealing with the issues that concern them or affect their communities.
It was my great pleasure last week to announce the 2003-04 grant recipients at the home of one of these programs, the Alice Springs Youth Accommodation and Support Service. Deadly Treadlies is a bike rebuilding project that trains young people from Alice Springs in a variety of skills, from teamwork and planning, mechanical and retail skills, to personal and enterprise development - skills that will help these young people obtain jobs and make a strong contribution to their local community.
Onto the Grind is a project designed to bring about a reduction in youth-related property crime, substance misuse and antisocial behaviour. Based in the Palmerston CBD and, with a particular focus on the skate park, $10 000 will help the program deliver out-of-hours sport and recreation for young people.
The newly formed NPY Women’s Council Regional Crime Prevention Council will also receive funding this year, with over $20 000 allocated to the provision of support and advocacy for the victims of domestic violence at the Mutitjulu and Docker River Magistrates Court. This new Indigenous Crime Prevention Council is an exciting development, and I will turn to its activities in more detail in a moment.
I am also pleased to announce the addition of a quick response scheme to the current Crime Prevention Grant Scheme. From July 2004, $5000 will be available to support community groups which only need a small amount of money, at relatively short notice, to undertake innovative crime prevention activities. This program will allow government to immediately fund such activities, as and when they needed, and to build on community momentum rather than requiring organisations to wait for the start of an annual grants round.
Our regional and local crime prevention councils are further recognition by this government that partnerships - strong partnerships, real partnerships - are essential in fighting the cause of crime. No government agency, community organisation, or business, can do it alone. Regional crime prevention councils can best be described as building blocks in the framework we have created to tackle crime and the causes of crime in the Territory community. The crime prevention councils harness the determination of local people committed to making their communities safer with local solutions to local issues. The network of crime prevention councils now operating across the Territory also ensure this government remains in touch, at a regional and local level, with the issues of concern to Territorians.
In two years, the Office of Crime Prevention has helped to establish five regional crime prevention c councils in Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, Katherine, Darwin and Nhulunbuy. The councils have membership drawn from community organisations, interested individuals and government agencies. The achievement of these councils to date is evident through their ability to initiate and drive crime prevention projects in their local communities; the results of which will be seen right across the Territory.
The energy, initiative and innovation of these groups is outstanding, a testament to the ‘can do’ spirit of the Territorian. I would like to outline some of their activities. The Barkly Region Safer Communities Committee, with funding from the Crime Prevention Grant Scheme, has been working actively since 2002. With $30 000 received in 2002, it developed a community safety strategy for the region, which I will be officially launching early next month. Significantly, the committee, with support from the Office of Crime Prevention, successfully secured Commonwealth government funding of over $200 000 over two years, to employ a project officer to assist in implementing the strategy. I am looking forward to reporting to the House as the implementation work continues in the Barkly region.
The committee has also identified that graffiti and vandalism is a problem in their community. I was pleased to announce last week that the committee was successful in its application of $20 000 under the Crime Prevention Grant Scheme. This innovative project will see the whole community involved in creating a more attractive and safer environment around Tennant Creek.
I believe the Barkly Region Safer Communities Committee is embarking on the beginnings of what will be a success story, which will show what regional crime prevention councils can achieve. Government support is critical in partnerships against crime, but it is committed community members who are making the difference in Tennant Creek. I want to recognise the Chair, Kent Peak, and each member of the committee for their tireless efforts and commitment.
The Central Australian Crime Prevention Committee, based in Alice Springs and chaired by School Principal, Peter Vaughan, is also making strong headway in addressing crime related issues in their local community. While recognising the efforts of everyone involved in this committee, I would like particularly to acknowledge the work of Child and Youth Safety Subcommittee, chaired by Mr David Ross, in working to support the needs of young people in Alice Springs. The Alice Springs Child and Youth Safety Strategy will provide a focus for youth safety related initiatives in the region. It is an exciting initiative because of its potential to really make a difference for young people.
Coordinated and comprehensive action is required to address complex problems. Substance abuse, particularly behaviour like petrol sniffing, remains one of the complex issues facing this government. We have seen recently in Alice Springs, the community concern that can rightly be felt over the actions of petrol sniffers in a public housing complex. While small in number, the issues raised by these sniffers are immense, requiring and receiving the focussed attention of police, Territory Housing, Justice, Health and Community Services and, of course, the community sector. I would like to report that we believe that, out of the 18 sniffers at the Keith Lawrie flats, we are down to five who are still in circulation. So, we are going okay.
Again, I want to acknowledge the commitment of individuals who are determined to make a difference and who work tirelessly on local issues and, in particular, youth issues. Alice Springs enjoys a particularly cohesive and effective network of youth sector agencies, and it is to be commend that these agencies give of their time to further the work of the regional crime prevention council.
The Katherine Regional Harmony Group, established in February 2003, has also been working hard over the last year. Chaired by local alderman Anne Shepherd, the group has identified four priority issues: itinerants, substance abuse, youth and crime prevention, and has formed subcommittees around these areas. The crime prevention subcommittee of this group, supported by David Pryce and Matt Holumby of the Northern Territory Police, and Sharon Hillen from the Katherine Town Council, organised a forum for local businesses on 27 January, attended by over 30 local business operators. Presentations were made on the Palmerston Business Watch Program and on the clean-up assistance program for victims of crime, which has been recently expanded to Katherine. Local business people who attended the forum resolved to develop a business community crime prevention strategy, and to regularly distribute a newsletter to all local businesses so that the community is kept informed of current events and initiatives. The first such newsletter was circulated last week.
The Katherine Regional Harmony Group was extensively consulted regarding the extension of the itinerant strategy to Katherine region, with $600 000 committed to the strategy’s operation in that region. Regional crime prevention councils are being used as consultative bodies for the extension of the itinerant strategy in nearly all regions of the Territory. This is a fantastic example of government and community working together, and it is great to see the people of the Territory providing so much input into this major government initiative.
Crime prevention councils have also been established in Darwin and Nhulunbuy. Chaired by Mr Ken Mildred who is also the chair of the Territory Neighbourhood Watch Board, the Darwin Crime Prevention Council represents a productive and valuable partnership between the Office of Crime Prevention and Neighbourhood Watch. The council is focussing on a range of key issues including rehabilitation, reintegration of offenders to prevent re-offending, crime prevention through environmental design, media coverage of crime, and children and young people and crime. I am anticipating some high level work to emerge from the Darwin Regional Crime Prevention Council, and I look forward to that with interest.
The Nhulunbuy Regional Crime Prevention Council has taken the name Harmony Djamamirri Mala or Harmony Working Group. Established in May 2003, the membership includes community organisations, peak indigenous bodies, and government representatives, and is working collectively with the existing committees including the Miwatj law and justice subcommittee, to ensure collaboration across projects. Significant work has been done by this group to roll out the itinerant strategy in this region. Again, congratulations go to this group for the work they have undertaken to address local issues.
Whereas the regional councils have a geographical basis, the indigenous crime prevention councils have as their base clan or tribal groupings. The first group to take on this role was the Kurduju Committee, the peak committee representing the Warlpiri law and justice committees from the communities of Ali Curung, Lajamanu, Yuendumu and Willowra. The impressive work of this group, chaired by Aboriginal community police officer and community council chair, Gwen Brown, is known throughout Australia and well documented in this Chamber. I will not speak at length about Kurduju today, other than to say that it is an excellent model and to congratulate all involved in its success.
Building on this success, indigenous crime prevention councils have now been established or are being established in north-east Arnhem Land, Docker River and Mutitjulu in partnership with NPY Women’s Council, and in the Western Aranda region. I previously mentioned that Docker River, Mutitjulu and NPY council have received funding under the grants scheme for domestic violence, legal and support services. The Western Aranda Relekha Committee and Galiwinku communities were also successful, receiving money for the development of a community safety strategy, and to assist with the establishment of a night patrol.
These committees are really taking the initiative in developing culturally appropriate answers to law and justice issues, and they should be strongly commended for this. Some real momentum is being generated and I have no doubt that many other indigenous crime prevention councils will be formed over the next few years. I understand the Office of Crime Prevention has already received inquiries from two other regions.
I am generally excited about the potential of the regional and indigenous crime prevention councils. Through the commitment of this government and the hard work of the Office of Crime Prevention supporting energised and committed local communities, we are starting to see change. This government can take real great pride in kick-starting the development of the structures that are really making a difference in addressing crime and law and justice issues in our community.
Local crime prevention groups also form an important part of the network of people on the ground committed to working in their community to address crime. Such groups, together with Neighbourhood Watch committees, already exist in Darwin, Palmerston, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek. However, it is my vision that these groups become a feature in all regions because of the broad-ranging benefits that can be gained. I know that Neighbourhood Watch recently held a meeting in Katherine with a view to establishing a group there. I look forward to updates on their progress.
Residents in Karama, Wagaman, Palmerston, the Cox Peninsula and Finniss area, Darwin city and those living around Borella Park, have come together because they want their neighbourhood or community to be a safer place for everyone. The groups have emerged from community energy and activity; they have not been created by government. This is one of their strengths, but they do have this government’s support. The member for Johnston’s electorate officer provides voluntary administrative support for the Borella Park and Wagaman Residents Group and his electorate office is the venue for the Wagaman groups monthly meetings. The member for Karama is the chair of the Karama Crime Prevention Committee and also offers her office as a meeting venue.
I want to share with you some of the positive work being done by these groups. The Wagaman Residents Group’s focus is on problems resulting from laneways linking their suburb and the Casuarina shopping complex. Working collaboratively with the Darwin City Council, they have brought about changes to by-laws related to the management of laneways, resulting in trial overnight closure of three laneways off Amsterdam Circuit. A particularly noteworthy aspect of this trial, which has only recently concluded, is that residents lock the gates at night and unlock the gates in the morning. This is a wonderful example of community involvement in addressing crime-related issues.
I am pleased to advise that the trial was considered to be a success and the Darwin City Council has contracted a private security firm to lock and unlock the gates on a permanent basis. These groups, and their place in the community as a central point of information, are increasingly valued by a range of other organisations. Lend Lease, which owns and manages the Casuarina Shopping Complex, asked the Wagaman Residents Group for input into the design of a new pedestrian access on the Trower Road side of the centre.
This government’s work to create a safer community for all Territorians does not end here. The Office of Crime Prevention is already exploring a joint project with Darwin City Council to focus on community safety in public places in the Darwin municipality in partnership with the community. The project aims to increase community confidence in public spaces through the use of crime prevention principles in environmental design, and through communication strategies aimed at encouraging the people to use their public spaces. I am excited about the potential of this project to expand the local governments and communities across the Territory.
Personal and home safety packages will be developed and distributed across the Territory. The safety packages will contain information for Territorians about maximising their personal safety and that of their homes. It will also include: contact details for crime prevention organisations and reasonable crime prevention councils, support networks, legal services and information services; crime statistics and information about crime in each region; and issues specific to the region and to specific groups such as young people, senior Territorians and women.
The office is also scoping a burglary reduction project which, in partnership with the NT Police, aims to prevent repeat victimisation. Similar projects interstate and overseas have proved successful in reducing break-ins to homes.
Our focus on prevention, in particular on preventing re-offending, will also bring a new direction to Correctional Services over the next 12 months. ‘A lifetime of offending behaviour’ is how recent research has described the pattern of many of those who commit property offences and violent crime. Unless we work to break this offending cycle, we will not be working to effectively prevent crime and criminal behaviour in our community.
We have already put in place an Integrated Offender Management System, which provides management of offenders from their first contact with Correctional Services through to their eventual release and return to the community. This system will be strengthened by a raft of programs to address those factors that contribute to offending: problems such as literacy, numerary, lack of job skills and drug and alcohol abuse.
A review of Correctional Services to be completed in the second quarter of 2004 is likely to provide significant direction in this regard. It stands to reason that if we can reduce rates of re-offending, we are going to have an impact on the crime rate within our community and, importantly, reduce the number of victims. This significant progress of re-adjusting our correctional system is one to which I am personally committed, and one that I believe will contribute greatly to this government’s vision of a safer community for all Territorians.
Over the next year, we will be presenting a whole-of-government, whole-of-community crime prevention strategic framework. This framework will pull together all the work being done by government, community organisations, business and citizens groups, and help us together to generate and agree on the ways forward. Extensive community consultation will guide the strategy’s development. Not a shelf document, the framework represents our ongoing commitment to reducing offending and repeat offending, to attack the causes of crime, and to build a safer and more secure community.
I want to again commend all the staff at the Office of Crime Prevention for their hard work over the last two years. Not only have they been successful in establishing a professional knowledge base of crime and justice statistics; they have harnessed the community’s real interest in crime prevention and have developed, and continue to develop, effective partnerships to make the Territory a safer place.
I very much look forward to continuing to bring to the attention of members the results of this government’s crime prevention and community safety activities across the Territory.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I was pleased to see the minister describe his statement as a report card on crime prevention because it affords me the opportunity of giving this minister and this government a score.
Whilst I did plan to address many of the matters contained in the statement, I suspect that I will run out of time. The reason for that is that there is so much to attack this government about in this area. I can say with a great deal of confidence that I will be able to demonstrate why it is that this minister and this government earn a score of zero out of 10 for their efforts to date.
Having made that introduction, I note, not only with interest but with a deal of fascination, that the statement is, in essence, a cut and paste of 18 months worth of media releases. I would have thought that the minister and his staff would have done a little better but, alas, like their policies on law and order, they have fallen short.
I note that on page 1 of the minister’s statement, he refreshes our memory about Labor’s six-point plan on crime. He very kindly lists those six points. I probably will not deal with all of them, but I propose to deal with a couple and see where it takes us. The first, of course, is: serious crime means serious time. That is what the Labor government says. I think not.
There is plenty of information around telling us that it is simply not the case. This government does not believe in serious crime means serious time. We need only look at – and there are many examples of this – the murmurings of the minister himself. He has said publicly on a number of occasions that he would like to investigate letting people out of gaol - let the prisoners out. This minister does not think people should be in gaol. Indeed, I suggest it is a cause of great embarrassment to him that there are any prisoners in gaol, and that is no doubt why he wants to let them out.
There is a wide difference between the CLP and the ALP when it comes to law and order - that is what it is - the CLP actually does believe that serious crime means serious time. Despite the spin of the government and the rhetoric of the minister, this government does not believe it - and Territorians do not believe the minister either. However, there is another very good illustration of why it is that the government does not believe in serious crime means serious time. That is in the government’s own crime statistics. I refer to the latest ones; that is, the September figures released in December of last year. I refer members to pages 90 and 91 of this report. In particular, it refers to how many matters went to court, and the penalties handed out by the courts when it came to unlawful entry with intent - to choose but one example, and there are many.
Let us look at unlawful entry with intent, on page 90 of the government’s own figures. It says:
What that means is that they were not put in gaol:
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table extracts or copies of pages 90 and 91 of the September quarter crime statistics.
Leave granted.
Ms CARNEY: This minister should find the time to read his own material. What these figures show is that, in respect of unlawful entries with intent - a serious crime in the Northern Territory - only 49% of offences were associated with an actual term of imprisonment - 49%. Less than half of them went to gaol, that is what it means. This does not equate with the mantra peddled by this minister and other government members that serious crime means serious time. It is garbage, everyone knows it is garbage and, embarrassingly enough for government, it is even in their own figures.
I could go on - and I know some of my colleagues will spend some time on this - but I could go on and on about why it is that this government does not believe in serious crime means serious time. I am on only on page 1 of the statement, and only the first point of Labor’s much trumpeted six-point plan. Having shown, I would suggest, that it is garbage, that the Australian Labor Party, NT Branch believes in serious crime means serious time. I am not confident about the remaining five points.
The next point is: making you feel safe at home. It is hard to know where to start with this one. My assessment and, indeed, the assessment of many others, is that most Territorians do not feel safe in their own homes. Those who do so live behind security screens on their windows and on their doors. The government points to what it says are decreases in property crimes. In its latest addition of the crime stats, there are some encouraging trends - I will grant them that; there are some encouraging trends. However, Madam Speaker, you would be aware, as a member from Alice Springs, of one of many headlines in our local paper, the Centralian Advocate. This one is dated 6 February: ‘Lock your doors’. Front page on the Centralian Advocate.
The government says: ‘Things are wonderful under Labor. There is no crime, it is all going down. We promised you this would happen and, by God, it is happening’. Well, how wrong can the Centralian Advocate be? ‘Lock your doors’ is an astounding headline, even for the Centralian Advocate, I would suggest, Madam Speaker, and you have lived in Alice Springs a long time. That is a damning indictment of this government …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: Again, for the benefit of the more ignorant members of the government, I seek leave to table a copy of that newspaper headline.
Leave granted.
Ms CARNEY: Government says that it wants to make people feel safe at home. However, whether inside or outside their homes, the reality is Territorians are not safe. To the government’s collective and eternal shame, Labor has presided over a significant increase in violent crime in the Northern Territory. A significant increase in violent crime is, again, a damning indictment. It is in the government’s own figures - their own, very special blue books. Let us go through them.
The facts are these: there has been a significant increase in assaults across the Territory from September 2001 to September 2003. There has been a significant increase in sexual assaults from September 2001 to September 2003 across the Northern Territory. There are more offences against the person committed across the Territory, with an increase from September 2001 to September 2003. In relation to sexual assaults, the facts are these: sexual assaults have increased across the Territory every quarter - every quarter, with the exception of two. Sexual assaults in Darwin have increased by 38% compared to the last quarter. Sexual assaults in Alice Springs have increased by 17% compared to the last quarter, and a staggering 180% - that is three digits, 180% - compared to the same quarter the previous year. Sexual assaults are on the increase under a Labor government. Labor may well spin around the Northern Territory and say: ‘People’s homes are safer’, but, by God, the people in them are not.
In relation to assaults, the facts are these: assaults in Darwin have increased by 6% compared to the last quarter. Assaults in Alice Springs have increased by 2% from the last quarter. Assaults in Palmerston have increased by 12% from the same quarter last year. The list goes on, and on, and on.
We may well ask ourselves why it is that people are leaving the Northern Territory. We know we have the best weather in the world. Fortunately, the NT Branch of the Australian Labor Party has not been able to bugger that up. At least they are not leaving because of the weather, but there are a multitude of other reasons. Perhaps it is because the assault rate is going up. Perhaps it is because of the rate of sexual assault is going up. Or perhaps it is because this government simply has put to one side what many of us describe as general law and order issues.
The antisocial behaviour happening all around us, and the stuff we see everyday – nothing is dealt with. In fact, government has not even seen fit to keep any figures on that. Probably, it is a bit hard to measure, but they are ignoring all of the antisocial behaviour bits and pieces. Maybe that is why people are leaving town. I certainly suggest that the increase in violent crime is a factor. If government does not start considering that, there will not be enough people left to elect you …
Dr Toyne: This is the same speech you made in the Alice Springs sittings. You have not moved on; another year has gone by now.
Ms CARNEY: There will not be enough people to elect you, because they will all go. Some of us might think that is not such a bad thing. However, all of us - certainly on this side of the Chamber - want people to stay in the Northern Territory and, to do that, we need to provide a safe environment for them. Under the Australian Labor Party NT Branch it is not happening. Government’s own figures – look at it. It is a disgrace. It is an absolute disgrace.
No wonder the minister said on page 31 of his statement that he is looking at distributing personal home and safety packages across the Territory. Well, bring it on. Can I have one please? Send them all down to Alice Springs because we need them down there. In relation to that part of the statement, minister, I encourage you heartily to make great progress with that, because you are not making any progress when it comes to violent crime.
Arguably, the most laughable point of Labor’s six-point plan is putting victims first. If it was not so serious, you really would laugh. Putting victims first! There are a number of impolite ways to comment on this, but I will choose to be as polite as possible. It is absolute garbage - it is garbage! The evidence speaks for itself. I remind members of what this Attorney-General did a year or so ago with the crimes victims assistance legislation. He reduced the costs for lawyers to such an extent that it is not economical for lawyers to do the work. We told him what would happen and, true enough, it did. Victims are not pursing their applications for compensation because lawyers are not doing the work.
Lawyers around the Territory tell me that their crimes compensation work has dropped significantly. We warned the Attorney-General that that would happen. Indeed, I recall a fiery debate at the committee stage in particular. However, with the arrogance that is so quickly becoming the hallmark of this government, he would not listen. We told him and he did not listen: ‘No, you people do not know what you are talking about. Despite the fact that you have two lawyers on your side in private practice, you do not know what you are talking about’. The proof is in the pudding. Therefore, is this a government that puts victims first? I think not.
But there is more! I could go on all night and I am very sorry that I am going to run out of time. But there is more, and it is important that I refer to one aspect in particular. Members will recall that, in August 2003 I introduced a bill to amend the Sentencing Act so that the courts could not take Aboriginal customary law into account when sentencing. I submitted then and I submit now, that customary law protects violent men who perpetrate violence on the victims who are predominately Aboriginal women and children. I urged the Attorney-General to have the courage to stand up and draw a line in the sand and to say: ‘Enough is enough. We will not tolerate a situation where violent men hide behind the veil of customary law that shields them from stronger sentences’. But no, the Attorney-General would not have a bar of it; would not even contemplate it.
I would suggest that there is no better example of how this government and this minister have so dismally and pathetically failed the victims of these appalling crimes that are being committed every day and every night in Aboriginal communities around the Northern Territory. Government says that it wants to do something about this problem of Aboriginal violence in communities and, with what can only be described as feigned conviction, says repeatedly that it cares about victims and that it puts victims first. It is absolute nonsense. It is garbage; no one believes it. The minister stands condemned.
Regarding the report card: serious crime means serious time – no, not under Labor. Making you feel safe at home – well, if you had a home down south you may well feel safe, but if you have a home in the Northern Territory, you do not. Putting victims first - again the facts speak for themselves. I will not confuse the minister with the Latin maxim for that.
Another point to note about victims arises from comments on page 4 of the minister’s statement, where he asserts that courts now have regard to sentencing options that the victim wants to see in place. Again – and as usual – the minister does not know what he is talking about. The fact is that victim impact statements - and that is what he is talking about - were introduced by the CLP and courts have had regard to these for some years. In the victim impact statements, victims give their views on a range of things, including sentencing. I remind the Attorney-General that Victim Support Units within the DPP were set up by the CLP, a government that really did recognise the rights of victims and act accordingly, rather than simply paying lip service to them.
I am compelled to make mention of what the minister has called - not only in his statement but repeatedly outside the House - the government’s home and business invasion laws, of which government makes so much. He fails, once again, to do his homework and does not look at the figures. The facts are these: since October 2001 until September 2003 there have been - according to the blue book, government’s own figures - five offences of home invasion by adults that have gone before the courts. These you-beaut laws have not done much. Five adults have gone before the courts. I find it hard to believe that only on five occasions have homes been invaded in the Northern Territory. Clearly, that raises questions about the collection of the data but, more importantly, it demonstrates that, despite government spin and rhetoric, what they say is working actually is not.
On page 5 of the statement, the minister dealt with government committing resources to the protection of the community. Again, it is a sentence that simply does not reflect the truth. There is a statement about all sorts of money being provided to ensure the protection of the community. With all of this money, one would have thought that we would see some results. Alas, we do not. So, where is the money going? Again, the government scores a zero.
There are numerous examples around the Territory that bear testimony as to why it is that the government scores a big, fat zero in relation to its crime prevention strategies. One of the most obvious of which I am aware - and I know the minister is aware of - is the complete disintegration of law and order at the Keith Lawrie units in my electorate. There are numerous examples. I could be here, comfortably, until 6 am going on and on and on about the examples. However, let us just deal with one; a nice easy one.
I will shortly table, but I shall read a letter that I received from a constituent only a week or so ago. This letter was sent to the Minister for Housing, the member for Arnhem, so it is up on the 5th floor somewhere. The relevant extract is this:
That is just one part of this letter. It shows that government, again, scores a big fat zero when it comes to so-called crime prevention measures. It also shows the total disintegration of law and order in but one area - a little electorate of urban Alice Springs called Araluen. I seek leave to table that letter, Madam Speaker.
Leave granted.
Ms CARNEY: This issue has raised its head in fairly recent times. It has been around for a while, but things are obviously escalating. The minister, who was obviously told that perhaps he should go and have a look at it, actually did, Madam Speaker.
Dr Toyne: I spoke to people, unlike you, who refused to, because you think they are subhuman.
Ms CARNEY: Shortly, I will table a copy of the article from the Centralian Advocate, which is headed, ‘Toyne walks on wild side’. I immediately thought of the Lou Reed song, Walk on the Wild Side. There he was, the minister walking on the wild side - article dated 17 February. I will quote one very interesting part of it, as follows:
Living back at Yuendumu …
Dr Toyne: There were a lot of Warlpiri people out there.
Ms CARNEY: What a joy it must have been for the minister to be back at Yuendumu. He may well have been very happy about that, but the fact of the matter is, the people – other people living nearby - do not share his enthusiasm. This minister really should get out more. No doubt, when he knocks off in a year or so from now, he will be able to have a good look. I have to comment on what a brave boy and what a brave little minister he was, walking around the units, flanked by his nervous advisers in the middle of the day. I seek leave to table that.
Leave granted.
Ms CARNEY: About the same time that this business at the Keith Lawrie units was really at boiling point, other residents were coming to me in droves, making a number of complaints about what they saw as increased criminal activity in the area. In fact, one man said that he had a group of people - it could have been different, but he thought it was the same one – four times in a week, siphoning petrol from his car. When he told me about this, I read out to him a copy of a press release that was on my desk from the minister for police. It was dated 2 February. I quote one part of that, which I read to the man who rang me up. I said, this is what government is saying:
It would be unparliamentary for me to repeat exactly what this chap said after I read that paragraph, so I will not. I will resist the temptation. It is fair to say he was seriously unimpressed. This is but one of many examples. If they were honest on that side of the House, they too could point to instances in their electorate that actually highlight the difference between all of the spin and the rhetoric, and what is actually happening. However, they will not because they are being told that everything is fine. I cannot help but wonder how many of them actually read the crime statistics.
It is not surprising that the minister made considerable references to the Office of Crime Prevention in his statement, as well as the crime statistics. The government’s spin is extraordinary. The government infers outside this place that the Office of Crime Prevention is independent. It is not. I remind members it is not; it is part of the Department of Justice, and the CEO is Richard Coates.
It is not at all surprising that Territorians generally, and the opposition in particular, have significant difficulty with these crime statistics because, on the 26 November 2001, when speaking in this Chamber about the crime stats, this minister said he and his government: ‘… will all stand or fall on how the pattern emerges in the future’.
Is it any wonder then that we are all sceptical about the figures? Is it at all surprising that we question the spin placed on the figures after a barrage of media releases published each time it is released? It is spin, spin, spin and they do not like it …
Dr Toyne interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: … and this bloke does not like it when anyone dares to question, or to put a contrary view on the interpretation of the figures that government puts on it.
They say: ‘They are all independently audited so it has got nothing to do with us’. Rubbish! I have seen the letter from Ernst & Young. The letter from Ernst & Young essentially says: ‘The buttons on our calculator are the same as the buttons on your calculator’. Ernst & Young were not employed to dig down and investigate the figures. The terms of their retainer - and I know the Attorney–General has the letter - was to check whether the calculations were right. They were not employed to look behind the figures. However, we are and we will.
I note again with interest that the government does not make - in fact, always tries to hide - the level of under-reporting. The ABS assesses that under-reporting as 25% of house break-ins and 69% of assault offences which are not reported to the police. In the latest bunch of press releases that accompanied the September crime stats that were released in December, there is a little line on the bottom that suddenly appeared. It says: ‘Oh, by the way, there is a little under-reporting’. It does not give the figures, but it is fair to say that, after hounding the government, they are embarrassed enough to say: ‘There might be a little under-reporting’.
We also have revisions of the figures that appear in these crime stats. If one looks closely at the figures from quarter to quarter, one sees the figures change before one’s very eyes. I do not say that the staff employed at the Office of Crime Prevention do anything wrong. All I say is that the spin put on the figures by government after each publication, change.
What government fails to do is highlight the changes after each publication. Most of the changes seem to suggest …
Dr Toyne: Madam Speaker, I think the member’s time has expired.
Madam SPEAKER: She has not finished yet.
Ms CARNEY: … that some of the figures go up. Therefore, it begs the question: why would government want to tell everyone that the figures have gone up? There are consistent revisions. A good example is this …
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I move that the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Ms CARNEY: In Issue 1 for December 2001, at page 6, for total offences against the person the figure was 1256. In Issue 5, September 2003, the same offences are revised to 1272. That is 18 months after the initial figure, and a clear increase is reported. Yet, government does not publish the revisions in any meaningful way. I would suggest that it is only the opposition who scrutinise the figures closely enough to look at them. This is significant, as figures are constantly changing. That is what it means and, yet, government does not tell Territorians about these changes.
Again, after a barrage of press releases in which Labor claimed various successes - some of which border on the unreal and fantastic, and I mean that in a fantasy sense as opposed to an encouraging, happy sense. After the barrage of press releases, months later - as many as 18 months later - the figures change. Does government tell anyone about those changes? No, no, no. It is interesting that, at page 1 of the September statistics - and it is always stated in each publication, that the intended audience of these figures – sorry, I will reword that. The people who will look at these reports are the people who are meant to gain information and insight from them. It says:
If the aim is to inform Territorians, then why does not government make more of the revisions? I suggest that it is just spin. It is just spin: ‘If it is convenient, we will mention it and if it is not, we will not’. It cannot go unmentioned - nor should it - that the minister becomes almost hysterical - we know what he is like when he gets excited - when we talk about parts of the crime figures that he does not want us to talk about. We say a quarter on quarter comparison in some areas shows an increase. He becomes indignant and says: ‘No, no, no, you have to use a year by year comparison’. When we use a year by year comparison, he says: ‘No, no, no, you have to adopt a quarter by quarter comparison’. In other words, ‘Stick to our script and if you do not we will get stuck into you’.
It is fair to say they were close to a nice enough bunch of socialists before they won government. Increasingly, they are looking a bunch of fascists: ‘You do as we say and, if you do not, we will kick you; we will string you up’ …
Mr Kiely: I must object to being told I look like the CLP. That is a bit hard.
Ms CARNEY: The member for Sanderson bears the distinction of being recognised in this parliament as being the most stupid member here and he needs to zip his lip …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! I do not think we need to make personal remarks. Move on.
Ms CARNEY: When he does not, he copies other peoples work …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, could you get on with your speech.
Ms CARNEY: When he does not do that, he tells Top Enders they should open their windows when there is a power black out …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, on with your speech thank you.
Ms CARNEY: … so zip your lip!
Mr KIELY: Madam Speaker, point of order, however. You made a ruling the other day and you made it quite clear in this House about such comments as this. I am deeply offended by what is going on here. Let her stick to the relevance and I ask that she withdraws those comments.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, withdraw those comments, thank you, and finish your response.
Ms CARNEY: A point of clarification, Madam Speaker, which comments in particular?
Madam SPEAKER: The ones that have so offended the member for Sanderson. The personal remarks you were making about him and the comments you were …
Ms CARNEY: About the member for Sanderson being stupid, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, you are being rude.
Ms CARNEY: Well, I am not actually, Madam Speaker. Is he so offended at being called stupid?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, you are. Just withdraw it.
Ms CARNEY: Well, I apologise and withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Mr Kiely: We are going to bring this debate down to the level of a kindergarten, Madam Speaker.
Mr Elferink: You are prepared to slander somebody with the accusation of intoxication and now you are being so thin-skinned about this. You are beneath ...
Madam SPEAKER: Order, thank you. Come on, it is getting late. Let us get on with it.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, in the context of this debate, naturally I am reminded about the information obtained from the DPP last year. Documents prepared for budget estimates showed that, in the DPP in 2002-03, there was a 23% increase in the number of clients presenting to the Victims Support Units compared with the previous year. Those figures - and I have tabled the document here before - also show that the DPP blew its budget for the year 2003-03 because - and I quote from the document - ‘the workload of the office has increased by 113%’. The documents further show that in 2001-02 there were 429 new matters but, in 2002-03, that figure increased to 914 matters.
I said at the time - and I repeat now - that the DPP is independent from government. The DPP can not be spun and manipulated, and thank God for that, because they are the figures that this minister - this Attorney-General, the Territory’s first law officer - simply refuses to talk about. It shows that, if it is convenient government will use it and they will issue all of the press releases; if it is not ‘We do not want to talk about that, no one raise it please’. Therefore, the hypocrisy of government members and, in particular the minister, is astounding.
I could go on. Aboriginal imprisonment rate, for instance, is a good example of this. Under the CLP, the indigenous imprisonment rate was around 60%. Under the Australian Labor Party NT Branch, it is about 80% - a significant increase.
I take the liberty of reminding members of what the member for Arnhem had to say in the Chamber in October 2002 and, to use an expression oft used by the member for Arnhem, listen because you might learn something. I quote:
The rate of imprisonment for Aboriginal people has increased significantly under Labor in two years. The figures speak for themselves. How ashamed they must feel, and rightly so. The figures clearly demonstrate that the government’s policies have failed, and failed dismally and the crime amongst Aboriginal Territorians has increased. They are not - as has been suggested by the Attorney-General in a radio interview some months ago – all driving offences that he thinks. All the Aboriginal prisoners are in there for driving offences. Garbage! Not even you believe that, Attorney-General.
I now turn to another matter raised in the statement, wherein the minister mischievously talked about victims of crime and sexual assault cases. The minister disingenuously said at page 15 of the statement that he set up a task force last year in response to the increasing - I repeat: increasing - number of sexual assaults in the Northern Territory.
He said, and it is astonishing – I do not know who writes this stuff for you, but you might like to look elsewhere; perhaps down south because that is what you do and you should get someone else to write it - your task force will look at provisions of screens and other facilities for vulnerable witnesses in Territory courts. That is patently wrong. It was the CLP that introduced vulnerable witness legislation, and screens for vulnerable witnesses have been in place for some years. In this regard, the Territory’s first law officer does not know. I remind and counsel him, friend to friend, to have a look at section 21A of the Evidence Act, and there it is in black and white.
Again, he is at the bottom of the garden. He made churlish remarks about announcing the reforms in December about ‘our’ legislation to protect vulnerable witnesses including victims of sexual assaults. Excuse me? Whose legislation applies to vulnerable witnesses? It was not the Australian Labor Party; it was the CLP. This man says they were his reforms. How very extraordinary.
He also said that I thought it was such a good idea that I would introduce my own bill. That is a lie, and I can say so confidently because he cannot speculate as to my motivation and he is wrong in any event …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker. The honourable member well knows that she cannot accuse any member of this House of lying unless she does so by way of substantive motion, and I ask her to withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: That is true. You cannot say that. Withdraw.
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw it, Madam Speaker, and replace it with the word ‘fabrication’. The minister cannot speculate as to my motivation and he is wrong, wrong, wrong as usual. He has not read my media releases. He says things are in hand. It is garbage. It is further evidence of this government not putting victims first. This man should be ashamed of the absolute nonsense in this statement.
I could go on. I will run out of time, but I could happily sit here until 6 am because there is so much material on which to attack this minister and this government. When you come up with absolute codswallop like ‘Aren’t things wonderful under the Australian Labor Party in the Northern Territory?’, you should look around you. Listen to the people around you. Take another walk on the wild side somewhere else. Join the Grey Nomads – I know you are already grey and you are going away. Look outside, see what is around. You should be ashamed and you score a big, fat zero.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, this is one of those statement that I would hope is considered by members as being one of the most important we can debate. At the end of the day, the role of government is to provide - above all else, before education and health – a safe and civil society. Yet, I find myself on my feet directly after the shadow Attorney-General because it appears that members opposite seem to have lost interest in a safe, orderly society, or at least interest to the point at which they have any urge to speak about it this evening.
Before I start on my contribution, I wish to touch on a few of the things that the member for Araluen did, and that is in relation to this desire of the current minister to rewrite history for his own ends. This is not unusual for the honourable members opposite. I find myself somewhat frustrated by having to constantly correct the errors that the minister makes in relation to, specifically, what I do around the traps.
The minister told me in Tuesday’s Question Time that I have taken no interest in the people of Docker River. He said: ‘You hardly ever hear from the member for Macdonnell over there on what he suggests can be done on this’. If the minister had taken so much as a moment to check the Hansard from the previous week during adjournment debates, I was on my feet making quite a few suggestions on what could be done on this - this being the situation of Docker River.
The minister in his statement mentions Docker River and the good work being done by the NPY Women’s Council. I am a great believer that that institution can do good things. In fact, I believe that Jane Lloyd, who worked for that organisation, was such a good operator that, when she came to me to provide her with a reference so that she could take up a more active role in the crime prevention issues, I, with great relish and gusto, did so.
The other problems that occur in the Docker River area have been profound and serious indeed. The minister said: ‘Oh, some time in the last 12 months or so, there were some problems’. Well, it was not 12 months, it was immediately prior to Christmas, and it was not some major incident, it was a homicide and an arson, and those sorts of things. The community has come to the minister for police, and has said to him: ‘For pity’s sake, help us. Help us have a police station here. You are about to enter into a bilateral agreement with Western Australia, lobby to put the police station in the Northern Territory’. Too hard, did not happen. I have raised this repeatedly.
Mr Henderson: Like the police station you built there? Must be a mirage.
Mr ELFERINK: I have raised this issue repeatedly with the minister, and he simply ignored the issue and ignored the people of Docker River. Now the people of Docker River have come back with another proposal for putting police aides in place, having appropriate accommodation in place so that officers can overnight, and those sorts of things. Kicking and screaming, the minister has said - and I quote from yesterday’s answer: ‘We have promised some Aboriginal community police officer positions there, two of them’. That is good. I welcome that news from the minister. The question I have for the minister is: when? Can we have a date on that please?
I urge the minister to respond to that because, at the end of the day, the people of Docker River’s nearest police station is Yulara, which is 200 km away by dirt road. Even when the bilateral arrangement comes into force and there is a police station on the other side of the border, which is closer to Docker River, they are still going to be some distance away from that police station. I am frustrated - frustrated, frustrated - that we have had to drag the government kicking and screaming to a point where they are making a promise to finally put a couple of ACPOs into the area. Put a time line on it, make the commitment clear, and exactly what the commitment is, and tell the people of Docker River that they are about to get the protection that they have every right to, like so many other communities in the Northern Territory have a right to.
I wish to turn to the ministerial statement, and I will begin with some observations in relation to the crime statistics that have been published. Those crime statistics are generally inaccurate, with a general shortfall - they come in low, partly based on the readjustments that the shadow Attorney-General referred to, and partly to the fact that the PROMIS system - which is another issue that I have raised repeatedly in this Chamber - reports short of the mark. The example I cite, and I have cited before, is that in the O’Sullivan report, Mr O’Sullivan, in a footnote to the report, said – it is actually not a footnote, but a paragraph towards the end: ‘In Katherine, between 5% and 10% is the shortfall in reported incidents recorded on the PROMIS system’.
That is largely because the PROMIS system is difficult to use. The minister has acknowledged that, the police commissioner has acknowledged that, and the repair bill for the PROMIS system is $1.8m. Hopefully, that work will be done quickly, in spite of the fact that the ACT has abandoned the PROMIS system. In spite of that, this police force wants to move on with it - good. However, when I say, and when the shadow minister for police says: ‘You cannot have it both ways; not trust the statistics and say crime is going up’, it is entirely consistent to say that simply because there is sign the statistics are falling short of what is actually happening, based on those two variables: problems with the PROMIS system which means that there are incidents not being reported, and the variables outlined by the shadow Attorney-General.
What we can glean from that is that break-ins are being unreported, and crimes of violence are being under-recorded. I will make the concession that, on the face of it now that the inaccurate system has been in place for a while, there seems to be a drop in house break-ins and commercial break-ins. Good! I am delighted to hear that. However, let us be realistic about what is actually happening here. The police force is engaged in an operational technique called intelligence-led policing. The operations they are targeting with that intelligence-led policing leads them to discover that percentage of the population which is inclined to break into places. This is consistent with my experience when I was in the police force; that the 80:20 rules apply: 80% of my time was spent dealing with about 20% of the recidivist offenders out there.
I want to touch on the link that the government makes with drug abuse and crime in a moment. However, there was a clearly an over-representation from a minority of the population in certain areas. The CLP, with its much-maligned policy of mandatory sentencing, was derided as being this awful organisation that wanted to put people in gaol through a mandatory sentencing approach. Without revisiting all of those debates, that was repealed by the new government, and they introduced their sentencing guidelines. I am going to be straightforward about the sentencing guidelines. They are so limited in the way they operate - the minister himself said so – that the effect of those sentencing guidelines is that it is mandatory sentencing by another name but, because we have the semantic name change, the public are not railing about it, I am not particularly upset about it, and the courts seem to have been a little less inclined to be critical because they feel that they have some extra latitude, which is not a great deal at all.
Therefore, through a mixture of a sentencing regime which is quite firm, and targeting 20% of the population which do 80% of the break-ins, guess what the result is? A slice of the population which did a lot of the break-ins is now sitting in gaol. Well, that was the CLP’s policy. The fact of the matter is that that is the problem. When you apply intelligence-led policing, which is a good and effective policing method – and I congratulate the minister in allowing the Police Commissioner to use it because it is, in my opinion, effective - you end up with people in gaol. Especially when the sentencing regime operates to put people in gaol. Therefore, the mandatory sentencing processes like that work.
What is sad about it is that you then get increased gaol populations and an over-representation, sadly, of Aboriginal people. This government which, while in opposition used to bleat about custody of Aboriginal people and the rates were skew and everything was horrible, is actually applying policies in such a way that that over-representation is now being amplified. So much so, that you now get criticisms from people like Lionel Quartermaine, the Acting Chairman of ATSIC, saying that it is all very dreadful and horrible. Therefore, you are caught in this Catch 22 situation. That is really the explanation of what is going on here.
Then I turn, much more concerned, to the other aspect of reported and recorded crimes. I trust the figures well enough to say that they are under-reported because of failings in the PROMIS system and the recording system. The audit says - as the member for Araluen quite accurately pointed out, saying, ‘Yes, you have added this up correctly’, when we were presented with the same data that the same computer system spat out that you read – we read them in the same way and the numbers on the calculator work - the effect is that we have increasing rates of crimes of violence - increasing rates of crimes of violence which are being under-reported. Therefore, what we are reading in the crime statistics are actually occurring in much higher numbers.
This is an area of which I am somewhat concerned. When I go into the community, both in Alice Springs and in Darwin, the programs which are supposed to return people to country in an effort to get them back to their communities seem to be operational from what I can make out but, I now have on good advice from several sources that 5 minutes after those people arrive - that is not correct - a day after those people arrive they are again finding their way back to Darwin or Alice Springs, as the case may be, to engage in the behaviour for which the were encouraged to leave the major centres in the first place.
What happens when the get here? They are encouraged to do more things. In this financial year, there is a $5m expenditure on improving services for these people. Therefore, you have better services here in Darwin than you have, for arguments sake, in Galiwinku or Port Keats. If you get drunk you get looked after; you get taken back to the sobering-up shelter, which now runs 24 hours per day. You have Night Patrols that pick you up. You are feed and clothed and washed. None of this is done for you back in your home community.
Therefore, service improvement in the major centres actually has the effect then of being a potential attractant. What concerns me is that you then attract these people here and you compound it with what happens in the community generally anyhow; and you have lots of drunks on Friday and Saturday nights as you have done for time immemorial in major communities. Every so often, we will get a Naval vessel or a large influx of people for various other reasons into the community, and you have a lot of people drunk and on the streets and those sorts of things. What do we do to control that environment? The answer is very little. What I am concerned about is that the environments that are not attended to when you have low levels of social disorder are the ones that ultimately lead to increases in results in criminal behaviour; and there is very little done to nip those sorts of things in the bud at that level.
One of the areas of concern - and it was established under the CLP in the past but has not been fixed - is the Summary Offences Act which, in my opinion, was once a very effective tool for the purposes of maintaining good order on our streets. The Summary Offences Act, at one stage, provided for a system of either summons or arrest for people who engaged in offences which breached that act: riotous offences, indecent language, fighting, objectionable words, those sorts of things. That was then replaced with an on-the-spot fine. So now you can receive a $100 fine or whatever it is for any of those offences. However, that does not remove the person from the environment which allows that person then to continue on their way with a bit of bad blood now because they got a $100 fine for swearing.
I believe that it is time to review that process and have a look at the operation of the Summary Offences Act and find out if it could be re-examined as a tool for which we could maintain public order. I am a great believer that you can nip public offensive behaviour - urinating in the streets, smoking a bit of dope on the street corner, all those sorts of things - in the bud at a street level with a policy which empowers police to either threaten with summons or move directly to the process of arrest where they believe it warrants it – act as a circuit breaker in the community and bring those people to book and have their offences attended to by a magistrate.
In the old days, there used to be a thing called public drunkenness offences. That was many moons ago. That was replaced with section 128 of the Police Administration Act, which had a responsibility of, basically, taking public drunks and not charging them, but just keeping them in custody for six hours. However, that was never meant to be a tool to replace the operation of the Summary Offences Act.
By necessity or by activity of police over time, it has become a tool that has replaced the Summary Offences Act. What was once meant to simply lock up drunks for being drunks has now become that circuit breaker, which the Summary Offences Act used to be. Over time, the effectiveness of the Summary Offences Act has waned. It is time to review that legislation. It is time to review policy on how that legislation is applied and how it can re-invigorated to help police take control of the streets. I give a commitment now that any future CLP government with which I am involved will certainly be reviewing the operation of the Summary Offences Act to see if that can be used as a means by which the police can take better control.
There is an element of fantasy involved in this statement. The Attorney-General talked about the expanded Youth at Risk Task Forces and all those sorts of things. Well, the impact is resounding through the community. I picked up a newspaper last week and, in that newspaper, there was a young man telling Northern Territorians that in the northern suburbs there are gangs roaming the streets who are prepared to sort each other out and do horrible and dreadful things to each other.
I am convinced that gangs roaming the streets need more than a Youth at Risk Task Force; they need some basic, simple controls applied to them. Whether that is through the Summary Offences Act or some other mechanism, there is a risk of sounding a little warm and fuzzy. I am not saying do not implement the programs, but make sure that where there is a soft approach on one hand, there is a consequence on the other. If there is no consequence for anybody to behave in the way that these young people are, then I am afraid that your Youth at Risk programs will not have an effect because there is no consequence that flows from it.
I also want to touch on some other aspects. The great battle against drugs seems to be working particularly well. The great battle against drugs is working so well that it was reported in the paper last week that fully one-third of applicants for the LNG plant tested positive for drugs. Fully one-third of our work force, if you extrapolate that to the rest of the community, have access to those drugs that you guys are so passionately combating. Okay, so you have scored yourself a few hundred grand out of drug income. However, as a taxation, it still has not touched the sides. It is an effective tool, but do not think you guys are winning this war, no matter how you want to dress it up.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will start by saying that, obviously, I support this very thorough and detailed 32-page statement by my colleague, the Justice Minister. It really goes to show the efforts that we are putting into crime prevention here in the Northern Territory.
I will start with comments made by the member for Macdonnell, who talked about fantasy. The only fantasy in this debate this evening is the opposition’s total denial that crime trends in virtually all categories are trending down and, in some categories, quite significantly. The fantasy of their denial of this fact is absolutely astounding.
I believe that one of the issues on which we were very clearly elected regarding our platform that we put to the people at the last election was to reduce crime in the Northern Territory. Despite CLP governments over many years running the rhetoric that they were tough on crime, they were anything but. How could a government then, standing on its record, talk about being tough on crime when, between 1990 and 1994, not one police officer was recruited into the police force in the Northern Territory. Not one, an absolutely appalling abrogation of their responsibilities to the community of the Northern Territory. We could see our community getting more and more angry about the level of crime in the community, and we put forward a very clear policy statement: a six-point plan to reduce property crime, and a three-point plan to get tough on drug-related crime.
This statement here today shows how we have systematically implemented both of those policy commitments throughout government across the Northern Territory. Regarding the statistics that are so derided by those members opposite as being somehow manipulated by government or fraudulent - the reason they are saying that is that they are in denial. The fact is that we are making inroads, and crime is coming down.
I would remind members and Territorians that the statistics we are now providing to Territorians on a quarterly basis are the most comprehensive crime stats ever produced in the Northern Territory. They are independently audited and, no matter what allegations the opposition might want to throw at those statistics, it is a level of reporting to Territorians about what is happening in crime in our community that was certainly never even contemplated by the opposition when they were in government, because they did not want Territorians to know the facts in regards to crime rates in the Northern Territory. I certainly believe that the crime figures that we put out now enable Territorians to understand what is happening and, more importantly, through the significant crime prevention strategies that my colleague has outlined, really give us some baseline data about identifying which strategies are working, which strategies do not work, as a basis of outcomes against those figures.
The two speakers opposite so far - again, total silence and total denial, and it continues. They have not learnt from, certainly the last term in opposition, about the links between drug use and property crime. They were in denial on this issue when they were in government, in spite of us, as opposition at the time, in the two years leading up to the last election, prosecuting that link between drug use and property crime. The then Leader of the Opposition described in debate in this House that the links between drug use and property crime in the Northern Territory was minuscule.
Well, how wrong they were. We had two speakers tonight, in nearly an hour’s worth of debate, and not one mention was made of the very significant inroads that our police force has made on a blight on the Northern Territory, based on the legislation that my colleague, the Justice Minister, has introduced into this parliament. If we go the police annual report this financial year for those crime figures of offences against property in the Northern Territory - unlawful entry with intent, burglary, break and enter to a dwelling – there has been a decrease across the Northern Territory between the years 2001-02, and 2002-03 of 32%; and for buildings, a decrease of 16.5%. That is a huge change by anybody’s evaluations, as my colleague, the Justice Minister said. That is 7000 people who did not have their homes broken into, who where having their homes broken into when the CLP was in power, even with mandatory sentencing supposedly being the great legislative response to a property crime rate that was rapidly escalating out of control. Seven thousand less Territorians have had their homes burgled than when the CLP were in power.
For the opposition to ignore that is absolutely outstanding. I can say, as a local member who gets out and knocks on doors in his electorate - virtually every weekend I am out and spend two or three hours doorknocking - people have noticed it. People have really noticed that there is a decrease in property crime in the northern suburbs of Darwin. I certainly believe that a lot of that decrease is related to the police use of the legislative provisions we have given them to crack down on drug-related crime. As my colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy just stated, by the very fact that we have closed down a significant number of drug houses in the Northern Territory - drug houses that were allowed to open with absolute total licence by the previous government. Everybody in Darwin knew about the Foils at Moil and Speed Plus. Every taxi driver could tell you where to go to get drugs. Every parent’s nightmare was driving past those dwellings and hoping that their kids were never going to get caught up in purchasing drugs from those properties.
I remember debates in this House when the then member for Jingili, basically, said: ‘We know it is happening and there is nothing we can do about it’. Well, we introduced the drug house legislation and those places have been closed down. For that not to be recognised in this debate is absolutely extraordinary. I know that my colleague, the member for Johnston, has some very happy electors in and around that Moil area who say good riddance to the blight that was in their neighbourhood for many years.
The member for Macdonnell, again, is still in denial. I am absolutely amazed at his derisive comments, as an ex-police officer, about the police seizing a couple of hundred thousand dollars from drug dealers as a result of our criminal property forfeiture legislation. Again, we were the only state that did not have legislation that was workable. You have to ask why the CLP never cracked down on the people who were dealing drugs and profiting from getting our kids addicted to drugs. Since that legislation has been enacted, the police - as opposed to the derisory couple of hundred thousand dollars that the shadow police spokesmen talked about, and shame on him; I certainly will be making sure that people in the Drug Squad get to see his comments in debate tonight - the police have taken out 55 restraining orders on $1.58m worth of property believed to be the proceeds of crime or used in crime - an extraordinary success, given that that legislation has not been on the books for a great deal of time. I know, by talking to members of the Drug Squad, that they believe this legislation has been some of the most effective policy initiatives in their attempts to crack down on people who deal in drugs, and drive them out of business and ensure that they do not peddle their misery on the good citizens of the Northern Territory. They think that that legislation has been an absolutely fantastic boom to their armoury.
There is total denial still from the opposition in regards to the links between drugs and property crime. I wonder why they just will not get on board and acknowledge that they were wrong; get behind the government and our police - who are doing a great job - on this particular issue.
It is amazing two speakers from the opposition running totally contradictory lines in regard to the imprisonment rate in the Northern Territory. We had the member for Araluen saying that my colleague, the Justice Minister, was hell-bent on letting everybody out of prison in the Northern Territory, and the member for Macdonnell saying we - essentially to paraphrase him - had mandatory sentencing by another name and that the gaols were fuller than they should be. I just wish they would get their lines right.
However, the government does not back away from serious crime meaning serious time. If we actually look at the facts, the average sentence length for property offenders has jumped 49% in 2002 compared to the last year of the CLP government. There was a 13% increase in average sentence length for all sentences, and a 49% jump in the average sentence length for property offences.
In the 2000-01 year - the last full year of the CLP government - the average sentence length for prisoners was 296 days, increasing to 333 days in 2001-02; a 13% jump. In 2001, the average length for property offences, excluding robbery and fraud, was 166 days increasing to 247 days in 2001-02; a 49% jump. Therefore, for the member for Araluen, who is supposedly a lawyer and should be able to run a case that is based on facts, to say that somehow this government is not hell-bent on seeing people in gaol – if they commit the crime and if they are convicted of that crime - is patently wrong. The average length of sentence under a Labor government is an increase in the last year of the CLP. We can see the sentences are larger, the crime rate is coming down, and the only people that are in denial are the CLP opposition.
The comments on sexual assault and assault being out of control, again are false. Certainly, I am prepared as police minister to acknowledge we have not made the same inroads in the assault and sexual assault areas as the police have made in property crime. However, the latest statistics from September quarter 2003 state on page 3:
For sexual assault:
Those figures do jump around on a quarter by quarter basis and we are not making the inroads there that we are in property crime.
However, I do believe regarding crime prevention the strategies are being developed. We all know in the Northern Territory that the vast majority of assault and sexual assault in the Northern Territory are alcohol-fuelled and alcohol-related. My colleague, the Treasurer, introduced just before this debate the Interim Report on the Alcohol Framework. It is a policy issue that this jurisdiction, the Northern Territory, does need to grapple with, given the numbers of people who abuse alcohol in the Northern Territory and the impact that that abuse has, particularly on assault and sexual assault. We are certainly working through with our community a very difficult policy area - a policy area, again, that the CLP again neglected to do anything significantly about although, for a period through the Living with Alcohol strategies, they put some money and policy effort into that area. However, that dwindled away towards the end of their term. I believe when we get the policy settings right there with the community behind us, we will certainly see the rewards of that in some of those appalling assault statistics coming down.
I would like to commend my colleague, the Justice Minister, and the work that the Office of Crime Prevention do, working very closely with the police. The $75m additional resources into policing and an extra 200 police out on the streets by the end of 2006 will certainly see these crime rates come down even further. What will bring crime down in the Northern Territory is a partnership approach between our community, our police and with the government. Enacting legislation will see further inroads into these figures - decreases in these figures - and significantly more Territorians being able to live a virtually crime-free existence than they were when we came to power. The most startling statistic is that 7000 fewer Territorians have had their homes broken into over this period than when the CLP were in office. That is a significant achievement; there is more to do. I certainly commend my colleague, the Justice Minister, on his statement.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this evening I address the ministerial statement by the Minster for Justice and Attorney-General.
The six-point plan sounds good and it reads good, but the clear message to the community that you will not tolerate the unlawful invasion of homes or businesses, nor the associated damage to property, has not reached the ears of offenders in Katherine who are still committing these offences. Your wonderful statistics that show that break-ins have fallen by 50% again do not reflect what is happening in Katherine. Despite the fact that I have heard here tonight that the statistics are coming down, I can assure you that I live in Katherine and I know what is happening there. The truth is that they have not come down.
Dr Toyne: Katherine is going up. That is in the books. We are not denying that.
Mrs MILLER: Yes, Katherine still does have a problem.
I have the greatest respect for our hard-working police and what they are doing in Katherine trying to address the issues that we have. They have their hands full but, unfortunately, as with everywhere, there are not enough of them.
The Katherine police have recently announced a campaign to address the high incidence of bike theft in Katherine; three or four are stolen per week. This campaign is called, rather unusually, VOLGA. It is to raise the basic awareness of bike owners to preventative measures to, hopefully, curtail thefts of bikes in the future.
Neighbourhood Watch is currently being established in Katherine, and they will be addressing the community through Harmony Week in March. Neighbourhood Watch will be having a bike engraving session at the Rotary Park family day and all bike owners are encouraged to come along and take advantage of this offer. With the introduction of Neighbourhood Watch, the engraving of bikes, and the success of the VOLGA campaign awareness program, hopefully the theft of bikes will be stopped.
I have been very concerned about the use and effect of drugs in our community and am very pleased that drug houses are now publicly recognised in our community. It has highlighted how rampant it is, especially when there have been 10 premises in and around Katherine that have been issued with First Drug House notices since the act came into effect in 2002. I hope that the success of uncovering these drug houses continues to remove this blight from our communities.
I welcome the assistance and support offered to victims of crime through Victims of Crime NT, and thank Sue Lowry for visiting Katherine to promote the scheme, which involves using local businesses to repair the damage caused to private dwellings, without having the additional stress of having to pay the full amount of repairs to vandalised doors, locks and windows, the cost of which can amount to several hundred dollars. Vandalism and theft causes unbelievable stress, so this assistance for victims of crime goes some way to relieving the financial pressure on these victims.
Sexual assault crimes are happening too regularly in Katherine, with three occurring just recently . That is three too many. Sexual assault is abhorrent and I am very pleased to see the establishment of a sexual assault task force. Even the minister acknowledges that there are spiked increases in the number of sexual assaults, and he is talking Territory-wide. I implore the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General to attend to this area of his statement as a matter of urgency.
Graffiti and vandalism are also a problem in Katherine and, in particular, we are addressing a problem in a suburban court that has a walkway coming through from Katherine High School into the court. This walkway has been a headache for a couple of years now, with the residents on both sides being on the receiving end of stone throwing onto their roofs, broken windows, verbal abuse and graffiti on fences on the walkway. The Katherine Town Council installed gates at each end of the walkway which are locked each night and opened each morning by council staff. However, unfortunately, that has only aggravated the culprits fervour. Now they have taken to graffiti on the back fences as well as throwing obstacles over the back fence. It has reached the stage where one of the couples affected by these acts of vandalism have had enough and have seriously considered selling their home and moving somewhere else to live. They are sick of the assault on their privacy and into their house, which I fully appreciate.
As a result of this, and trying to work out how we could overcome this problem, I approached Barbara Ambjerg Pedersen at Mimi Arts to discuss a community project which involves indigenous artwork being printed onto the fences in the walkway and the back fence of the two properties in the walkway that are being damaged. It has been interesting to note that, where indigenous artwork is publicly displayed on external areas in a community, there has been respect shown to that artwork, and it escapes vandalism and graffiti – or so we found in Katherine.
Barbara Ambjerg Pedersen was very interested in my idea, and together we are working towards a community grant to assist with this project. We have spoken to two indigenous artists, Reuben Tukumba and Jamie Ah Fatt, who are very eager to take part in this project, and have suggested that they will concentrate on a theme about respect for other people and property, and have considered that this will be the first community project to address other problem areas in the Katherine community. Hopefully, that will be so.
The minister has mentioned the Katherine region Harmony Group and, yes, I know they have been working very hard over the past year since it was established. I was closely associated with that group when I was an alderman on the Katherine Town Council, and appreciate the difficulties that face the Harmony Group. Unfortunately, the general perception in the community is that the Harmony Group is in effective and not doing anything.
I was one of the attendees at the forum for local business on 27 January, which was extremely well attended and demonstrated the keen interest and willingness to address the crime issues that are effecting the business area of Katherine. The frustration expressed by people at that meeting was expressed loudly and clearly and with a considerable amount of cynicism. They are sick and tired of talk-fests while the situation is getting worse for them. At least one long-term business owner has expressed that he is giving Katherine until 2006 to get its act together or else he is leaving town. He is a very good businessman but he is totally frustrated with the ongoing crime and vandalism, and even more frustrated with programs that are not producing results.
The minister for Justice and Attorney–General finished off his statement by saying that the government will bring forward a whole-of-government/a whole-of-community crime prevention strategic framework. I look forward with great anticipation to viewing this framework that I trust, in all sincerity, will not become a shelf document.
Debate adjourned.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, last night I called for a response from a couple of ministers; one to do with the bat problem at Mataranka, another just as serious an issue concerning the commercial fishermen and the ruling by the appeals court. Hopefully, the minister …
Mr Vatskalis interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: … will get some information forthcoming, which is good. I am happy to support you in fixing the problem, I should let you know right from the start. However, it is getting a little drawn out and it needs to be hurried up.
Tonight, I would like to talk about animal welfare and, in particular, the latest demise of the RSPCA and their financial situation, which some would suspect has rendered it incapable of fulfilling its role under the NT Animal Welfare Act. I would like to know from the minister responsible, the Minister for Community Services, what procedures he has put in place. I understand the minister has met with them and there is an obligation by government to ensure that animal welfare is taken care of in the Northern Territory. I will be looking for a response by that minister in regard to what procedures have been put in place by government to ensure that animal welfare is being taken care of in the Northern Territory. Obviously, there is a funding problem and that needs to be addressed. In the meantime, the government has its own Animal Welfare Unit and I would like to know what the minister’s response is in regard to the resources that that unit has, and what they do to carry out the Northern Territory government’s obligations in regards to the Animal Welfare Act.
The situation with the RSPCA is obviously one of great concern. They do a great job; they work on minimal funding. They obviously rely very heavily on assistance that is totally volunteer, apart from a couple of positions that have been dropped to get over their financial problems of recent times. Hopefully, the government is across the situation and will be providing some funding to enable them to continue their job.
Animal welfare has been in the news of late. I notice that the minister himself has been involved, in an indirect way, in a particular case in Katherine where a young horse was left starving for two weeks in a Territory backyard; that backyard being owned by the minister himself, which I find very ironic at a time that we are talking about the RSPCA and the problems they have. Of course, the minister, in this particular instance, has said that he was not aware of it. He is quoted in the NT News as saying he has written to the Animal Welfare Authority director David Coles, who is his own CEO, to report the horse’s condition. In the paper there was a photo of the horse, which looks very skinny to me. Mr Coles said that the authority would investigate the allegations of this horse starving. When it can happen in the minister’s own backyard, some responsibility has to be taken by the minister in regard to the situation, even though he obviously has tenants on the premises.
However, it just points to the fact that the RSPCA who, as I have said have done a great job over many years, have financial difficulties that do need to be addressed. If they were perhaps properly funded throughout the Northern Territory and the regions, they could certainly be very vigilant about this sort of occurrence happening in regards to animals starving and being cruelly treated.
The other thing I would like to talk about in regard to animal welfare is to ask: what is the latest on the Warren Anderson case? The minister made great noise about the animals at Tipperary in the private zoo. He was talking about bringing some action against Warren Anderson under the Animal Welfare Act, to do with the state of the animals at Tipperary and the fact that the government saw that they had to feed these animals. I am just wondering where that is at. The minister might inform the House whether he has preferred charges. I seem to recall that there was some publication of the fact that Warren Anderson was going to bring a suit against the government. I would be very interested to find out where that stands.
I know the minister has had letters written to him regarding the issue of animal welfare. There have been letters in the paper, the Chief Minister has received letters from a lady who lives in Batchelor who concerns herself, quite rightly, over matters of animal welfare. This particular lady - and I do not particularly want to mention her name - does a great job in keeping government attuned to what is going on in the area of animal welfare, and has written to both the minister responsible, the Chief Minister I believe, and the CEO of the department, and has published letters in the newspaper regarding the dismal state of animal welfare in general in the Northern Territory and the lack of - I guess the word is escaping me right now - but the lack of responsibility that has been taken by the Northern Territory government in regard to animal welfare. She stated in one of her letters to a newspaper:
What she is asking of ministers, government, and departmental officers is to strengthen the compliance of the act to clarify where the responsibility lies, particularly in regards to the demise of the RSPCA at this current time. Where do people go? Where do they go if they cannot ring the RSPCA? In particular, in regional areas where do they go? The Animal Welfare Unit within the department has a phone number, but they do not seem to have the resources or the officers who can take care of all of the issues regarding animal welfare, including even the minister’s own backyard where a horse was left to starve in that yard as reported by the NT News.
It is a serious situation when we are not properly taking care of the animals that are discarded for whatever reason, and they are treated inhumanely. The minister could bring something forward, even in an adjournment, to assure people like this particular lady who has written to them and published in the newspaper, that the government do have and are being given the resources to handle all the inquiries that are made with regard to animal welfare and, certainly, what the government is going to do in respect to the RSPCA and how they operate in the Northern Territory in the future.
There is an issue here that needs to be addressed. I am sure many people feel the same way. We need to assure and reassure people of the Northern Territory that the NT animal welfare laws will be enforced, if not by an agency such as the RSPCA, certainly by the department who has carriage of the act and all of the enforcement laws under the act. People need to be reassured that they can go somewhere like the Animal Welfare Unit within the department and make a complaint that will be carried through to investigation and, if necessary, certain actions taken that can be taken under the act. Currently, there is a feeling that it is a bit of a joke, quite frankly. The minister would do very well to come into this House and report on the actions that he is taking in regard to, not only the general animal welfare situation, but also the RSPCA.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight in the adjournment debate I talk about some happenings my electorate, in particular at Sanderson High School this morning. I had the pleasure, along with the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, to attend the Student Representatives Council elections, declarations and polls, which was conducted in the great stadium.
The students conducted their own polls and elected the following members of their Student Representatives Council: in Year 9, Tatiana De Castro, Brilee Jaques, Shelley Keast, Ben Keitaanpaa and Christopher Lalor; Year 10, Peta Boots, Kevin Kadirgamar, Sophia Hoving, Ira Racines and Aimee Slocombe were the representatives on the SRC. In the senior school the individuals elected were Brock Hall, Shane Boots, Ceah David, Ashlee McInnes, and Danielle Pukeroa.
It was great when these names were being called out as the successful candidates for the positions. There was great support for the students in attendance, which augers well for these people in the work that they have to do. The role of a representative on SRC is not to be taken lightly and I am sure that these students will not take it lightly. There is a lot of role-modelling there, and they have to represent the views of their fellow students and work with them. It is truly one of the foundation steps for learning how democracy works in our community.
I am positive that these students will represent their fellow students very well. I give my undertaking to help them wherever I can. They are always welcome to come to my office to talk to me on any matters about representing their community. I am pretty sure that they are aware of the honour that they have been given and they will conduct their office this year with great dignity, and they will also bring great pleasure to their parents through these new responsibilities that they have taken on. I wish them luck in their role on the SRC.
Also at Sanderson High School today, I had a fabulous time because there was an award given by Danny Honan the Manager of Telstra Countrywide, to Jessica Mauboy. Danny gave this award to Jessica on behalf of NT Telstra because Jessica had actually picked up a great Telstra award in Tamworth. For those who might not have been following the news about Jessica, she is a student at Sanderson High School. I first ran into Jessica when she was in primary school in Wulagi a few years ago. I remember quite well that, when they went over for the orientation day, student Jessica got up and sang to the Sanderson students. She has just gone from strength to strength. Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, you will probably remember as well the great event we had for the ASSPA Awards last year when, in the company of you, me, the minister, the principals, deputy principals and other school council members from Sanderson, Jessica sang. I believe you were talking to the minister at the time, and he noted that Jessica was a young girl with great talent. He was made aware of her eligibility and desire to go to Tamworth to appear at that festival. However, Jessica - like many other families in Sanderson - has quite a number of brothers and sisters and it was difficult to find that amount of money within the family. The minister moved heaven and earth to see what he could do to assist her.
On behalf of all of the school community, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for Employment, Education and Training for his compassion and intervention which has brought so much joy, not only to Jessica but also to her family. Her father Ferdi was there today, but I am not too sure whether her mother was there. I did not see her mother, Theresa, but she was probably there. They are two great people. The interesting thing is that the minister released his multiculturalism statement the other day and I got up and spoke about the rich multiculturalism here in Darwin. Jessica’s parentage is that her father Ferdy is Indonesian and her mother is Aboriginal. Jessica notes that, while she did not grow up in a traditional indigenous environment, that she is exploring her heritage now and will actually study a local Aboriginal dialect at school in Sanderson. That speaks volumes for the school, for the family, for Jessica. I wish her well; the minister wishes her well. I am sure that the member for Karama also wishes her well. I look forward to passing those messages on to her. I can say to her that her local member, the community of Darwin, the community of the Northern Territory and her peers are very proud of her.
On Friday 20th, I also had another great pleasure to open the new branch office for Wizard Home Loans, which is located in Stuart Park on the Stuart Highway. This office was the 200th office for Wizard to be opening. They are a relatively new company. They have only been around since 1998, but they are taking on the banks, starting to lead the field in the home loans market. The interesting thing about this office was that the principal, Dick Grant, came across from Cairns to open up this office. So, we welcome a new person to our community. It is great that he has made the commitment. He is the branch principal, but Wizard have a business model where they have lending mangers who actually get out and about and talk to potential customers. The lending managers there are Paul Jones and Janine Ashmore. I wish them well.
Also in Darwin to open the office was the CEO of Wizard Mr Angelo Malitsis. He is a wonderful chap. He spoke with passion about the company and where he sees it heading. He is a CEO who likes to take all his branches with him. He rolled out the vision for where it was; he gave a history of where Wizard were coming from. It is a fabulous company. I wish them well in the Territory. He was up here and was going to catch the game that night. How fortuitous that the office should open on the same day that the Wizard Cup was being held. He was off the following day to Canberra where he had to open another office. To coincide with the 200th branch celebrations in Darwin, Wizard were also opening offices up in Joondalup in Western Australia, Christie’s Beach in South Australia and in Beenleigh. I know that area quite well. Beenleigh is right in the middle of a huge development at Upper Coomera. Houses are going up everywhere through the Gold Coast. I am sure that that branch is going to do fantastic business. There is also Rockdale in New South Wales and Hopper’s Crossing in Victoria. I have family who live in Hopper’s Crossing. That is another place that is just booming a long. Like Hopper’s Crossing and Beenleigh, I am sure that Darwin - which I feel is on the cusp of a great building boom - is going to go well, particularly with the new suburbs mooted at Lee Point. That is something. Palmerston is still on the boil with all established homes and units that are going up. There is plenty of room in the marketplace for Wizard. I am sure that they are going to be competitive. More competition has to be a better thing for the consumers of Darwin. Once again, we welcome them to our community and I look forward to them being around for the long haul. As they say, they understand that people buying homes make the biggest financial commitments of their lives and, with their professional experience and leadership, they will talk to them about the options and will get them the best deal. Therefore, I wish them luck. I wish Dick Grant luck. Good on Angelo Malitsis for leading his company in such a great manner.
I would also like to just pass on a vote of thanks to Kate Epworth and give her a pat on the back. Kate is the events organiser - I guess would be her title - for Wizard. She did a wonderful job of organising the AFL event. They sponsor a beaut tournament, the Wizard Cup. People in the Territory got right behind it and, as I said to the CEO, when we were talking to people about going to the football, they were saying: We are going off to the Wizard Cup’ That speaks volumes for such a great business decision. Therefore, all in all, welcome to Wizard.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I want to raise, as I have done on probably two or three occasions before in this House, the matter of Gillen residents and various rectification works that they require as a result of the demolition of Gillen House. I am very pleased - and I mean that genuinely - that the new Minister for Lands and Planning is in the House. I would expect that he would have been briefed on this issue in the transfer from the portfolios from previous minister. If he has not been, then I am very happy to offer him a briefing.
Minister, this matter has been going on for almost two years. In this speech tonight, I will not go through all of the details. However, in essence, when Gillen House in Alice Springs was demolished for the Gillen seniors village, there were incredible difficulties and problems caused as a result of the compaction technique used prior to the building of the units. I will not trouble you with the details because I have mentioned the details on a couple of previous occasions. The long and the short of it is that a number of residents in Gillen - which is in the electorate of Araluen so these people are my constituents – has a great deal of damage caused to their homes.
Some of those people did not seek legal representation and liaised directly with the department and, as I understand it, rectification works on their homes were undertaken. There was an array of problems created in the homes. It ranged from cracked walls, some of the footings in some of the houses were damaged I understand, some pictures fell off in other homes, and there was immense disruption to a number of residents. In any event, some residents have had their problems fixed, and they are grateful that those matters have been resolved by the department. However, there is a group of 10 residents who sought legal advice and have been dealing with their lawyers for the better part of two years.
On 16 October last year, I made a speech in this House about the progress that the lawyers were making with the department. I refer the minister to the speech I made on that night. In that speech, I referred to a speech I made in June the previous year; that is, June 2002. The previous minister and I had a number of exchanges in the adjournment speech process. The bottom line was this: the previous minister acknowledged the problems that were created to these people’s houses and he said, and I quote: ‘I give an undertaking to the senior citizens that any damage that was done as a result of this construction work’ would be remedied. It is important for me to point out to you, minister, that a number of these residents are, in fact, senior citizens.
The minister said:
It was the roller that was used in the compaction techniques which caused the problems. The former minister assured me in this Chamber that those residents would be compensated if the independent surveyor who was retained at the time came back said government caused the problem.
Well, minister, the contractors who undertook the work did, in fact, cause the problem - a number of problems indeed - to the homes of these 10 residents. In light of the assurances - and I took them to be rock solid. They were rock solid assurances that the minister gave that he would compensate these people and he would fix the damage. It has been a dreadful situation for the residents and it has been made even more dreadful by the fact that they have not been compensated and their homes have not been fixed. I have been in constant contact with the lawyers representing these people from the law firm Collier and Deane. The initial solicitor who had conduct of the matter was Nardine Collier. Mr Sam Salmon now has conduct of the matter.
Recently, as a result of frustrations the residents felt and, indeed, Mr Salmon felt, the residents and I and Mr Salmon got together in my office. The frustrations were that it has been about two years and nothing has happened. The last time I made a speech in this House about this matter - that is on 16 October 2003 - I referred to the various delays that the solicitors had experienced from the department. They were pretty close to outrageous, frankly. The department was simply, as I am instructed by the solicitor, not responding or, when they did, it was a very delayed response.
In any event, at the meeting recently some progress had been made, but not all. I have in my possession - and I have permission to read from it - a copy of a letter from Messrs Collier and Deane to the solicitors representing government, Clayton Utz, dated 30 January 2004. I do not think I need to table the letter because the minister should have it. In that letter, which is almost three pages, a settlement of sorts is agreed. However, there were a couple of matters that remain unresolved. Those matters are a claim for compensation for each resident to the value of $1000. I quote the following from this letter from Sam Salmon:
He went on to talk about the other point of contention and that is settlement of this matter for the sum $4000 for legal costs to the law firm. I quote what Mr Salmon wrote in that regard:
I remind the minister that that letter was dated 30 January 2004.
In essence, what do we have? An ongoing saga: a problem that was created at a government work site for the Gillen’s seniors village; various reports – a surveyors report in particular - that says yes, as a result of this compaction technique damage was caused and residents had problems. The former minister in this House said: ‘I will fix it, I will fix it, I will fix it’. The solicitors have experienced ongoing delays with the department, some of which are just not acceptable on any objective analysis.
Although the solicitors for both sides have managed to lock a few things off in terms of the issues that have arisen, two issues remain - two issues. One is the payment of $1000 to each resident for the stress and inconvenience, otherwise described as nuisance, as a result of the government’s negligence. I would hate to see, minister, the department dig its heels in, because it is just not fair. It just is not. I do not know this new minister very well, but from what I have seen of him in the parliament and from what I have heard, I believe he is a man of conscience and that he believes in a fair go and justice, and he has a sense of what is right and what is not.
It is just not right for these residents to have been inconvenienced to the extent that they have for two years. Speaking as a solicitor, $1000 for each resident is nothing. It is worth paying it because, if this went to court, my assessment and, indeed, the assessment of their solicitor - who I might add is not me - is that they would receive significantly more.
Therefore, the purpose of me getting to my feet tonight is that I urge the minister to get on top of this, get it out of the way, instruct his department to instruct the lawyers or, indeed, the minister can instruct the lawyers Clayton Utz direct, and say: ‘Pay them the money’, because they deserve it. These people had a meeting in my office at 6 pm one night. They should not have even had to have been there. Had matters been resolved two years prior, they would not have been. Yet, two years after the event they are still suffering - and they are suffering. Not all of the residents are senior citizens, but many of them are, and it is just not fair.
The second matter that remains outstanding is the law firm, Collier and Deane’s claim for $4000 for legal costs. Minister, I say with my hand on my heart, $4000 for two year’s worth of legal work in any other law firm would amount to the disbursements; it would be the photocopying, postage and faxes. Believe me, minister, I speak from experience. I have two files on this matter and I have only brought one with me from Alice Springs. I can show the minister: here, this is just part of it.
I know that the lawyer’s file is significantly thicker. Of course, when you are dealing with 10 clients, you can imagine the paperwork that is generated. When you have negotiations and a potential claim - and early on the lawyers threatened an injunction to stop the work proceeding because these people were frankly driven mad by the noise that was created by the compaction technique, and I was there, I experienced it. It was terrible. The bottom line, minister, is that $4000 is cheap. It is cheap at twice the price.
This is an opportunity. Whenever you get someone new coming in they can look at a file with fresh eyes. The previous minister, despite his assurances, did not solve the problem. He did not close the file. This is an opportunity for the new minister to show how good he is and to say: ‘Okay we will do it’. The department has not responded within the 14 days of the letter of 30 January. That is not good enough. These people should not experience further delays. I am happy to talk with the minister privately and, in fact, I probably will. I will do whatever arm twisting is necessary on behalf of these constituents. They are good people and they do not deserve to be done over by government.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, we have some students in the gallery from Year 6/7 of Stuart Park Primary School, accompanied by their teacher, Marina Goff. On behalf of all members, I extend to you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Darwin City Waterfront Project
Darwin City Waterfront Project
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, the Darwin city waterfront is the most exciting construction project in the Top End for many years. It will enhance the government’s vision of a vibrant and sophisticated Darwin, provide a platform for our proposed public art policy, and complement proposed redevelopment of our cruise ship facilities.
The removal of the old port facilities to East Arm has given us a brilliant window of opportunity to create a bustling precinct that will celebrate what is distinctive about Darwin, attract tourists, and remain a place for Territorians that they feel is their own, where they can go for fish and chips to watch the sun set, and take families at weekends.
Our vision for this 25 hectare site starts with a world-class convention and exhibition centre that should be ready by late 2006, and put Darwin well and truly on the map for conventions. The site will also include residential and commercial facilities. However, we also want to ensure that this is a people place that comes alive through the day, with alfresco dining, lots of shaded public space, and a 2 km promenade right around the site.
Where are we up to now? We have made significant progress on this $600m waterfront redevelopment since we announced the project in August last year, with a government commitment of $100m. In December, we announced that the three short-listed developers were consortia led by Multiplex, Macquarie Bank and ABN AMRO. Let me talk about those three short-listed developers.
In the consortium composed of Darwin Cove, led by ABN AMRO and Australian property developer, the Walker Corporation, would use local construction companies Sitzler Brothers and Barclay Mowlem to design and construct the convention centre, along with Henry Walker Eltin, MKEA Architects and Connell Wagner.
The second consortium is Wharflink, led by Macquarie Bank and Leighton Contractors, with local companies, including Woodhead International, Troppo Architects and Ove Arup.
The Multiplex-led consortium, includes Darwin property developers Redco and Philip and Mitaros Projects, as well as Spowers, Clayton Utz, Sinclair Knight Merz, Scott Wilson Irwin Johnston, Davis Langdon Towell, June D’Rozario and Associates, and the Larrakia Development Corporation.
One of the critical elements of this project is a commitment to local participation. As such, all three consortia include local participation through a mixture of consortia members, consultants or contractors. The consortia were briefed in February and are now working on detailed bids which they have to submit by May. We hope to announce our preferred bidder in August.
The third stage will conclude with the signing of a project development agreement for the site by the start of 2005, with a construction start soon after. A challenging timetable, but one we believe we can achieve.
We have stressed to the short list of consortia that the master plan must reflect the exotic and unique differences that the tropical climate, history, culture and proximity to Asia have carved into the fabric of life in Darwin. To ensure that the developers understand what this site means to Territorians, we have engaged in extensive community consultation including public displays, a web site, displays in shopping centres, and presentations to a range of community, business, tourism and professional groups. We have established reference groups with the National Trust and with tourism and business groups.
In January, we engaged Sheila O’Sullivan of Socum to run a series of community workshops. Over 100 people took part. They were recruited through public advertisements, to e-mails sent to known stakeholders and through the assistance of such groups as the Youth Round Table, Arts NT, the Architects Association, Engineers Australia, the National Trust and members of reference groups set up last year. This led to a productive exchange of views and a better understanding of the trade-offs required for such a major public/private sector partnership. The report from these workshops is on the waterfront web site, and was given to the short-listed developers in February.
At the same time, Darwin company, URS, has been conducting an environmental impact statement which will be released for public comment in May. The report will cover a range of issues including soil contamination, the heritage significance of the site, the impact of the redevelopment on flora and fauna in adjacent areas, such as the escarpment, and natural and social features of the environment.
Some initial site works have began with the demolition of sheds at the site. Further clean-up works, including decontamination works, will be done during the coming Dry.
Another associated project is redevelopment of the Stokes and Fort Hill wharves. Although they are excluded from the waterfront site, we have given developers the option of giving us expanded proposals for these wharves. As I announced yesterday, the growth in cruise ship visits to Darwin also makes it imperative to upgrade facilities at Fort Hill Wharf, and we have initiated a study that will look at how we make Darwin attractive to cruise ships. That study should be completed in April.
Imagine this site in 20 years, with all this work completed; it will be transformed. Future generations, I am sure - and us included - will be proud of what our vision achieves.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I welcome the statement. All members of the House also welcome the describing, once again, of a grand vision. I am sure, as it is painted for all Territorians, we all look forward to seeing it brought to completion.
However, the concerns of this House, and those of the business community of the Northern Territory, are the details of the process that will allow us to actually achieve that vision. You have set yourself, Chief Minister, at your own admission, a very challenging timetable. In the context that we have a Minister for Business and Industry who, yesterday, could not for the life of him understand why small to medium-sized businesses in the Northern Territory have a pronounced lack of confidence in your ability to inspire any sense of confidence or to stimulate the domestic economy, that lack of confidence, translates into the need for you to make sure that the process is followed in a way that engenders real confidence, because this is something that will - according to your own challenging timetable - ultimately fall to others to make sure it is brought to completion.
One aspect, which is in the public domain at the moment, and I would ask you to comment on, is the proximity of this development to visiting Naval vessels. There is a concern at this point that there is an issue there with regards to this proposed development being far too close to maintain the security of visiting Defence vessels.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I welcome the Leader of the Opposition’s comments. I did not understand half of them, I have to say. There was something about: ‘This was a challenging timetable’ and could we deliver in the time and were we talking to local business.
I indicated in my report how extensive the consultation is, how impressed we are with the three short-listed consortia who are working closely - and I indicated the local participation, the extent at this stage only of the consultations we have had in the community.
I am not embarrassed by the short timetable. What we want to do is build our tourism capacity. I do not think anyone is arguing with the importance of a convention and exhibition centre for Darwin. We can spend another three years putting it together, or we can do it quickly and see those benefits flow onto our economy, to our small businesses. We know the flow-on of a convention centre is significant. If the Opposition Leader would like a further briefing about the water front, all he has to do is ask. There are complex issues involved.
Palliative Care Services
Dr TOYNE (Health): Madam Speaker, today I report on palliative care services across the Territory. We are implementing our election commitment for a hospice in the grounds of the Royal Darwin Hospital, with a 12-bed facility to be built alongside the Menzies School of Health Research. Late last year, we allocated an additional $600 000 to this project, bringing the total commitment for its construction to $3.6m.
I am pleased to advise the House that a tender to select the architect for the hospice closed on 8 February. Design development will occur in March, with specification of the construction tender completed by May and awarded by the middle of this year. Construction will commence shortly after that, and the completion is planned for early 2005. Regular news sheets will ensure stakeholders are advised of progress, and I look forward to updating the House.
I am also pleased to advise that the NT Hospice and Palliative Care Association and other community groups have already expressed their willingness to support the hospice through activities such as fundraising and volunteer services. The hospice is part of a broader reconfiguration of palliative care services, which was outlined in our Building Healthier Communities five-year framework. As part of that project, we will be examining the adequacy of palliative care services in Central Australia and the rest of the Territory.
In the Centre, the Central Australian Palliative Care Reference Group provides my department with valuable information about the types and levels of palliative care services for the Centre. While there is a recognition that a hospice is the preferred model for the Top End, in Central Australia a different approach may be taken to provide better support to remote and local patients. As well as improving services in Central Australia, we will look at further supporting the leadership the Northern Territory offers in indigenous palliative care, and enhancing remote palliative care and inpatient care facilities.
These projects will be supported by funding of nearly $300 000 that we have recently been successful in obtaining from the Commonwealth government through the National Palliative Care Program. That money will be used to develop an NT-wide palliative care strategic plan, and to increase the palliative care skills in our community nurses, Aboriginal health workers and allied health professionals through a work force placement program with palliative care specialist services.
A further $374 000 will also be allocated to non-government agencies for projects that will be undertaken in close collaboration with NT Palliative Care Services. This funding makes a total of nearly $1.4m going into palliative care services across the Territory, together with the $3.6m commitment this government has made to the Darwin Hospice.
Madam Speaker, the projects and funding that I have outlined provide another snapshot of the detailed work we have already started to implement in our Building Healthier Communities five-year framework.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s report. What I do not welcome is the radio interview this morning with Mark Latham, the federal Opposition Leader, who has back-pedalled on his commitment to overturning the Andrews bill if he comes into power. That is a huge disappointment.
In the Northern Territory, one of the pluses of the voluntary euthanasia debate was an increased emphasis on palliative care, and that was something to welcome. I am very pleased to hear the minister’s report detailing what his government is going to do to put further resources into palliative care.
As the minister and the previous minister would be well aware, the Northern Territory Palliative Care Association has been very disappointed with how the hospice has progressed. The funding has not been adequate. The headworks required to build the hospice in the grounds of Royal Darwin Hospital at the moment sit at about $1.2m and, given the budget of $4m, this is going to eat dramatically into the provision of the sort of hospice that we should be building. What has ended up happening is, because the provision for oxygen supply, water, electricity from the main tower block into the hospice to make it as cheap as possible, the siting of the hospice is going to be in the old Menzies car park, rather than out on the edge of some bush land which, quite frankly, would have been a much better site for a hospice for the people who are terminally ill. I am disappointed that it is going to be tucked in close to particularly unattractive buildings. You could not find anything more unattractive, I would think, than the building that is Royal Darwin Hospital.
A further disappointment for people in the community has been the refusal by the Northern Territory Labor government to fund furnishings for the hospice. People of the Territory are going to have to raise funds in order to furnish that hospice, and that is a huge disappointment to people.
Dr TOYNE (Health): Madam Speaker, I will make a very one-line statement here, unqualified: there will be a fully functional hospice in the Darwin Hospital grounds by the time I have indicated in my statement - end of story. If something is needed to make it functional it will be there; whether it is staff, furniture or the building itself.
My experience of losing a couple of close relatives in the last two years is that the crucial element that we looked for was not scenery; it was an environment where the family and friends could get together and give the person the closure that they needed as they passed from life, and the family the closure they needed when they were losing a loved one. I am very aware of that. I am also very aware that, in the Territory, some people pass through that experience under real bush, as well as people in the cities.
Relocation of Bulk Fuel Facilities
Dr BURNS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I am extremely pleased to be able to report to the Assembly and Territorians on progress in securing the relocation of bulk fuel facilities from the Darwin suburb of Stuart Park to the industrial zone in the Darwin Harbour’s East Arm. This is a very big project, both for East Arm and for the Darwin CBD in future years. It is more excellent news for Territory contractors, the real estate industry and small business.
This is a major project that the former government did a lot of talking about over more than a decade, but was unable to secure. Unlike its predecessor, the Martin Labor government did not give up on this major project and has now secured agreements for this project to proceed. It is another demonstration of this government’s commitment to hard work and taking the Territory ahead.
Earlier this month, the major fuel distributors, Shell, BP and Mobil, entered into contracts with Vopak Terminals Australia that will result in the construction of the new bulk liquids facility at East Arm. The agreements will result in the construction of a $50m facility in the East Arm industrial zone and will, in turn, help further establish the government’s vision of Darwin as a leading tropical city of our region. Vopak Terminals Australia has confirmed that at least 70% of the construction costs will be contracted with Territory businesses.
This is a major industrial investment in the East Arm zone, and is further confirmation of growth and confidence in the Territory economy. Vopak is a leading international provider of independent tank storage and related logistic services for the oil and chemical industries. The company operates a network of 66 major bulk liquids terminals in 26 countries. These terminals are commonly located adjacent to rail infrastructure; an advantage that the company sees in the East Arm location, with significant potential for further development in the future.
Construction of the new facilities is set to commence next month, with the commissioning of the new terminal in mid-2005. Redevelopment will require the current tanks and pipe works to be dismantled and the land to be rehabilitated. This will free up a major parcel of land, some 25 hectares adjacent to the CBD. It will also enable the Darwin CBD to expand in line with the anticipated growth of the Territory economy and the Darwin region. This is a very major and exciting development for the Northern Territory. The landscape of inner Darwin will be improved, a major new land release will become available adjacent to the CBD from 2007 onwards, leading to investments of many millions of dollars in the future residential and commercial developments.
Indeed, this is an historic development for the Territory leading to the relocation of the current fuel terminals to a modern facility in the East Arm region, as well as freeing up substantial land adjacent to the CBD. Madam Speaker, it is an example of this government taking the Territory forward.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I wonder if I could look like a minister if I held up my paper here and read it out and looked like I was confident in what I was saying? The minister looks a lot more confident this morning than he did yesterday in Question Time. One of the observers in Question Time yesterday said they had never seen anyone shuffle their feet so much in their life. The guy was hopping like a bunny in the spotlight!
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is an opportunity for the honourable member to respond to the ministerial report, not to talk about anything he likes.
Mr BURKE: It is good to see the minister when he does perform well. He does perform well when someone writes the script for him and he knows he is on safe ground - including, of course, if he checks that it has not been done before. In this case, you could have given a ministerial report which we would all have welcomed, except for the churlish comment at the start that, somehow, this government is now driving forward unlike the CLP had in the past. What a lot of garbage!
We know that this heads of agreement between those three oil companies fell over. It has been going on for nigh on six years; and it has finally been put together again. The only reason you have a facility to move them to is because of the vision of the CLP government that built the East Arm Port facility, for God’s sake! Let us all welcome the fact that the Stuart Park redevelopment will occur, but let us get some sense of perspective if you want the support of the opposition.
The important issue is this – and Leader of the Opposition alluded to it before: what is actually happening with all these fuel facilities? How are we going to refuel Naval ships in the future? There you are, minister; you do not need a script. Stand up and tell us how the Naval ships, with the new convention centre at the Stokes Hill Wharf facility - particularly American Naval ships, and also Australian Naval ships - will be refuelled under your grand plan in the future? Then we can see some real vision; we can see where the real substance is coming on to the port development and also in the relocation of the port facilities.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I should remind members that there actually is a small parcel of land rezoned in the middle of Darwin Harbour on the Ware Peninsula, which is where those tanks were originally going to go. There are a lot of things passed under the bridge since then. They are now finally back at East Arm Port.
My concern is for - as this discussion has been going on for such a long time - the people at One Mile Dam community who would like to know, I would presume, what the future of their community is. There were plans to relocate those people, even though they opposed that. I gather there has been some discussions about the future of the One Mile Dam people. We might have these grand plans for moving the tanks – and that is great – but there have been grand plans also to develop fairly intense residential development in that area. The people who are living there now surely must be consulted with before any moves to change what is and has been their lifestyle for many years.
Dr BURNS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I will pick up on the points made by the member for Nelson …
Mr Burke: What about my points?
Dr BURNS: … first and dispense with them. Firstly, I am very mindful of the people at the Railway Dam and the fact that they have been there for quite a long time. I have had some approaches on this issue, and I will certainly be bearing in mind their welfare and their housing in any decisions about the future of that area.
In relation to what the member for Brennan has raised, certainly, in refuelling and other activities at the proposed developments around the wharf, there are ongoing discussions with the Navy and other entities such as cruise ships. These issues will be worked through …
Mr Burke: What about Defence?
Dr BURNS: If the member for Brennan wants some history, I was informed that, in 1996-97, the three oil companies signed up to an agreement which Shane Stone refused to sign. Vopak came along at the beginning of last year, 2003, and this government has worked with Vopak to seal the deal.
Respite Care for Families
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Family and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I present a report on respite child care for families.
Members will know that all parents and families require extra support from time to time. Some parents need more help than others, or for longer periods. The Minister for Health and I recently released the framework for Building Healthier Communities. Two key aims of the framework are to give our children the best start in life and to strengthen families and communities. Consistent with these aims and with the recognition of the isolation of some parents from their usual support, a new service has been developed to meet this need.
The Department of Health and Community Services is funding an innovative brokerage service to assist parents find respite occasional child care. This brokerage service is called Breathing Space. This service will specifically support parents who do not have extended families or other networks to assist them. In 2003, the Department of Health and Community Services undertook a project that identified gaps in care services for families. This project found that it was difficult for families to attend services such as parenting programs and counselling, or attend to their medical needs or crisis situations, as there would be no one to care for their children. A service model was designed and, in June 2003, Darwin Family Day Care Incorporated was awarded the tender to provide this service. The Breathing Space service now identifies available occasional childcare places for children up to 12 years of age in Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine and Alice Springs. The service liaises with family support services in the area to facilitate placement of children in short-term child care. It assists parents to access subsidies or available funding for child care, and links families with other parent networks or programs. The program also coordinates training for childcare providers to ensure they are aware of relevant issues and support for families.
Breathing Space has quickly been accessed by a number of community-based organisations providing support to families in Darwin and Palmerston. As of the end of January 2004, 31 families have been referred to Breathing Space. The main source of referrals have been made through non-government agencies, such as Dawn House, Darwin Aboriginal and Islander Women’s Shelter, Anglicare, Somerville Counselling Services, Centrecare Personal Support Program, Carpentaria Disability Early Intervention Services, Mental Health Services, and the Salvation Army Drug and Alcohol Service. All of the participants were linked into the existing programs, with a large proportion of families using several support agencies. Care has been provided while parents attend counselling, drug and alcohol programs, support groups, legal obligations and court appearances, or for medical reasons. Care has been provided during the day, overnight and on weekends. Darwin Family Day Care has been able to provide up to 98% of the care, with the child care centres providing the other 2% required.
To date, 27 government and non-government agencies have been introduced to the respite care service. This new service is reaching those families who often find using services difficult. The majority of clients come from a low socioeconomic group whose only source of income is through benefit payments. Nearly half of the clients are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders and have never accessed any type of formal child care before. The Breathing Space program has found that transport is a major barrier for these families being able to access care. Consequently, transport costs or negotiation with the referral agency is included in the brokerage services when required. This service also operates an outreach service with 97% of clients needs being assessed in their own home.
Breathing Space has recently been extended to Alice Springs and Katherine, and negotiations are currently being undertaken with providers of family services in these areas to establish a local referral system. This service will be officially launched next month.
Creating better ways of working together is an integral part of the framework for building healthier communities, and this is an outstanding example of the way that government and non-government agencies can work together to respond to gaps in services for children and families. I commend the initiative and the Darwin Family Day Care scheme for its work to date.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s report here this morning. Child care is a major issue in our community and in Australia generally. We have a community which has a population fall occurring with regard to the rate of child birth and, as a community, we have to look very carefully at the sort of incentives we offer women to entice them into becoming mothers.
I welcome the minister’s statement because child care is something women weigh up when they are making the decision whether or not to have children, because of the impact it has on their lives. I would be interested to hear how many places or how many hours of child care will be provided through this initiative.
The minister mentioned respite and mental health within her report and, as members would be aware, I am very concerned about the lack of mental health services for people under the age of 18 in the Northern Territory, particularly residential services. Parents with children with mental health problems do not have anywhere where those children can go for respite, and I believe that is a gap in services. I hope the minister and the government take that gap into mind when they are developing their budget.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
SUSPENSION OF STANDNG ORDERS
Take two bills together
Take two bills together
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Racing and Betting Amendment Bill 2004 (Serial 207) and Unlawful Betting Amendment Bill 2004 (Serial 208) –
- (a) be presented and read a first time together and one motion being put in regard to, respectively,
the second reading, the committee’s report stage, and the third reading of the bills together, and
(b) the consideration of the bills separately in the Committee of the Whole.
RACING AND BETTING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 207)
UNLAWFUL BETTING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 208)
(Serial 207)
UNLAWFUL BETTING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 208)
Bills presented and read a first time.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
The purpose of the two bills is to amend the Racing and Betting Act and the Unlawful Betting Act following the National Competition Policy (NCP) review of the Territory’s racing and betting legislation. Given the interdependency of the two acts, it is my intention to introduce the amending legislation together.
The amendments presented today address the key recommendations requiring legislative change. Some of the review’s recommendations proposed further legislative change, but have been deferred because they form part of a broader change to gambling legislation as a whole. Specifically, the deferred aspects relate to broader recommendations to develop a new legislative framework based on two principal sets of legislation - one covering the licensing and operations of the industry itself, and the other covering the gambling and wagering control aspects - and possible changes to the regulatory administration itself. Both of these recommendations require further research before further legislative amendment can be contemplated.
One other issue not referred to in these amendments is that of minimum wager obligations. As agreed by the Australian racing ministers at the meeting of 31 October 2003, minimum wager obligations will apply to all bookmakers. The minimum wager obligations require bookmakers to take bets that expose them to a potential loss to the minimum ceiling. The new prescribed licence conditions will include a requirement for all bookmakers to adhere to the minimum wager obligations.
You would be aware from the introduction of earlier legislative amendments following similar reviews, the NCP review was undertaken in accordance with government commitment to the Competition Principles Agreement to examine and remove anti-competitive requirements or restrictions that cannot be justified to achieve the legislation’s objectives. The overall objective of the review was to make reforms that will enable the racing and wagering industry to operate in an environment as free from bureaucratic restrictions as possible, whilst ensuring industry regulation upholds the aims of harm minimisation and the amenity of community life.
A consultative paper was produced that identified the issues relevant to the review and sought public comment on those issues. The issues on which comment was sought included the objectives of the legislation, the regulatory structure of the industry, the administrative regime in the industry, industry licensing, racing activity and event management, bookmaking operations, betting activity, betting management and problem gambling.
I wish to thank those organisations and individuals that made submissions to the review, including the Darwin Turf Club, Northern Territory TAB Pty Ltd, Centrebet, IASBet Limited, Northern Territory Gaming and Wagering Advisory Forum, Mr Marshall Perron, and Punting Partners. The submissions contained a variety of views from which the following recommendations, based on competition principles, were developed.
The review found that the strong and prescriptive regulatory approach for this industry is justified and that identified restrictions are generally in the public interest. For example, the review found that licensing of industry participants, including racing and betting operators, is widely accepted as the most effective and efficient means of protecting consumers, and that weaker forms of regulation are unlikely to be as effective in delivering the required probity outcomes.
The review noted two significant considerations, being the need to counter the high potential for industry participants to manipulate racing and betting activity and outcomes, and the adverse public consequences which can arise through problem gambling. Both of these issues provide strong argument for tight regulatory controls over the related activities. The review found that, whist continuance of a strong licensing regime for the industry is justified and in the public interest, the easing of a number of restrictive provisions, particularly those involved in the control of bookmaking activity and prohibitions on specific codes of racing and racing organisation, should improve competitive positioning and industry efficiency. Nett public benefits are expected from the continuing strong industry controls and the increased consumer choice that can, potentially, result through expansion of racing codes.
I turn now to the proposed amendments. The majority of the amendments relate to the Racing and Betting Act. There are also two amendments to the Unlawful Betting Act. I shall deal firstly with the bill that introduces the amendments to the Racing and Betting Act.
1. Objectives of the act. The bill proposes that an objects section be included in the act. The reason for this is to make clear the purpose of the legislation, which is to ensure probity and integrity in racing and betting, and to reduce the adverse social impact of betting in the Territory. As the NCP Review noted:
- An important contemporary social objective (of racing and betting legislation) is to not inhibit the promotion
of problem gambling remedies and responsible betting practices.
The Productivity Commission, in its report into Australia’s gambling industries, found the two objectives providing the strongest rationales for special gambling policies are to ensure the probity of gambling and to reduce its adverse social impact. Accordingly, in proposing to insert an objects section in the Racing and Betting Act, prominence is given to the probity and integrity of the industry and of those persons engaged in the industry, and to reduce the impact of problem betting activities. The proposed objects are therefore:
to promote probity and integrity in racing and betting in the Territory;
betting in the Territory; and
2. Functions of the Racing Commission. The review noted that the very nature of the racing industry creates an inherent risk of criminal exploitation of racing and betting activity, and that the operation of an effective regulatory framework is an essential element to protect against such infiltration. Section 17 of the act describes the functions of the Racing Commission. To that end, section 17 has been amended through the insertion of a new clause setting out the principles that the commission must have regard to in the performance of its functions. Those principals are:
minimum regulatory intervention by government;
Section 17 is also amended by deleting reference to a ‘bookmaker’s clerk’ and substituting the term ‘key employees’. The reason for this amendment has been touched upon in referencing the amendments to the definitions section of the act.
3. Licences and permits. Until now, it has been the practice to grant annual permits to registered bookmakers who operate on-course and authorised race meetings, whereas sports bookmakers - commonly referred to as corporate bookmakers - have been granted licences that are valid for multiple years. The review has found this practice to be unsustainable against National Competition Policy and has recommended that the annual permit system for registered bookmakers be revoked and replaced with the licensing system that operates along the same lines as that in place for sports bookmakers.
With this in mind, section 24 of the act has been amended to refer to licences issued under either section 90 or 102, and that such licences will remain in force for the period determined by the commission. Such a licence will be renewable but not transferable, and subject to the payment of an annual fee. Penalties for non-payment of the annual fee have been inserted into section 80 of the principal act, which allow for suspension of a licence if not paid within 30 days of the due date, and possible cancellation should the fee still be outstanding after three months.
4. Criminal history checks. As I stated earlier, the National Competition Policy review of this legislation saw the regulation of the racing industry as necessary to achieve the fundamental objectives of probity and integrity, including protection from infiltration by criminal elements. In achieving these objectives, this bill introduces probity checks similar to the high level of investigation into applicants for gaming licences under the Gaming Control Act, including those for on-line and land-based casinos. Section 8 of this bill creates a part of that new probity level by introducing into the principal act a new clause that requires all natural person applicants for a licence or renewal, and officers of corporate applicants for a licence or renewal, to undergo a police criminal history check. This officers of any corporate applicant shall include all company directors, the secretary or executive officer of that corporation, and any other person who has control or influence over the corporation’s affairs.
5. Repeal of restrictions on proprietary racing. The principal act has, until now, precluded private enterprise from carrying on racing in the Northern Territory through what is known as propriety racing; that is, the conducting of a race meeting for profit. The National Competition Policy review report found that the reasons for the blanket restrictions on propriety racing - that is, concerns over the manipulation of privately run racing events - are no longer appropriate and should be removed if the industry in Australia is to remain commercially competitive on a global basis. Sections 26, 27 and 29 of the principal act effect the current ban on propriety racing, and section 9 of the bill repeals those sections, allowing propriety racing in the Northern Territory. Section 30 of the principal act is also repealed, as it has no real meaning in the absence of section 29. Propriety racing must still meet strict regulations and controls imposed on the racing industry generally, notwithstanding these amendments.
6. Person to whom licence or permits under this part may not be granted. Clause 9 of the bill continues the theme of increased probity in the granting of licences under the principal act by adding a new subsection that prohibits the grant of a licence to a person who is not a fit and proper person to hold such a licence. The bill then defines a person who is not fit and proper as being someone who has been found guilty of an offence under the principal act, the Unlawful Betting Act, the Gaming Control Act or the Gaming Machine Act, has been convicted within 10 years of the application of a disqualifying offence prescribed under the Racing and Betting Regulations, or is a person who does not satisfy the probity requirements under the principal act.
7. Offences by bookmakers. Section 79 of the principal act is an offence clause that precludes bookmakers from undertaking a number of activities. Included in that list is an offence relating to betting tax imposed under the Stamp Duties Act, and an offence of paying out on a winning bet based on a totalisator declared dividend. These offence clauses are no longer relevant to the industry and are being removed from the act. Separate steps have previously been initiated to remove the latter offence relating to totalisator based dividends. Clause 10 of the bill deletes section 79(d) of the principal act which relates to totalisator based betting.
8. Suspension or cancellation of licence. Clause 11 of the bill broadens the Racing Commission’s power to suspend or cancel a licence granted to a bookmaker where the bookmaker fails to pay the applicable annual licence fee. Suspension of a licence may be invoked where the fee is not paid within 30 days of the due date, and cancellation may occur if the fee is still not paid after 90 days that it falls due.
9. Commission may grant licence. Clause 12 of the bill again strengthens the probity requirements of the licensing process under the principal act by directing the Racing Commission to have regard to certain matters when determining whether to grant or refuse a licence. Those matters are listed in an amendment to section 9 of the principal act and relate to the character, honesty and integrity of the applicant; the applicant’s financial capacity and viability; the structure of corporate applicants; the business expertise of the applicant; and the integrity and character of directors, officers and associates of a corporate application.
Concerns have been expressed in the past that the strict probity approach to industry licensing that includes strident consideration of an applicant’s financial capacity, leads to an expectation by government that a licensee will be financially viable for the term that a licence has been granted. This perceived expectation is not the intended position of government and so, to remove any such view, a new section has been inserted at the end of section 90 of the principal act specifically disclaiming any such perception.
Section 90(4) of the principal act has also been amended to provide for a licensee to abide by the licence conditions prescribed under the regulations, as well as any such further conditions that the commission sees fit to include in a particular licence.
10. Recovery of probity investigation costs from applicants. It is a basic principle of the National Competition Policy that regulated industries that benefit from regulation should incur the costs of administering that regulation. Clearly, the racing industry is one of those industries. With this in mind, it is proposed that the cost of the increased probity investigations into proposed licensees be borne by the applicant. Clause 13 of the bill introduces a new section into the act which allows the Racing Commission to recover the costs it incurs in carrying out the investigation into the probity of an applicant under section 90 of the principle act, as discussed above.
11. Licence renewals. I made reference earlier to a recommendation made in the review of the legislation, that the licensing activities under the act should be made more uniform in their application. Logically then, this uniform approach to licensing processes and procedures should extend to the renewal of all licences issued under the act. Consequently, clause 14 of the act introduces an amendment to section 91 of the principal act, authorising the Racing Commission to renew a licence granted under the provisions of the act, subject to similar probity requirements for the granting of a new licence, including a review of the licensee’s financial standing and new criminal history checks for persons relevant to the renewal application. As a consequence of the renewal provisions for all licences under the act being dealt with separate to the granting of a licence, it has been necessary to delete reference to ‘licence renewals’ in the definition of the term ‘licence’.
12. Licence conditions. This bill introduces a new provision whereby standard licence conditions will be prescribed under the regulations. The Racing Commission also has the power to impose further conditions. Clause 15 of the bill has been introduced to amend section 92 of the principal act, to make it clear that, whilst the commission may impose further conditions on a licence, it may not impose a condition that would have the effect of varying a prescribed condition.
13. Repeal of restrictions to hours of trade. In keeping with the National Competition Council principles of reducing regulation as far as possible without increasing the risk of harm, the review found restrictions on hours of trade and limited use of venues were anti-competitive, and recommended those restrictions be removed. Clause 16 of the bill does this by repealing sections 94, 95, 98 and 101 of the principal act; that is, those provisions that restrict the hours of trade, use of venue facilities for other purposes, and the type of betting activities that a bookmaker may make bets on.
14. Licensed bookmakers. As mentioned earlier, it is the intention of this bill to align the licensing provisions of registered bookmakers and sports bookmakers so that there is similar probity in the issuing of licences under the act. To that end, clauses 17 and 18 of the bill introduce amendments to the licensing requirements of registered bookmakers that are identical to those that are being introduced for the licensing of sports bookmakers. Those amendments have been inserted into section 102 of the principal act, including a new section 102A, relating to cost recovery for investigations by the Racing Commission.
15. Licensing of key employees. Another aspect of the introduction of uniform licensing procedures under the principal act is the recognition of key employees of licensed bookmakers and the need for such employees to be licensed. The definitions section of the act has been amended by omitting the term ‘bookmaker’s clerk’ and replacing it with the phrase ‘key employees’. Clauses 19 and 20 of the bill apply the ‘key employee’ concept to employees of a registered bookmaker by deleting reference to the phrase ‘bookmaker’s clerk’ in sections 103 and 104 of the principal act, and replacing it with the term ‘key employee’. Clause 19 also inserts a new section 103(1A), which provides for the Racing Commission to designate a position or function of a bookmaking operation to be a key position or function that will be required to be licensed under the act.
16. Appeals to the Local Court. Clause 21 of the bill is a new clause that protects the natural justice rights of an applicant for a new licence, or for the renewal of an existing licence, by permitting an aggrieved applicant to appeal to the Local Court to have a decision of the Racing Commission overturned and to grant or renew the licence sought by the appellant. Government recognises there may be occasions where the Racing Commission will be bound to refuse an application on the ground that an applicant has been convicted of a disqualifying offence but that, in all the circumstances, it would be inclined to grant the licence. In cases such as this, it is seen as reasonable to give the Local Court the power to overturn a decision of the commission and grant a licence or renewal of a licence to the applicant.
17. Codes of practice. One last important development in the regulation of the racing and betting industry that this bill seeks to introduce is the power of the Racing Commission to bind bookmakers to operate within standards set out in any codes of practice that the commission sees fit to adopt. The use of such codes has been successful in other related areas of social regulation, such as the gaming, liquor and private security industries. This new power of the commission is inserted into the principal act through the insertion of a new section 148A. The new provision also provides sanctions for non-compliance with an adopted code through monetary penalties of up to $2000.
That concludes the proposed amendments to the Racing and Betting Act. I turn now to the Unlawful Betting Amendment Bill 2004.
The National Competition Policy review has identified two aspects of the Unlawful Betting Act that require legislative change: restrictions on advertising; and the prohibition on third party betting. The review has found that, subject to the consideration of problem gambling issues, restrictions on the advertising of licensed lawful betting services are unsustainable in the face of National Competition Policy principles and should be removed as far as they affect the services of licensed bookmakers.
In order to give effect to that finding, the bill seeks to amend section 22 of the Unlawful Betting Act by rewording section 22(1)(a)(ii) of the act and adding a new clause that permits a licensed bookmaker or their employee to advertise services in such a manner that would otherwise be prohibited under the provisions of the act.
With respect to third party betting, the review made the following observations:
- Current legislation makes it illegal for one party to place a bet on behalf of another. This provision is both
impractical and difficult, if not impossible, to effectively control and is a restriction of day-to-day consumer
practice and commercial activity.
The review then went on to recommend that the restriction on third party betting be removed. To this end, the bill seeks to amend section 29 of the Unlawful Betting Act by removing the restriction on third party betting upon unlawful betting activities. This will mean that a person who wishes to engage in third party betting on legal betting activities can do so without fear of prosecution or the need to hold any kind of licence whatsoever. Any person who seeks to undertake commercial third party betting activities would be subject to the normal trading conditions imposed by Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading legislation in force in the Territory from time to time.
Madam Speaker, the bills I have today introduced address key recommendations contained within the National Competition Policy review into the racing and betting industry in the Northern Territory that require legislative attention. This action reaffirms the government’s commitment to National Competition Policy principles and the competition policy reform process. I commend the bills to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Take two bills together
Take two bills together
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled First Home Owner Grant Amendment Bill 2004 (Serial 210) and Stamp Duty Amendment Bill 2004 (Serial 211) –
- (a) being presented and read first time together with one motion being put in regard to, respectively,
the second readings, the committee’s report stage and the third readings of the bills together; and
(b) consideration of the bills separately in the Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to.
FIRST HOME OWNER GRANT
AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 210)
STAMP DUTY AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 211)
AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 210)
STAMP DUTY AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 211)
Bills presented and read a first time.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
The bills propose amending the First Home Owners Grant Act and Stamp Duty Act to put in place a number of measures to improve the integrity and administration of the First Home Owner Grant, the Stamp Duty First Home Owner Concession and Principal Place of Residence Stamp Duty Rebate.
I turn first to the First Home Owner Grant Amendment Bill, which seeks to make several changes to the First Home Owner Grant Act. By way of background, the First Home Owner Grant Act provides a $7000 grant to first home buyers. The grant was introduced across Australia at the same time as the GST to compensate first home buyers for the initial cost of buying their home because of the GST. The Commonwealth, states and territories agreed to introduce the uniform scheme in accordance with legislation administered by states and territories. To maintain this consistency between the legislation of the states and territories, the first three changes proposed to the First Home Owner Grant Act have been, or will be, adopted in similar form by all states and territories.
The first of the proposed changes introduces a minimum age of 18 years for First Home Owner Grant applicants. I announced this change on 30 October 2003 in response to reports that very young children were being used to exploit the scheme in other states. While the scheme does not appear to have been abused in this way in the Territory, the minimum age limit has applied since 10 November 2003 to safeguard the scheme’s integrity.
Children under 18 years of age will still be able to qualify for the grant where they purchase jointly with a person who is over 18 years of age, or if they show that they are genuinely buying a home for themselves. In the instances where this may apply include where a 17-year-old child has saved sufficient funds, through working, for a deposit on a home and a bank has provided them with finance to purchase the home; or a disabled child has obtained funds from a compensation payment to buy a home which has been modified to suit his or her medical needs, and lives in the home with his or her parents who act as the child’s carers.
Currently, the only residence requirement for First Home Owner Grant recipients is that they live in a home as their principal place of residence within 12 months of buying or building a home. However, the legislation does not provide any rules to assist people to determine when they have satisfied the requirement to occupy their home as their principal place of residence. This has caused difficulties for both grant recipients and the Commissioner of Taxation.
To overcome these difficulties, it is proposed to require First Home Owner Grant recipients to reside in the property for which they have received the grant for a continuous period of at least six months. This period of residence must commence within 12 months of buying or building the home for which the grant is received. This amendment seeks to provide a simple rule to enable people to determine when they have met the residency requirements. This rule will apply across Australia.
It is also recognised that people’s circumstances may change once they have moved into the home, which may not enable them to live there for the full six months. Where a person’s reason for not living in their home for at least six months is legitimate, a shorter residency period can be approved. Examples of where this may apply are where a grant recipient is transferred to another town or city for their current job; a home of a grant recipient is damaged or destroyed to the extent that it is uninhabitable; or a grant recipient’s ill health requires them to be hospitalised.
The third proposed change relates to circumstances in which a person has been required to repay the grant because they did not meet the residence requirements under the First Home Owner Grant Act. Currently, such a person is disqualified from obtaining the grant for a subsequent home that they buy, even though they have repaid the previous grant that they were not entitled to. This is a harsh penalty in many circumstances, and it is proposed to remedy this by allowing a person to qualify for a subsequent grant, as long as they have repaid the previous grant and any penalties and interest owing on that amount. This change is also being adopted across Australia, but to varying degrees.
The bill also proposes to charge interest on First Home Owner Grants that are to be repaid, and on any penalties that are not paid on time. The proposed interest rate would be equivalent to the average yield of 90-day bank accepted bills published by the Reserve Bank of Australia for the month of May immediately preceding the financial year in which interest is applied, plus 7%. Other Territory acts use a similar rate, as does the Commonwealth and other states.
The commissioner may remit any interest in appropriate circumstances. For instance, the commissioner may remit the interest where a person is genuinely unaware that they were not entitled to receive the grant, such as where their spouse had previously owned a home but did not advise them of this.
Another of the proposed amendments will alter the current offence under the act for knowingly making a false statement; such that it will be an offence to make a false statement, irrespective of whether it is deliberate or not. To alleviate concerns that a person may be unjustly prosecuted for making a false statement, a defence will be available to a person if they can show that the false statement was made inadvertently or through ignorance. This change has been proposed on legal advice. That advice indicates that it can be very difficult to prosecute a person under the current provision, even though the person deliberately intended to defraud the Territory by making a false statement.
Minor changes are also proposed for the First Home Owner Grant Act to clarify that a charge created under the act is an overriding statutory charge under the Land Title Act, and ensure that all grant recipients have 12 months after a transaction is completed to occupy their home.
Turning to the Stamp Duty Amendment Bill, this seeks to mirror the proposals in the First Home Owner Grant Amendment Bill, to introduce from 10 November 2003 a minimum age limit of 18 years for Stamp Duty First Home Owner Concession applicants; requiring applicants for the Stamp Duty First Home Owner Concession and Principal Place of Residence Stamp Duty Rebate to reside in the home for a minimum period of six months; and to not disqualify a person from obtaining the first home owner concession for a home that they purchased, even though they may have obtained a previous concession that they were not entitled to.
The commissioner may approve a lesser residency period and pay the concession to applicants under 18 years of age for similar reasons to those proposed for the First Home Owner Grant.
Finally, the bill also proposes a change to the Stamp Duty First Home Owner Concession to ensure that a recent change made be the Law Reform (Gender, Sexuality and Defacto Relationships) Act does not inadvertently result in de facto couples being able to claim the concession for more than one home.
The changes proposed in both bills will operate from 1 July 2004, other than the clarifying of statutory charges under the Land Title Act, which will operate from the day of commencement the Land Title Act, being 1 December 2000; the minimum age limit which will operate from 10 November 2003; and the change in response to the Law Reform (Gender, Sexuality and Defacto Relationship) Act, which will operate from the date that the relevant changes under that act take effect.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Note Paper - Auditor-General’s October 2003 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Note Paper - Auditor-General’s October 2003 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Continued from 7 October 2003.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this report was tabled on 7 October 2003 and, at that stage, leave was granted for the Chief Minister to continue her remarks at a later date. There has been no comment on this report for five months, and we have had 12 sitting days since that tabling, not including today or on the tabling day. Therefore, I would hope that there is going to be substantive comment on the Auditor-General’s report, because it contains some issues of concern that need the open, honest and transparent government to address and respond to so that we, as elected members representing the community of the Northern Territory, can understand and accept that those issues raised by the Auditor-General are being put on the agenda and adequately reported on by those who are charged with the responsibility of governing. We are not off to a good start if we find that it has been almost seven months since the report has been submitted to this Chamber and we still await comment.
I will now go through some of the issues contained within the report so that we may be able to assist government in ensuring that these are on the agenda in a formal sense. We invite comment from government.
Turning first to key findings on pages 13 and 14: questions need to be asked as to why 28% of debtors to an agency were more than 90 days overdue. Furthermore, that, contrary to requirements documented in an accounting and property manual, fixed asset disposals were not being approved by the chief executive officer. I invite comment from the Chief Minister to assure us that these issues raised by the Auditor-General are being attended to: why stocktakes in some agencies and departments were informal or non-existent; why effective reconciliation of ledgers was absent across a number of agencies. In one case noted by the Auditor-General, the bank reconciliation did not balance the ledger by more than $250 000. It is only befitting for members of this Chamber to receive a fulsome response to assure us that the report of the Auditor-General is being attended to and responded to in a responsible way. These matters should not be left hanging. The Auditor-General reports to this parliament on his findings, and it is a part of the procedure that the government then responds to this parliament.
The report also raises a number of other concerns that demand a response from the government. For example, did the government take the Auditor-General’s advice and ensure that Centralian College was audited before the merger with Charles Darwin University? We find that recommendation on page 59. Or has the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education met its targets under the resource agreement with DEET? A finding and recommendation is on page 55. Whilst speaking about Batchelor, although it is very pleasing to note that following adverse comment in a previous Auditor-General’s report, audit procedures are improving at the institute.
However, it is not pleasing to note that neither the Nitmiluk National Park Board nor Cobourg Peninsula Sanctuary and Marine Park Board can meet reporting time lines or exist without continuing government subsidy. A report would be most fitting; in fact, would be expected. We will find those recommendations of the Auditor-General on pages 65 to 70. In both cases, payment to traditional owners had to be cut between 2001 and 2002. Those findings are published on pages 66 and 69.
Some of the problems found by the Auditor-General in selected annual reports of departments is also of some concern, particularly his finding that:
… lack of attention to detail in publishing performance measures resulting in typographical errors such as
reporting the target estimate as actual, or misplacing decimal points to report thousands as millions.
That is on page 88.
This is even more important than it once was because this government has changed the basis of the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report, so that it is no longer departmental budgets that are presented in detail and audited but, rather, the whole-of-government information. To find out the full financial statements of agencies one now must rely on their annual reports. The comments of the Auditor-General in this report do not give one great confidence in this process.
Of course, the Auditor-General does find that departments and agencies are continuing to improve. In particular, he notes the significant progress made by DCIS in its monitoring and dealing with the outsourcing of IT services. We find that on pages 84 to 87. They and public servants and CEOs across the board are to be commended for taking on board the previous Auditor-General’s recommendations, and acting to improve their performance.
Before concluding, there are a couple of other areas of this report I would like to comment on. One of the most frustrating aspects of the Auditor-General’s report is that it usually provides snippets of fascinating information within the context of a report on a much larger issue. Of course, all members, in different ways depending on where they sit in the House, eagerly await the Auditor-General’s report. An example of a fascinating snippet of information is on page 24. The Auditor-General comments on the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment and the early termination payments to CEOs and executive contract officers. He reveals that one CEO received non-standard remuneration arrangements and the Commissioner for Public Employment might not know anything about it. The employment of this CEO was, obviously, negotiated outside the standard range of salaries for CEOs and the deal was done by government not by the appropriate person; that is, the commissioner. Unfortunately, that is the extent of the information about the incident, other than the comment from the commissioner himself, that it involved one case back in January 2002. The commissioner further noted that his office has resumed the role of managing all executive contracts. You will find that report on page 24. It certainly would be nice to know who the lucky CEO is.
It would also be of interest to find out if the government is going to take up the suggestion of the Auditor-General that the pay and conditions, the remuneration of senior officers of each agency and department, be noted in their financial statements in their annual report. The Auditor-General points out that this happens in the private sector with listed companies. Not doing it within the public service reduces transparency and accountability, he says. Presumably, this government will disclose the salaries of its senior public servants because they constantly proclaim that they are an open, transparent and accountable government.
The other area I would like to touch on is the use of certificates of exemption from public tender, at pages 17 to 21. It is interesting to note the Auditor-General’s concerns in this area, especially as they relate to consultancies. I am sure we all remember that it was an election promise of the Labor government to cut consultancies by $15m a year to the tune of more than $50m over its four years in power. It was, of course, one of the first promises jettisoned by the Labor Party when they were elected. Perhaps the government could tell us how much they are spending on consultancies each year.
Back to the Auditor-General’s report and the concerns he has raised. He points out on page 20 that, of the certificates of exemptions he examined, almost half, 46%, were for some form of consultancy. He went on that sometimes it was difficult to assess whether the principles of the procurement policy reforms were being satisfied. Was there open and effective competition? Was there value for money? Was there environmental protection? Was there ethical behaviour and fair trading? Did the consultancy enhance the capabilities of Territory business and industry?
Going on the government’s report card in the latest Sensis Small to Medium Sized Business Index, it would appear that business would answer ‘no’ to the last question, as they gave this government a negative rating of 20%.
Mr Henderson: Palmerston said yours was minus 47.
Mr MILLS: You did not report that 81% of them viewed your performance as very poor.
The other concern the Auditor-General had, on page 19, was whether the system of certificates of exemption and the levels of improvement needed at the different cost levels was being enforced.
He raised the question of whether, by not including the total costs of the consultancies such as travel or facilities like the provision of mobile phones, computers, motor vehicles and office space, the level of approval was, in fact, much lower. In other words, by excluding these costs, the full procurement process could be gotten around.
I am aware that further changes to the process have been made since the Auditor-General conducted his audit, and that some of his concerns have been addressed. However, it would be beneficial for members if the Chief Minister could give us a clear ruling on what is included and what is not when consultancies are being sought. Or perhaps the Treasurer could table the procurement guideline in relation to this and what his department told the Auditor-General and Procurement Review Board they could issue.
I began these comments by reflecting on how long it has taken the government to bring this report on for debate, and how long it has taken to get any response from government to the Auditor-General’s recommendations. I hope that this is an oversight and not a reflection of how this government regards the report of the Auditor-General. Seven months has expired since this was tabled. Auditors-General are the bane of governments, but that is what they are meant to be; they are one of the crucial watchdogs of democracy. You can argue with them, dispute their findings, but you must not ignore them.
I hope that the government’s tardy response to this report from the Auditor-General is an aberration and not a practice that will continue. They cannot afford to ignore the independent, invaluable advice and analysis that the Auditor-General provides. Certainly, Territorians cannot afford it.
Finally, I would like to place on the record my thanks to the Auditor-General and his office for the quality work that they do. His regular reports to this parliament, and his accessibility to members and the Public Accounts Committee are a very important part of our democracy. The fact that so many of his recommendations are accepted by departments according to comments in his reports, shows the great job that he and his office are doing. One can only hope that in the future his reports will get a similar response from the Northern Territory government.
Mr HENDERSON (Business and Industry): Madam Speaker, I would also like to start by complimenting the Auditor-General, once again, on a very thorough report. I agree with the previous speaker that it is a fundamental part of our checks and balances on the democratic system that the Auditor-General has the capacity and the powers to oversight government agency operations. I can assure members, as ministers in government, we certainly do take into account what the Auditor-General has said. In response to the member speaking previously, the very fact that the vast majority of the recommendations that the Auditor-General has highlighted in his report receive immediate acceptance and implementation from government agencies, really does go to show that government takes the report seriously.
In regards to the comments that we have had about seven months to debate this, this report was adjourned on 7 October 2003. By my calculations, that is just over four months. During that period, I remember the November sittings which we were criticised for, were extraordinarily busy with significant legislation, and this is the first sittings since Christmas that we have had the opportunity to debate this report. The reality is that the public service and government has accepted the vast majority of the recommendations that the Auditor-General handed down. Again, I pay tribute to the work that the Auditor-General does.
Regarding the portfolio responsibilities that I am accountable for, I will go to the comments that the Auditor-General has made in regard to DCIS, starting with his analysis of personnel costs. The Auditor-General found that DCIS provided management with payroll activity reports but they are long and detailed and time consuming to review. It was recommended that payroll provide exception reports. This is supported by DCIS, who have now included an exception reporting capacity in its specification for a PIPS management reporting facility, which is currently being developed in conjunction with agencies. Agencies will need to determine which of those reports they find useful.
I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that there has been a significant improvement in the outsourcing of IT services. I am absolutely sure that my colleague, the member for Stuart, will agree. He inherited this portfolio on coming to government. We inherited a mess! We inherited an extraordinary mess in regard to the previous government’s handling of the outsourcing of IT services. It certainly was a policy position we supported, but the implementation was nothing short of a bit of a debacle. It has taken a long time to move forward. There was an extraordinary mess in service provision, and an even worse mess in budget allocation, as a result of outsourcing. DCIS have done a magnificent job, working with all agencies in understanding their costs, ensuring government appropriates adequate budget to meet the new financial demands on agencies as a result of the outsourcing agreements, and now implementing performance management criteria in contracts to ensure that government and the taxpayer are getting the services that they require. It really has taken the best part of two years to get that mess that was inherited under control.
The Auditor-General noted that significant progress had been made since the previous audit, with improved processes to monitor deliveries, manage outstanding issues, audit reported performance, and better communications between service providers and agencies.
The recommendation to provide assistance to agencies with monitoring and reconciling service level credits against performance reports has been accepted. It should be noted that, since the March audit 2003, the majority of volume disputes have been resolved to the satisfaction of both the service provider and agencies. Current disputes average around 1% of monthly billing totals, compared to last year where the total exceeded 6%. This should be interpreted as the service provider now meeting its obligations and acquitting services they provide to the satisfaction of agencies.
I would like to congratulate the people in DCIS who manage those outsource contracts, and also the people in the agencies. It is now under control. I also congratulate the companies who are providing those good services to government. I put on the Parliamentary Record my appreciation of the job done by the previous minister, who really did have a very slippery ball to run with in trying to get this under control. It is a great job and it is good to see that those issues have, by and large, been resolved.
Another area of my portfolio responsibilities is, obviously, Police, Fire and Emergency Services. There were comments and the analysis in the report by the Auditor-General regarding the payments of other personnel costs, and looking at the increasing amounts of the overall personnel budget that are going to higher duties allowance, consolidation allowance, penalty payments and overtime to the members of Police, Fire and Emergency Services. The Auditor-General highlighted that, as a percentage of those personnel costs, those costs are moving up. His report shows that, from the period 30 June 2000 to 31 December 2002, as a percentage of overall payroll costs, those categories had increased from 14.1% of the personnel budget to 15.5%. The Auditor-General highlighted the lack of reporting of people who were working excessive overtime in a pay period, who had not taken leave, who had been receiving higher duties allowance for over six months, etcetera.
What DCIS is doing now is actually implementing those exception reports through the payroll system to highlight to management - not only in the police but across government - of personnel that land in those categories and are obviously working excessive overtime or for far too long without a break.
With regard to the police, the commissioner has commented that, for overtime over the period, major incidents including the Falconio case, the Litchfield National Parks search, and Pine Gap exercises, have occurred during the reporting periods and were major contributing factors influencing overtime payments.
I am disappointed. I will put it on the Parliamentary Record that I have written on three occasions now to Senator Hill requesting some financial compensation from the Commonwealth government for the overtime bill for the Northern Territory police at the Pine Gap demonstrations that occurred this year. I believe, Treasurer, the bill came to in excess of $220 000 that the Territory taxpayer picked up in, essentially, providing protection to a Commonwealth facility. The silence has been deafening from the federal Defence minister. I received a letter just before Christmas basically saying it was our responsibility. I found that quite extraordinary. We have written off the $200 000 now. However, certainly before either I or the Police Commissioner commits any such forces again in regards to protection of Commonwealth facilities, we will be getting an agreement up-front from the Commonwealth that they will compensate us for those expenses. If they do not agree to do that, well, they can find somebody else. I find it absolutely extraordinary; the Commonwealth covered South Australia in similar demonstrations there.
We get compensation, for example, from the US Navy when the Northern Territory Police provide fantastic security services to the US Navy. That is on a fee-for-service basis. For the life of me, for the sake of a couple of hundred thousand dollars out of the Commonwealth budget, I cannot see why they did not provide us with support for the great job that the police did in those Pine Gap demonstrations last year.
The police have also reported that the increased payments for consolidated allowances paid to NT Police members is directly linked to increased staffing numbers and three salary increases, resulting from the certified agreement, which were implemented over the period. One of the issues that the O’Sullivan Report highlighted was the excessive overtime that police were working, in large part due to the dearth of resources that they had amongst the police force - which was directly related to under-funding over many years, and the total recruit freeze implemented by the previous government between 1990 and 1994 when not one police officer was recruited into the police force. That really did put extraordinary pressure on our police force, resulting in virtually all members working excessive overtime. One of the great things about our government’s $75m commitment to our police force over the next few years and an additional 200 police out on the street is that the pressure on the overtime asked of serving police officers will be decreased.
One of the key performance measures I have set for the Police Commissioner is that I want to see that level of overtime coming down unless, of course, there are exceptional circumstances when we have significant and major incidents. Obviously, we would expect to see a peak in overtime around those types of operations. However, it is just not on to expect our police to have to work enormous amounts of overtime just to provide a base service that Territorians expect. The commitment that we have made to the Northern Territory Police is going to ease that burden and provide our police with better support in terms of them not having to work such significant amounts of overtime.
With those comments, Madam Speaker, I again thank the Auditor-General for his report. It is taken with the highest degree of recognition by ministers and government. We certainly talk to our CEOs regarding what they are doing in response to these findings. As the Leader of the Opposition himself said, the fact that government has accepted and is moving on the vast majority of those recommendations - I am hard pressed to find one where we have basically said that we disagree - means that the Auditor-General is providing a vital role in his job of oversighting government agencies. As a government, we are certainly respecting that role by implementing his recommendations.
________________________
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Before we go on, I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Year 6 and 7 students from Stuart Park Primary School accompanied by their teacher, Sylvia Siskamanis. On behalf of honourable members, I extend you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
________________________
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I too am pleased to stand in this Chamber and respond to a couple of points from the Auditor-General’s report, and join with my colleague, the member for Wanguri, in putting on the record how much we appreciate the work of the Auditor-General, and the respect we have, as ministers and as government, for his findings.
It does stand in contrast really to the way Auditor-General reports were treated by the previous government. I make one exception, and that was the Chief Minister of the day who always - for those areas he had responsibility for - responded to areas of the Auditor-General’s report. That exception aside, in over 11 years in opposition I raised every year - twice a year when the Auditor-General’s report came through - issues in relation to shadow ministry areas I was responsible for without ever a response from minister’s offices opposite, with the exception of the Chief Minister, whenever it was. I do not know how many times where he had a ministry for which I was responsible for as a shadow minister. That was the only time we used to get a response. We have elevated the importance of the Auditor-General’s report.
DEET was mentioned in two areas: the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program acquittal and DEET’s systems to monitor schools. DEET responded to those areas during preparation of the report. The Auditor-General’s opinion in relation to the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program acquittal was:
- The audit of the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program acquittal for the year ended 31 December 2002
resulted in an unqualified independent audit opinion, which was issued on 27 March 2003. In the previous two years,
the audit opinion had been qualified. During 2002, DEET revised its ledger structure and procedures were put in
place which enabled it to satisfy fully its IESIP reporting obligations to the Commonwealth for the year ended
31 December 2002. I was satisfied with these changes and removed the audit qualification.
The department thanked him for comments and did not provide further comment for that report in this area.
Under DEET’s systems to monitor schools, the Auditor-General made three recommendations:
That DEET:
align its ‘quality’ performance measures for non-government schools with those for government schools
and report the results in its annual report;
distribution to the Executive Board.
The report was formally accepted by the department on 8 September 2003. A close liaison with the non-government sector to align reporting performance measures will be taken up. DEET’s formal response to the Auditor-General was:
- The Auditor-General’s system audit was discussed and accepted by the department’s Audit Committee at its
September 2003 meeting. Action is already under way for different non-government sectors to increase their
compliance with common standards of reporting (eg in MAP testing). Further work is being undertaken to
ensure the performance measures for the non-government sector are aligned with those in the government
sector. The General Managers, Schools will expand the report structure to include areas in the
Auditor-General’s recommendations.
That is not bad from DEET - one of those departments that I was talking about, from our days of opposition, that used to have many points raised in the Auditor-General’s report, all of which went unresponded to in this House by the minister of the day, although I would have thought that the department would have been making responses to the Auditor-General’s report.
In the October report, in relation to early termination payments to the Chief Executive Officers and Executive Contract Officers, an audit of early termination payments to CEOs and ECOs was conducted by the Auditor-General in January 2002 with the finding included in the Auditor-General’s February 2002 report to the Legislative Assembly. The issue was subsequently taken up by the Public Accounts Committee in a public hearing on 13 February 2003. Prior to finalising the report, the PAC asked the Auditor-General to revisit the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment to ascertain the effectiveness of procedures now in place which address the concerns raised in the Auditor-General’s February 2002 report.
The Auditor-General concluded the audit in May/June 2003 and the objective was to:
examine whether payments to CEOs and ECOs, after 1 January 2002, following early termination
of their employment, were in accordance with their contracts of employment or, if not, whether
variations were assessed as achieving an improved outcome for the public benefit; and
on files to support decisions made.
The Auditor-General’s findings were:
- For the majority of separations reviewed, termination payments to CEOs and ECOs, following early
termination of their employment, were in accordance with their contracts for employment.
In all cases reviewed, the payments made were appropriately authorised. There has been improvement in the standard of documentation filed in support of termination decisions, although there were three noted instances of lack of documentation to support decisions made for the Northern Territory government to meet certain costs. In the view of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment, they were faults of detail rather than substance.
Finally, to further improve the standard of documented records of termination decisions, an agency checklist has been implemented to ensure that all appropriate documentation is on file before a terminating contract officer’s file is closed. Again, there has been a response from OCPE to pick up what the Auditor-General referred to in those earlier reports in relation to termination payments to CEOs.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I will not take long. I will quickly respond to areas of the report that deal with either Health or Justice portfolios. I also welcome the Auditor-General’s report. As always, they are constructive, and are putting government on notice if there are standards to be kept up in the general accountability arrangements within our operations. This is no exception.
The crucial issue regarding my portfolios is that of performance reporting. I am very pleased to see that coming through in the report again, as the previous Auditor-General, Iain Summers, had a major campaign to introduce effective performance measures into the budget papers, and then to see them reflected in the annual reports of each of our agencies - the idea being that there is no point in setting up a budget and giving, say, $100m or maybe more to secondary education, and that the performance measure is to improve secondary education. What does that mean? It is not measurable; it is not accountable. It is simply a motherhood statement.
The budget papers these days, as a result of our government’s commitment to open and accountable government processes, now have a full set of performance measures. They might still need to be refined. The departments of each agency will need to also refine its mechanisms of monitoring those performance measures, and making sure that, in their annual reports, they have given a meaningful response to the performance measures. It is to that point that the Auditor-General leads us in his report for both Justice and the Department of Health.
There was an audit done of both Health and Justice in terms of the performance measures that were included in the budget papers. He reports back that, in the case of Health, out of 13 performance measures that he audited, 11 of them were verified as being supported by the agency’s monitoring mechanisms; and two were wrongly reported as in over-reported or under-reported in terms of the outcomes that were claimed to have been achieved. In the case of DOJ, 13 performance measures were audited. Ten were verified as being correctly monitored and reported on; one was not supported by any agency process - and I will get to that in a minute; and two were wrongly reported in terms of the actual claimed outcome.
What that indicates is that we are on track, but we are not there yet in a fully effective system of performance reporting. It is very difficult though, in some areas, to fully quantify the outcomes of government activity. I suppose if you take an example from this morning: how do you actually judge the performance of the hospice? It would be pretty crass to judge it on the number of deaths that occur there over a year, although that gives some indication of the volume of activity that that facility would be handling. It is far more about the qualitative things: what goes on around a person when they are passing from life with their family. Is there a good environment in supporting the person as a patient, as well as a for supporting the family and friends in what is a very intimate process? Sometimes performance measure have to be qualitative as well as quantitative. However, I am very pleased to see that this work is continuing on these issues.
The other one is the Fines Recovery Unit. Being on the PAC when it looked in to fine recovery, it is very easy to bandy around a figure of whatever number of millions of dollars of unrecovered fines are out there, but the whole point of the Fines Recovery Unit is to actually rationalise the payment of fines, or some other alternative response to a transgression that has attracted a fine. In many cases, the FRU is not actually going after money, but are looking at community work orders or some other means of honouring that fine. Again, the Department of Justice is committed to developing an effective monitoring system. However, that monitoring system will depend partly on the IT support of the FRU and partly on getting the right mix of measures to see whether they are actually affective. In some cases, it might be more of a sign of success that they did not collect a fine because they had come up with some effective alternative to repay the community for that transgression, than if they had.
To summarise, we are committing, both in Health and Department of Justice, to further work on these performance measures. We welcome the Auditor-General’s continued interest in that area and approach within government. We get two goes a year at it: each time the budget papers come out, members can check the performance measures that are enshrined in the budget; and when the annual reports come through - late in the year usually, or early in the new year - they can see whether the agencies effectively reported on each of the performance measures. Bring it to estimates; we can talk about that as well.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to address some of the issues raised in the Auditor-General’s report for October 2003. Like all of us here, I thank the Auditor-General and his staff for the work he has done, the commitment he showed, and also the wonderful way he has been communicating with all of us and offering briefings and the like, so that we can increase our understanding of his work and his findings.
I have been pleased to hear the commitment from ministers - in particular, the Health Minister - with regard to the resolve to address issues within their departments based on the findings of this particular report. I hope that is what happens because, specific to the Department of Health and Community Services in this report, is a concern by the Auditor-General for the amount of overtime being earned by staff of that department. His specific concern is the fact that, with a lot of overtime, it is quite well known, can lead to problems with occupational health and safety. With regards to occupational health and safety issues in the Department of Health and Community Services, the people who can suffer from problems caused by tired staff are not only the staff themselves - who may suffer an injury, for example, when trying to lift someone, if they are very tired at the time, have a problem with the lift, and suffer a permanent back injury – but also, of course, that tired staff make mistakes, and that is well documented. In the area of health in particular, and in community services, mistakes can be deadly.
Therefore, this is an area of grave concern for all of us: the ever-increasing demand on Territory staff to work overtime. The Auditor-General makes a couple of points, and I quote from page 30, where he says:
It is noted that –
20.4% respectively.
He also said:
with 474 full-time equivalents each receiving more than $10 000 per annum in the year ended 30 June 2002.
The concern is that the trend continues upwards.
In the table explaining the amount of money being earned or spent on overtime, you can see this definite trend. Because of the timing of the report, the Auditor--General was only able to provide figures for six months for the year ending the 31 December 2002. If you extrapolate that six-month period out, you get $16m. Therefore, the trend then reads that, from the 30 June 2000, approximately $12m was earned in overtime; 30 June 2001, $12.6m; 30 June 2002, $14.3m; and, as I say, for what would be 30 June 2003, extrapolated out that would be $16m. There is a definite trend upwards in the amount of money being earned in overtime. You can be reasonably sure, because during that period there was not a pay increase particularly for nurses, who I suspect, along with medical officers, the pay rates that they would have been on would have been fairly constant. There has been a definite and significant trending up in the amount of overtime being worked. This should be of major concern to all Territorians and, particularly, the staff and clients of the services. I take on board the minister’s commitment to use this report as the basis for making changes within the department. I look forward to seeing a future trending down of the amount of overtime being worked and earned by healthcare providers.
The minister made comment along the lines that the annual report will add to our resources to be able to explore the budget and the spending of the Department of Health. I am very concerned that this year’s annual report will change significantly from the previous year because of this division of the department into health and community services, with bits going one way and other bits going another way. I have a grave concern that, once again, Territorians are not going to be able to compare apples with apples but, once again, we will be trying to figure out what on earth is going on in that department. As members will know, I was particularly disappointed with the very poor effort made by the previous Minister for Health when she coughed up paperwork that was generated in preparation for last year’s estimates, which we spent over $2000 on with regards to the Department of Health and Community Services.
Of the 500 pages that we received, Madam Speaker, as you will be aware, 200 of those were considered exempt and we received no information whatsoever from them. Of the remaining 300 pages, a vast number of them had large blocks of text blacked out, which really defies imagination as to why Territorians and their representatives on this side of the House should not know about the details of government and departmental spending on areas, for example, as important as renal services. I am very concerned about the lack of information Territorians are receiving, particularly from the Department of Health and Community Services. I am very grateful for the information that we are able to receive through the Auditor-General’s report. I hope that, in the next couple of years, the Martin Labor government will do more to demonstrate their commitment to an open and accountable government.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I thank the Auditor-General and his staff for a very comprehensive and constructively critical report on agencies’ performance over the period covered in his report. The Auditor-General’s role has changed over time from that of one being focussed on auditing the public accounts to actually looking at organisation and performance. As you see through his report, he said that the focus of his report is really on organisation and performance.
I thank the ministers and their shadows for contributing to this debate. This debate on this report today will help inform the PAC on what areas of the Auditor-General’s report they might wish to consider to follow up. It is impossible for the PAC to actually follow up on every recommendation of the Auditor-General’s report; however, with the contributions here of ministers and shadow ministers, we will be able to better target our resources and achieve a better outcome for the people of the Northern Territory. The Auditor-General does actually now have a very close working relationship with the Public Accounts Committee.
I must also take the opportunity to bring to members’ attention the offer made by the Auditor-General that, when these reports come out - and he has done the same with the TAFR report, by the way – he has now instituted a practice of briefing members on that report. It would be a simple observation to say that we can do better, as a parliament, to get along to these consultations and information sessions that the Auditor-General offers us. It is a wonderful initiative of his office and we should all take great benefit of that offer.
Madam Speaker, the object of this report, and of the Public Accounts Committee and the Auditor-General working together, is to review all these recommendations and see how the agencies are progressing with them. Therefore, as the Chairman of PAC, I say to parliament that we will be following this debate carefully; we will be talking to some agencies on the recommendations that the Auditor-General has made and how they are being followed up within the agency.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank everyone for their contributions; particularly the member for Sanderson in his role as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. I put on the record, as many others contributing to this debate have, that we thank the Auditor-General for the job he does in overseeing the workings of government and the detail he puts into his twice-yearly reports.
To pick up on an issue raised by the member for Port Darwin and one highlighted by the Auditor-General in his October report last year that we are discussing now, which is the overtime and payroll-related expenses in the Department of Health and Community Services. The response from the Health Department is that the issues that the Auditor-General identified in the report span back to 1999-2000 and demonstrate a long-standing problem that we, as government, are determined to resolve. The employees that were audited in the process were mostly nurses or medical officers and they, of course, are areas in which we have skill shortages in the Territory. Also, for these disciplines of medical officers and nurses, penalty, overtime and higher duty amounts are expectedly higher, as they are applied to a higher salary base.
Of the 10 staff identified by the audit as receiving highest penalty payments, eight were medical officers of whom seven were hospital-based. Of the 10 staff identified as receiving highest overtime payments, nine were medical officers. The 10th person was a radiographer from Alice Springs Hospital identified as a discipline of identified skill shortage and, of course, very difficult to recruit. Of the 10 staff identified as receiving highest higher duty payments, five were medical officers. Others were predominantly administrative staff and it is recognised that there are significant payments for this group.
The Department of Health and Community Services is actively reviewing its policies and procedures to enable better monitoring of issues such as those identified in this report by the Auditor-General. These will include reviews of payroll expenditure, rostering shift work, recruitment, and retention of staff. The department will also be focussing on monitoring overtime and its relationship with occupational health and safety issues - issues that we, as government, take very seriously. We will also be taking a far more strategic approach to human resource issues generally. That was specifically recommended by the Bansemer Review of Health and Community Services. Issues such as this that are raised by the Auditor-General, we take very seriously. He is in the position to give us a long-term view, one that is appreciated.
To pick up on an issue that was raised by the Leader of the Opposition, on page 24, that the Auditor-General raised, which is an issue to do with payment of CEOs. I am very pleased that the Auditor-General recognised, in his short discussion on the payment of CEOs, that we, as government, have put in place processes to deal with what he described as ‘the potential to have fluctuating remuneration and other conditions of service for CEOs.’ The Auditor-General believes that the new provision adopted by the Executive Remuneration Review Panel - and that is from March last year - should adequately address the gap that he has seen. Therefore, on an issue raised by the Auditor-General in this report we already have mechanisms in place to deal with, and have been given a tick by the Auditor-General.
Overall in his report, I am pleased to note that the Auditor-General has found that appropriate accounting and control procedures are in place to assure this Assembly that the Treasurer’s Directions and Procurement Guidelines are being consistently applied across the government. They are important issues that the Auditor-General does monitor.
The report does cite some areas of weakness where there are opportunities for improvements in review mechanisms and accounting treatments and we, as government, will continue to work on those. These will have been noted by the agencies concerned and we have heard reports back from ministers in this House. Most importantly, the Auditor-General has found no evidence that the weaknesses identified caused any financial losses to government.
The Auditor-General has observed a general improvement in management approaches to internal audit over the last 12 months. We are very pleased about that. This has been associated with an increase in the activities of audit committees, many of which include the Auditor-General as an observer. Likewise, there is a strong trend towards developing and implementing plans to identify and address strategic business risks. I am pleased with this outcome and believe it is, in part, a reflection of the efforts of the Risk Management Services Unit within my own department, working in partnerships with other agencies. I certainly look forward to this trend continuing. Risk Management Services do a very important job across government from within the Department of the Chief Minister.
Madam Speaker, I gave an undertaking to deliver open and accountable government to Territorians. The independent opinion of the Auditor-General is an important aspect of this commitment. His comments may not always sit comfortably with my ministerial colleagues and myself; however, his reports and recommendations are viewed most seriously and given due consideration by ministers and chief executives alike.
I again put on the public record our thanks to the Auditor-General, Mike Blake, for his work and his oversight of government. We look forward, sometimes with mixed feelings, to his next report.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: We have some more visitors in the gallery today. We have the Year 11 Legal Studies students from Kormilda College accompanied by their teacher. On behalf of all members, I extend you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
[Editor’s note: Question Time ended as a result of the following motion.]
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 me from moving that this House censures …
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): A point of order, Madam Speaker! We are prepared to take this censure motion on board, but very reluctantly. It is the most thinly prosecuted case of all time. However, as a point of principle, we will take it on board, and I would ask you to end the broadcast.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): I have a point for clarification, Madam Speaker. The convention in standing orders in this House provides for the Leader of the Opposition to at least state the censure motion for the benefit of Territorians who have been listening to this broadcast. This Leader of Government of Business has, in fact, gagged the censure motion so it could not be heard even in the Chamber or by other members in this House.
Madam SPEAKER: The censure motion has not been gagged. The camera men know once Question Time is over to cease filming.
MOTION
Proposed Censure of the former Minister for Lands and Planning
Proposed Censure of the former Minister for Lands and Planning
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker I move –
That this Assembly -
1. Censure and condemn the former planning minister, the member for Casuarina, for:
failing to comply with the mandatory notice of requirement of section 15 of the Planning Act,
thus acting unlawfully and illegally;
acting unlawfully and contravening section 12 of the Planning Act;
undermining both business and community confidence in the Northern Territory planning scheme;
Northern Territory planning scheme, which was outside the proper purposes of the Planning Act and not
on a proper basis;
as planning minister, acting in a dishonest manner and, in so doing, threatening the integrity of good governance
of the Northern Territory;
to carry ministerial responsibilities on behalf of Territorians and should be removed from office.
2. Censure the Chief Minister, who was informed of the member for Casuarina’s actions, for her failure to halt his
unlawful conduct.
Madam Speaker, members of this House have had two days to appraise themselves of the facts presented before the House. We have consistently had obstruction with members of government failing to answer questions, withholding information that is pertinent to this case, and constantly endeavouring to stand behind community. Community in this case have been sorely led up a garden path and have been misguided by the minister, the former planning minister in fact.
If we are talking about good government, we must have a good government that recognises good process. Otherwise we have corruption and the community losing their faith in the very institution that we have that provides social cohesion and, ultimately, the undergirding for our economic future; which is the jobs and a good future for all Territorians. If that is corrupted, with the processes misused and abused, we end up with bad government. The only reason that we can have to occupy space in here is to defend the right of good government. Processes must be upheld, honoured and respected. If you are going to stand behind - as we have heard a number of times - the number of people in your own electorate who would personally lose from the abuse of this process, then you have led them up the garden path. You have offended their confidence that they have placed in you.
You are a minister of the Crown. It has been substantiated beyond doubt that you did not comply with your requirement to inform those who were affected by your actions. There are numbers of people who stood to lose significantly, who were directly affected by your actions and were left outside of this process. That is a violation of section 15 of the Planning Act, something that we have had people, without reserve, say they were simply not informed of and were kept aside from due process. The ones who had the most to lose and expected to be protected by processes put in place to ensure good government, were left exposed. They were required to spend significant amounts of money to prepare and defend their position that was exposed by you, minister.
You also failed and contravened section 12 of the Planning Act. An application that needed to be put in process was not duly completed. That has been substantiated here, not defended. There is an assertion that there is legal representation, which the House has not had the opportunity to assess. Every fact points to the fact that this was a flawed process from beginning to end, and used distinctly to further your own political ends as a local member seeking to win the confidence of those directly around you. Your motive was to win their confidence and you led them incorrectly. You misled them. At the same time, you corrupted the very fabric that holds together the business community. You would know for a fact …
Mr Henderson: Wrong!
Mr MILLS: We had the Minister for Industry and Business express surprise - mock surprise - that the business community has such a low level of confidence in the Northern Territory government: minus-22% in November.
It has now moved forward and we have a minus-20% rating of confidence in the Northern Territory government. I remind honourable members, the last time that these figures were forwarded to the Northern Territory community under a CLP government, it was plus-40%. It is minus-20% at this particular point in time and you went on television and you said: ‘Look, I cannot for the life of me work out why this would be’.
It is because you have fundamental processes abused for personal gain, for low level gain. You have the fabric that holds together the economic prospects of the Northern Territory corrupted in the process for short-term minor gain. We will all lose from such actions. Anyone who listens to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, or goes to any business function, is aware of your actions, minister. They know what you have done, and they know the damage you have created.
There have been shock waves that have rippled right through those who have an interest in the financial future of the Northern Territory. They have carried this message far and wide. There is distinct concern - serious levels of concern - from those who want to have some confidence in the future of the Northern Territory.
If you are going to abuse process, minister, you are going to reap something we will all inherit: a lack of confidence in the investment sector in the Northern Territory - just because you wanted to seek personal gain and some personal comfort. Sure, we all know that your polling indicates that you are not doing too well out there, so you cobble together an arrangement that suits your own ends. Minister, this is not the only time, and the saddest thing here is that we recognise and accept that, as a minister of the Crown, as you carried your responsibilities, you have stumbled and fallen.
It is hard for me to bring this before the Northern Territory community; however, it is my duty to do so. If we are going to have some confidence in the observance of true process and, second, some confidence in the integrity of good government, it is our duty to bring this censure on.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: It is my sad duty and obligation as Leader of the Opposition, on behalf of Territorians, to inform Territorians of the substance and the quality of that which we are talking about: the observance of good practice, policy, procedure, and that which carries significant weight here – respect and confidence in the quality of government.
I call upon the Chief Minister to reflect soundly upon that which is debated here in this Chamber today, and to act. In the best interests of preserving confidence within the investment sector, in good government, in the status of that minister, sadly, I ask the Chief Minister to remove him from office. It is a requirement in order to preserve some level of confidence in the office and the position of responsibility he holds in the Northern Territory community. We are not playing games here.
Those of you who have been here for some time can well reflect upon the fine-sounding words of the great sentiments that were expressed when you were in opposition. Something was lost when you moved to that side. Many of you have those memories, but you are selective in your carriage of memory. We have now a level of arrogance and disregard for due process that is staggering and deeply concerning.
If you have, Minister for Industry and Business, the audacity to wipe off, with snide comments and selective reporting on the level of confidence that is displayed in the Northern Territory government at this present point in time, and leave it unchallenged, that will compound the problem that we all have. It is not about your or my political future, it is about the future of the Northern Territory.
In order to sustain some quality and level of respect for the office that you hold, we need to bring this to the House’s attention. Minister Vatskalis has failed his test in carriage of ministry …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I seem to recall that the member for Greatorex is pretty strong on this point - that members be referred to by their electorate and not by their names.
Madam SPEAKER: They should, yes. That has been pointed out many times, Leader of the Opposition.
Mr MILLS: The member for Casuarina so far has failed his test over his handling of the banning of commercial flights over Katherine Gorge and Nitmiluk National Park without a permit, the handling of commercial passenger vehicle licensing issues and his subsequent backflip. He compounded this by taunting taxi drivers over the government’s plan to introduce a free bus service to the Wharf precinct. He taunted them with disregard; that is full of arrogance - bald, bare-faced arrogance.
That arrogance showed in the following instances: he signed off on a gift of land to Danila Dilba Medical Service, an organisation that he used to work for; he signed off on an acquisition of three houses in the rural area; there was a compulsory acquisition of land from householders near Rapid Creek; his handling of the sacking of the former Director of Parks and Wildlife; his claim that PowerWater late fee charges have been rejected by government; the true story as to why government had broken its election promise to seal the outback highway; his handling of the lethal cyanide spill in Central Australia - within 24 hours he first blamed a truck driver and then eco-terrorists; then he took 12 months to get a report to the Chamber,. and then could not identify anyone to blame.
He was caught out being less than honest. This may appear to be a smaller issue but, for me and members of this House, this is one that sticks: in what we heard in your lack of honesty over your appearance on a web site as a translator for hire. What we had in this Chamber was bare-faced lies - we had lies. That is not a word that I would use lightly, but any member who followed that debate knew that there were lies. The capacity to lie in this Chamber to cover yourself, to cover your position …
Mr Henderson: Proves nothing!. Didn’t get one cent - not one
Mr MILLS: You believed it, did you?
Mr Henderson: You prove it.
Mr MILLS: You believed it? You believed it.
Mr Henderson: You prove it. You’re lodging the allegations. You prove it …
[Editor’s Note: Words expunged by order of Madam Speaker.]
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is exactly the suggestion …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw that remark.
Mr Henderson: I withdraw that Madam Speaker. I withdraw.
Mr MILLS: What we have seen here is precisely what I was talking about. Something has been lost in your translation to government; something that you once thought you would never do.
I will prove that there have been lies. The Chief Minister was asked whether the member for Casuarina had been involved in this exercise of profiting from his appearance on a web site, offering his services as a translator. The Chief Minister said, and I quote from Hansard:
- The allegation is absolutely false …
- … it is from a previous time. The member for Casuarina no longer does translations. He did! He did them for the
Office of Ethnic Affairs before he came to parliament.
One thing the member for Goyder obviously has not realised, the translatorcaf.com is one of the international pages
in the web that sources information from everyone who works for the government translators.
Members interjecting.
Mr MILLS: Further …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order.
Mr MILLS: The member for Casuarina reasserted in this Chamber:
- As I explained to you before, but you refuse to understand, this web page is searching, absorbing and copying
information ... It does not mean I put it there today. That photograph can be put any time ...
- I know Mr Zolotkov through the translation network.
‘I know him’:
- Mr Zolotkov, himself, asked me to register my name on his web site ... As a matter of fact, if you want to register as a
linguist at this site, you cannot. You have to register as a translator. When you enter the site, they ask you questions
and you give all the information, and then they ask how much you charge.
- … $US30 per hour, but that applies only to interpreters, and I am not an interpreter.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The censure motion is very specific. It goes to the allegations that my colleague misused his position in regards to planning issues in Tiwi. It is a very specific censure motion; we have suspended the order of business of the House to deal with it. Rehashing the issue of allegations about the Internet has nothing to do with the content of this censure motion. I would urge the honourable member to get back to the point.
Mr MILLS: Okay. I am, sadly, bringing to this House evidence that the member for Casuarina has plainly lied to the House. Members of this House who followed this debate knew for a fact that there was the capacity - the bare-faced capacity - to lie. Therefore, in all these issues that have already been outlined, we have a sound reason to be more than concerned, minister, if that concern translates in to a demand that the Chief Minister make a quality decision.
We go further when - and I will bring this to a close so that I can move forward - the member for Casuarina asserted that he does know the man who created this site, and it was his invitation that he appears on the site. He then admits that the photograph, yes, was a recent one, though at another time he said it was an old photograph. He said at some time that he did not earn any money, but then has to explain in some complicated way: ‘Oh, yes, but I had to put some figures on there’ - but we all have to believe that you did not earn any money. Then we finally had the man himself who created that site say that he never, ever knew you, which is proof in itself that you constructed this whole fabric, this tissue of lies, to cover the fact that you were on a web site proffering for gain, using your capacity as a high profile member of the community, and you had the audacity to sit in this Chamber and construct a convoluted story simply to protect yourself.
The Minister for Industry and Business yesterday said on a couple of occasions to deflect any heat from government: ‘Well, there is a problem here in the public perception of politicians’. The public perception of politicians is seriously damaged by the actions of the member for Casuarina.
It is clear that minister Vatskalis, the member for Casuarina, is a liability not just to the Martin government, but to our capacity, as members of government aspiring to that which provides that stabilising and mitigating stance that would allow us to have some confidence in the office of government. It is for that reason this censure includes the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister must act upon the concerns that have been raised in this House. She must act in haste.
I go back to another issue that has been brought before the Northern Territory community. It has to do with the processes that led up to the use of Darwin Harbour for industrial purposes. Minister, you involved the community, apparently in a very sincere effort to gain their input into process. At that time, the community that was directly affected - the stakeholders - were believing of you. They believed that it was a sincere process, and that you were genuinely calling for them to be involved. I understand that your invitation for public involvement in this approval process was a sham.
Ms Lawrie: In your opinion.
Mr MILLS: The outcome was predetermined, and 1642 people who made submissions in good faith had their time wasted. The member for Karama says: ‘in my opinion’. I neglected to inform the House that I am actually quoting from the Environment NT newsletter of December 2002/January 2003. Here we have 1642 people who made submissions to a process that you created. In the end, 1642 people believed that you led them up the garden path. Only one of the public submissions supported a granting of the EDP. It was the opinion of Kirstin Blair and Mark Wakeham, that the planning minister failed a key test.
The question that you must answer is: why should the public have any faith in planning processes that completely ignores public submissions? There was a process there …
Mr Vatskalis interjecting.
Mr MILLS: You put the process in place. You raised the expectations of the people involved in that process. You used those people just to satisfy a political end; that is, to get them off your back - put them over here, give them the opportunity to speak up, to write submissions, to be involved, and then leave them out to dry and move on and do what you had already intended to do. You lost their confidence and they have, therefore, as a result of that, a lack of faith in you.
Minister, I am going to the heart of this. Once again, we have in this process, you standing to directly benefit from the support that you can gain and the deal that you can make with the community directly around you - your constituents. The motive here is to engender goodwill, to show that you can do a deal. You are the man who can sort things out, ‘Just trust me. I will fix it’. How many times do people say: ‘The minister said: “Hey, just you give me a call and I will fix it”’. We had this little transaction between the community and the local member: ‘Do not worry. We will sort this out. I will fix it’. They are led to this place of high expectation of you - in your office as a local member representing their best interests. You hold them there and you lead them to a place where they believe that you have their best interests at heart. Their best interests would be served by the observance of true process because, otherwise, by corrupting and ignoring true process, you are letting them down seriously.
You are letting them down seriously: holding them there; raising their expectations that you will do the deal, you will meet their need. ‘You write to me and I will pass it on to the minister and we will sort it out’. Who is it passed on to? The local member then passes it on to himself, the minister wearing the hat of responsibility for the planning regime in the whole Northern Territory, then slips in with a deal. ‘Do not worry. We will sort this out’.
You have the business community, those who, to have any security, need to know that the process itself has been honoured. I have travelled to lands where the process itself is corrupt, and it has to be deals. It has to be a deal with a politician, otherwise you cannot make any progress. It has to be an arrangement, through relationships, to be some other means, so that you can have some security. Your security in this country is in process, and it is not in deals that are made between people. It is not in raising expectations and saying: ‘The process does not matter so much. Hey, I have power. I have a position. I will sort it out for you. We will work it out’.
I have been to countries where that is how it operates, and they have to adjust to operate in a sphere like that. I will stand to ensure that we protect the processes that are put in place so that the fundamental basis that holds our future together is honoured. It has been betrayed and corrupted through this very process. To try and stand in here and have very short answers in response to questions that are asked here - you look at the Hansard with both your eyes open, and look at the way you answered those questions: very concise, very tight, very repetitive answers, I must say. Then, when you have a dorothy dixer - my God, you enlarge your space and you talk about everything, you wander up and down the path and it is a wonderful old chap. Come to our question, tight little question - same answer again and again. Then you moan and you complain because the question has been asked again. ‘Madam Speaker, this is getting quite repetitive’. Do you ever listen to this side? We are getting the same answer, the same lack of information and we are finding that the actual process, the heart of this, is not being addressed. All you are doing is just standing around and protecting and it is plain for all to see what is happening here.
I was put in a position – I will speak personally here. I like the member for Casuarina; I enjoy having a wine with him and meeting him socially. However, I will not hold back from fulfilling my duty as a member of this parliament who has been elected to represent the best interests of Territorians. It is a difficult position for us, however, it is wrong if we were to back off from this.
Ms Lawrie: You are wrong with the facts.
Mr Elferink: No, we are not and that is the problem. He has his fingerprints all over it. He has got form. He has heaps of form. He love to be able to claim these things. He interferes with process and people have lost confidence. That is why he got shifted.
Mr MILLS: Members of the Chamber, I come back, that you have, minister, threatened the integrity of the reputation of the NT as an attractive place for investment. You have, minister, acted in a dishonest manner and you have threatened the integrity of good government in the Northern Territory. By your conduct, member for Casuarina, as minister you have abused your ministerial power in such a manner that you have demonstrated you cannot be relied upon to carry ministerial responsibilities on behalf of Territorians. You, minister, should be removed from office. I call upon the Chief Minister, who has been informed of the member for Casuarina’s actions …
Members interjecting.
Mr MILLS: I censure her, as she has failed to halt this unlawful conduct.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before we go on, I raise a point of order and refer to Standing Order 62. Upon a request from the members of Macdonnell and Goyder, and in discussion with the Clerk and the member for Wanguri, the words that were used by the member for Wanguri are considered to be highly disorderly. Therefore, I order that such words not be published in the Parliamentary Record.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I would like to offer a unqualified apology to the Leader of the Opposition. The words that I used in the heat of the moment were meant rhetorically, not personally. It is an unqualified apology, and I also request that those remarks be expunged from the record.
Madam SPEAKER: So ordered!
Mr MILLS: I accept the apology.
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, in the past two days we have seen a continuous attack from the CLP with regards to the proposed rezoning in Tiwi. I say ‘proposed rezoning’ because the process has not been finalised yet; a decision has not been finalised yet.
We heard allegations from member for Goyder about my involvement in drafting the application, and in instigating the application. However, the reality is that there are fundamental principles in a democracy. One of them is the right of the electorate to elect a member, be in constant contact with the member, and also the right and duty of the elected member to be in contact with the electorate. It is also the duty of the elected member to provide information and advice to his electorate. In addition to that, it is the fundamental right of the community to be able to express its opinion on matters of direct concern to that community. That is exactly what happened in Tiwi.
The Leader of Opposition made a lot of allegations. I am very happy he did not attribute to me 11 September; in these times, it is very dangerous to be given such a label. However, it looks as if everything else that went wrong in the Territory in the past two-and-a-half years is my fault. I am not going to say I am perfect – I have my shortcomings, and I am junior with regards to some of the members on the other side. Certainly, I have made mistakes, and I am not afraid to admit that I made mistakes. Some of the mistakes I made were because of my inexperience, but I always made sure that if I made a mistake, I was prepared to stand up and admit it. Also, if I made a mistake in good faith, I was prepared to go back and rectify it.
However, let us talk about the issue in question here. The censure is about the fact that the opposition does not believe that the elected member of parliament has a duty to provide advice to THE community. What we have also seen in the past two days is that the CLP, when there are competing interest, is prepared to ditch the community and support the entrenched interests.
Let me go back through the history, because what I noticed yesterday was that the member for Goyder is supposed to be the shadow minister for planning, and today it is the Leader of the Opposition. I doubt very much that they have actually read the Planning Act. They have not read it in any way, or had it explained to them – or at least briefed - to find out how the Planning Act operates and, when you put a application under the Planning Act, what happens.
First of all, that Planning Act that currently operates today is a planning act drafted and instigated by the CLP. Under the existing Planning Act, any person can submit an application for the land of another person to be rezoned.
Mr Maley: Upon the advice of the local member - unsigned, undated.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 51: No interruption. No member shall deliberately …
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: There are some serious allegations that are being levelled at the minister, which he is responding to. At least have the decency of listening to him.
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: The Leader of Opposition forgets that, last year, the DCA approved an application for four-storey flats to be built in an area which is actually confined by Rocklands Drive, Trower Road and Undoolya Street. In that area, there were all old Commonwealth buildings on either side of this area. That is the only area in Tiwi that has an R3 zoning. R3 means that you can build up to three-storey building but, with consent, a four-storey building. Until then, apart from this three-storey building, any other development in the area were single-storey dwellings that were strata titled and sold to different individuals. There is also a vacant block.
When that four-storey block was approved for building and construction started, the people in the area suddenly realised that that area was not an area where you had low density, low height dwellings, but could become a potential for high rise apartments. The people were very, very incensed. There was significant opposition to this proposal and there were continuous calls on the government to intervene and reject the application for the four-storey building. However, after it was explained repeatedly to the residents, this development that DCA had gone through the whole process and been approved. The residents of the area organised a gathering at the park in Undoolya Street, to which I was invited, and I went. At that time, I noticed that no member of the opposition went to that particular meeting. At that meeting, there were about 100 residents who were protesting quite loudly about the four-storey building development in the area. Amongst them were people who belonged to organised groups like PLAN, Miss Margaret Clinch, and there were a number of residents who lived directly opposite the high rise development and expressed concerns about the high rise development and the potential for other buildings of the same height to be in the area.
Some of the residents expressed their concern about having a high rise building 1.5 m to 2 m from their backyard, where people on the balcony could overlook their backyard. They were concerned about the loss of privacy. There were very strong calls for the government to do something about it. These people in that area are my constituents. These people are the people of Tiwi. These people demanded their local member to do something or to provide advice, and asked what to do to prevent the encroaching of the high rise development in their area. I advised them there were mechanisms under the act on how to proceed. I explained to them that the government can take an interim development control order to stop any development. However, that will last only for two years, and then the government has to make a policy decision on the town planning scheme. I also explained to them that, under the current Planning Act, people could put in a submission for rezoning of land from R3 to R2 or any other.
This is how these rezoning applications came to be drafted. The rezoning application was made by Mr Fran van der Sommen of Undoolya Street, who happened to live in the area, and also happened to have a unit in the area that he had asked to be rezoned or down-zoned. Therefore, that person is not a bystander. He is a person who lives in the area; a concerned citizen prepared to have his property down-zoned because he believed in the amenity of his lifestyle. Mr van der Sommen wrote a letter, which is dated 28 July 2003 and signed. That letter also has …
Mr Maley: Why don’t you table that?
Mr VATSKALIS: You tabled it yesterday.
Mr Maley: Are you going to table it?
Mr VATSKALIS: I can table it. You tabled it yesterday. Attached to his letter was an approved form with all the details, his name, his address and the request for this, for this, for this. This application is a part of the letter that bears his signature and has a date. That was dropped to my electorate office, as many other constituents of mine drop documents to my electorate office concerning either areas of my portfolio or other minister’s portfolios. As is my duty - and I believe you have done the same and you are doing the same - those documents are forwarded to the appropriate minister. That document was forwarded to my ministerial office and, from there, to the department.
Mr Dunham: Table it!
Mr VATSKALIS: I would be very happy to table it. I have no problem.
The member for Goyder tabled the same document yesterday that I am pretty certain he was provided with because they were presented at the Development Consent Authority hearing. The department had examined this document and said it is a valid document - a valid application. It was forwarded to me and, under the act, if you have bothered to read it, you would find out that the minister from the beginning has to make decisions. The decision made is, without exhibiting the proposal, he refuses to amend the Planning Scheme. That means telling the community: ‘Nick off, we do not take any concerns about what you are saying. We are not interested’.
Another option is to defer consideration of the proposed amendment. That means telling the developer: ‘We are not telling you what we are going to do. We are holding there and you are going to be in limbo until the minister decides to make a decision’, which I find quite inappropriate.
The third avenue is to proceed with exhibition of the proposed amendment. That means start following the process of this proposal being exhibited, which gives the opportunity to all interested parties to put their submissions in, and those proposals will be considered by the Development Consent Authority. The Development Consent Authority then would provide a recommendation to the minister to make a decision. This is the most transparent process because, from the moment the minister decides …
Mr Elferink: But not what the act says; you missed a bit.
Mr VATSKALIS: Listen, you might learn something because you are obviously totally ignorant of the Planning Act. You have no idea. You have not bothered to be informed about the Planning Act. I suggest you speak to the independent person mentioned before, and I will come to that. She might advise you about the procedures of the Planning Act.
This is the most open and transparent process because, first, all residents and owners are notified; all notifications are displayed around the area proposed to be rezoned; submissions are invited; a public hearing takes place; and only then a recommendation is provided to the minister for a decision.
I advised my department that I wanted all landowners to be advised of the proposal for these particular blocks of land - there is not only one, there is a series of bocks of land - the proposals are to be exhibited and the reason why we wanted it exhibited.
A letter, which I am prepared to table, too, was sent to 36 owners, including Mr van der Sommen and his partner, who are the owners of a unit. This letter says that it would be put on public exhibition from 17 October until 14 November. Now …
Mr Elferink: Dated what date? Table it.
Mr VATSKALIS: The date of the letter is 6 October 2003.
Mr Elferink: 6 October, after you were in front of a meeting taking applications in July. Very convenient, minister.
Mr VATSKALIS: 6 October …
Mr Elferink: After procedures were started against you!
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, there is a process to be followed and it takes time. It does not happen just like that. It takes time and, before exhibition signs went up, this letter went out to advise 36 owners; amongst them the developer and members of his family.
The developer came to my office and we met. During that meeting, the developer told us that some members of his family, who were equal partners in the development, had not received the letter. When we inquired with him, we found out that, in the Title Office, the address provided by the developer and his family, for example, was number 12 Something Street, while the correct address was 17 Something Street. We agreed, and he agreed, that it was an oversight. I told him I was prepared to reissue the letter and to extend the date of submissions to 12 December 2003, another 28 days. So I …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I seek that the minister tables the letter he has been reading and quoting from.
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes. I did not make the …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, the tabling.
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, Madam Speaker.
I did not make a decision to proceed and rezone or refuse the rezoning. I simply said we should follow the process to the letter as described in the Planning Act, with notification to landowners, display of the yellow signs and DCA considering in a public meeting these particular issues.
Following that, the developer then sought to retrieve some documents and he lodged a Freedom of Information application, which was sent to my department. My department advised that …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The minister has the floor.
Mr VATSKALIS: However, due to the time it would take to provide the information to the developer, the document would be provided to him not in the proper time, but under the expiry date of the notification. I then advised the department that I would like to extend the notification period to 23 January 2004, and advised all landowners of the event. Therefore, the notification in this case commenced on 17 October 2003, and the issue then was exhibited to the Friday, 23 January 2003, in excess of any other notification ever displayed before. The process was followed …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I seek that the documents referred to be table, as per standing orders.
Mr VATSKALIS: I table the document, Madam Speaker.
When I received the application by Mr van der Sommen, I advised my colleagues that, because of the issues in Tiwi, the coincidence of me being the minister for lands and the local member, and because I did not want to have any potential accusations of conflict of interest, that I gave the information and, should the developers and authority make a decision and provide it to me for consideration, I would bring the decision to Cabinet for my Cabinet colleagues’ consideration, in order to keep at arms length any decision of the DCA on this proposal. That was advised to the industry and, during a Property Council lunch …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, during a Property Council lunch in December, George Cridland, the president of the Property Council, in the presence of the Chief Minister said: ‘I know we are not very happy with that, but minister Vatskalis said that he would not make decisions himself, he will bring the decision of the DCA to Cabinet’. Therefore, the industry was well aware that I was keeping at arms length from this decision because of the potential conflict of interest.
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: The opposition tries to say that I acted unlawfully and that, under section 12, I should not have accepted the application and the application was not provided to all members, and was not done properly. The reality is, everything was done according to the act. There were questions about why we obtained legal opinion. I will tell you why we obtained legal opinion: when we receive an application to rezone the property, and mind you, that is not the first application I have received as a minister - the first application was at Bayview Haven when a small number of residents decided to apply for down-zoning a property that …
Mr Baldwin: And what did you do?
Mr VATSKALIS: We applied an interim development consent order and they had to successful resolution within two years. We are not going to rezone.
For this application, because I knew the concerns of the business industry and the potential cost to the developer, I sought a legal opinion about the possibility of compensation for development …
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: In addition to that, following …
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, obviously, they do not want to listen or they are not interested, because …
Mr Maley: Are you going to table that?
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: As you are well aware, member for Goyder, since you are a lawyer, when there is something still going on in a legal sense legal opinions are not given to other people, and I will hold it until this is finalised. I only …
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: If you are not aware, I suggest you speak to your colleague, the member for Araluen, who has excellent knowledge to provide you with advice.
Members interjecting.
Ms Carney: Flattery will get you nowhere, Kon. Come on, ‘fess up to what you did.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: The reality is that they make all these sorts of allegations, but what do they really want? They really want to gag the elected members, so as not to provide advice to their electorate, which is absurd. This is a pillar of democracy. This is what democracy is all about: people talking to their elected members, and the elected member providing advice to their electorate. If any of you do not do it …
Mr Baldwin: You led them on!
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: … that is to you own detriment. How many times do you provide advice for your electorate? Does it mean that the Minister for Health, if one of his constituents comes and asks him how to access some of the services, he says: ‘I am sorry, I cannot tell you, it is a conflict of interest’. Or, if somebody comes to the Minister for Family and Community Services and asks: ‘How can I access some grants’, she cannot tell him or her because it may be a potential conflict of interest.
I am the local member; I happen to be the minister. If somebody tomorrow - an amateur fisherman - comes and tells me: ‘I want this one’, do I tell him: ‘I am sorry. Do not talk to me, I am your local member; I am the minister. There is a conflict of interest according to the member for Goyder ...
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: … go and speak to the member for Karama or to the minister for business’? That is absurd, Madam Speaker!
Of course, all the allegations about acting outside my legal rights are absolutely untrue. They know that because, if they had bothered to actually look at the act, or had bothered to seek some legal advice about the act, they would realise that none of what they allege is true. Everything was done properly. Everything was done in accordance with the clauses as prescribed in the act, and that was confirmed by the department and legal opinions. After all, if these things were not done in accordance with the act, why should the DCA have a public hearing for something that was illegal or invalid? The DCA held a public hearing.
About the support of the community and the allegations that these applications did not have the support of the community: during the DCA hearing, they considered 72 submissions. Eight of them were against the rezoning, 64 were supporting the rezoning. That is the level of support of the community and shows the concern of the community. I tell you there is a lot of fear out there about planning issues such as the Ostermann Road proposed development. This is not the only one.
There are a significant number of blocks in Darwin, Nightcliff, Millner, Fannie Bay, and Tiwi that are zoned R3, and there is no interface between the R3 blocks and the R1. That means you can have a single-storey house and, next door to you, if somebody buys an R3 and he puts an application for a four-storey building, you have to live with it. I am also informed there was a letter forwarded to the department requesting the down-zoning of the Ostermann Road blocks. This letter is signed by a prominent member of the media, a member of the Real Estate Institute and a person who works in real estate. That is the fear of the community out there …
Mr Baldwin: So what are you going to do about it?
Mr VATSKALIS: … because they have failed to do anything about planning issues.
In 2000 , they considered the interface issue; but it was too hard, they could not handle it. Therefore, they dropped it and did not do anything. The people in Darwin now have to live with their failure to act. It is very easy for the member for Daly to talk about planning issues. I noticed yesterday he was very quiet. At least he is the one who knows about planning, but he was very quiet. He did not stand up to actually speak about the issue, because he knows very well that what was done was done in accordance with the act. Similarly, he was the missing man when they were demolishing the Hotel Darwin. Hopefully, the new Hotel Darwin will have the Tim Baldwin memorial room.
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is not about what I might have done; it is about what the minister has done.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr BALDWIN: If they want to cast those accusations, they can do so by substantive motion.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, I have the right, duty and obligation to provide advice to my constituents. I did it, and I will do it again ...
Dr Lim: For political gain, is it?
Mr VATSKALIS: I did it and I will do it again. I have the right, as the minister, to act within my legal rights, and I did. I did not manipulate; I did not go outside the system. The reality is, we had a situation where we have two competing interests - one is the developer, the other is the community. The only good result was for the minister not to proceed and say: ‘I reject the development’ or ‘I approve the development’. The minister said: ‘No, follow the procedure set out in the act; go through the Development Consent Authority. The Development Consent Authority will assess all submissions, and then will make recommendations to the minister’.
In that Development Consent Authority hearing, a number of submissions were considered - submissions by real estate agents, the Property Council and, certainly, independent consultants. Perhaps she was not an independent consultant, because she is a consultant who acts for the developer. Quite right; it is her profession. Well done. It is June D’Rozario and Associates, the independent consultant quoted yesterday on Channel 9, who is the consultant who actually acted for the developer. They knew about that. The member for Goyder knew about it, because he has been provided with all the documentation.
The questions he was asking yesterday were an exact copy of the questions put to my colleague, the Minister for Lands and Planning, Dr Burns, the member for Johnston, by Hoonans. Every single question he asked yesterday about section 12, section 15, section 16, are questions that have been actually forwarded to the minister by the …
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask the minister, because that is such an important document that he is quoting from, would he table the document?
Mr VATSKALIS: I am not quoting. I am just referring to my notes. I went back afterwards and I studied the legal letter. Every single question he asked is exactly the same, one by one. Regarding section 12, I bet if you asked him now to refer to what section he was asking about, he would not know.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: He was not quoting from it, member for Brennan.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, as I said before, I acted within my rights. I advised my constituents as it is my duty, and I will do it again. I advised my department to proceed in accordance with the proper process, writing to all the landowners, and they did. When one of the affected landowners told us that he had not received a letter, we re-issued the letter and extended the notification period. When the affected landowner wrote to us and said he wanted some information under the Freedom of Information Act, we further extended the exhibition period.
The other thing is that the Leader of the Opposition said: ‘You promised people that you would deliver’. You cannot promise anything, especially when you know that the process to be followed does not guarantee it will deliver what you want. The community wanted something; the DCA has to consider both the community wants and wishes and the effects on the developer and landowner, and make an independent decision. The minister can direct the Development Consent Authority, but then he has to come and give the reasons to this House. The minister has not directed the Development Consent Authority. The Development Consent Authority has acted completely independently, and advice will be forwarded to the Minister for Lands and Planning, the member for Johnston, for him to make a decision.
I doorknocked that area in my electorate to assess the level of support and, mostly, on this particular development. Let me tell you: not even one person who lives in the area told me that they object to the proposed rezoning. They actually support their neighbourhood retaining its amenity, retaining its R1 single-storey dwellings. Even the people who had both strata title units told me that it was not going to affect them because the reality is, if somebody wants to put a four-storey building, he has to acquire all the strata title units, ask for consolidation, demolish them at great cost and then build - which is financial madness. People living there said they wanted to maintain their amenity because Tiwi is a suburb which developed as an R1 area with single-storey dwellings. Therefore, as a local member, I have a duty to consult my electorate. I have a duty to provide my advice when they ask me, because they came and asked me and they keep in constant contact with me about this and other issues. As a minister, I followed due process. Despite the allegation by the Leader of the Opposition which are unfounded allegations, the due process has been followed.
This process has been confirmed by legal opinions obtained from the Solicitor-General, by me and my colleague, the Minister for Lands and Planning. It has been confirmed that every single step of this process was transparent and open. A decision has not taken place because it will be made by the minister following the advice by DCA.
Madam Speaker, this censure is about the opposition playing games. This is a censure that tries to gag the local members and alienate them from their electorates. I object strongly to that because that is the fundamental principle of our democratic society. Once again, the CLP shows, when it comes to competing interests, that people with money always win and stuff the community.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, the member for Casuarina’s conduct whilst he held the portfolio of Minister for Lands and Planning has been disgraceful. He has demonstrated consistent incompetence. The minister’s most recent botched attempt to instigate a blanket rezoning of portions of land mainly in the northern suburbs in the Trower Road region, has, however, reached a new level of incompetence, even by Northern Territory standards; a new benchmark.’
In the Northern Territory, town planning and zoning is governed ostensibly by the Planning Act. Ministers of even a small jurisdiction such as the Northern Territory must conduct themselves and exercise the powers conferred on them for proper purposes and on a proper basis.
For the information of honourable members and, indeed, those people who are listening to this broadcast or who will one day read the Hansard, I propose to set out a short chronology, which is gleaned from the material we have seen, some information we have gained from answers to questions over the past two days, and talking to people who were, of course, present at the hearing.
Last year, there was some political pressure placed on the member for Casuarina. He received representations from constituents in his electorate. He talked about them today; he has conceded that he was under political pressure relating to planning, and the rezoning from R3 to R2, etcetera.
On or about 25 July 2003, the former minister, in addressing a gathering to protest the development of a four-storey block of flats in Undoolya Street, he stated, and this was actually broadcast: ‘Your amenity will be affected. Eventually, during the election, my amenity will be affected’. The minister, it seems, has big-noted himself to local residents and gave one of them, it seems, at least, advice to file an application to amend the town plan; to amend the scheme. Indeed, that very application was eventually made by that third party and it stated: ‘Upon the advice of the local member’. That is the document the minister tabled today. It has attached Attachment B. It is similar to the document which was tabled yesterday during the course of Question Time.
It is an improper motive and outside the scope of what could reasonably be seen to be the proper purposes of the act, to attempt to amend the planning scheme for political purposes. The Planning Act clearly states the proper criteria, none of which are, however, to improve your political position by amending the scheme for political purposes. The conduct of this minister is irrefutable on the material I have seen to date, and it means that the former minister acted unlawfully and illegally. That conduct, in itself, is enough to justify his removal from any ministerial position.
We are talking about process and improper motive. But, there is more! The unlawful application he tried to instigate was inherently defective. The former minister could not even get that right. I will go through that. First, the application was made at the former minister’s electorate office, and to him, as the local member, when it should have been made to the local member in his capacity as the minister for planning. The proof of that comes from the very document he tabled today: ‘Kon Vatskalis, member for Casuarina’.
Second, the application was not in the approved form. That is a mandatory requirement and, if you look at the censure motion, point 2, it says section 12 of the Planning Act says:
- The planning application must be in the approved form.
If the minister is going to pay no regard to that mandatory requirement, that means a landowner or developer can lodge an application, not bother to attach his name or date it and, on his rationale, that document would be valid and there are absolutely no problems; it can just sail through. If you take it to the nth degree, I can apply for a motor vehicle licence, forget about signing or dating it and let it slip through. On his interpretation, that is valid and fine and there is no problem. At law, he is wrong. He is wrong; the statute is clear: unsigned, undated – invalid; mandatory requirement. He has failed.
Third, the application was so general as to what blocks of land it applies to, it is void for uncertainty. The minister now received the defective, unlawful application, because it is motivated by improper political purpose. He has an obligation to consider it. He has an obligation to make sure that it satisfies these fundamental prerequisites. What he should have done was to immediately reject the application. But no, the former minister, motivated by unfulfillable promises made to aggrieved constituents, gave the application the initial okay. This is crucial, and those who know anything about planning will understand this: he took the decision to exhibit the proposed amendment. He took that decision, and it is not a decision that should be taken lightly.
The decision to exhibit was not taken on the basis of proper town planning considerations. We have seen confirmation of that, in the form of his comments to his constituents, in the form of the references and the meetings which he had with people. Second, it was taken unlawfully for political reasons. This man is a disgrace. The member for Casuarina is a disgrace. He should not have a seat in this Chamber, let alone be a minister of the Crown.
However, there is more. I did not think it was possible, but there is more. Let us talk about process here. Section 15 of the act says, okay, once you get an application, there is a mandatory requirement to inform the owner to tell people: ‘This is what I am going to do, this is the application which is going to be exhibited, and it is going to have an affect on your land’. Therefore, not only does it codify what would be common courtesy and what would be the basic requirement of natural justice, it is a mandatory requirement. Clearly, if no notice is given to an owner before the decision to exhibit is made, the application is, once again, unlawful and invalid. I have spoken to several body corporates and a private landowner, who inform me they were not given the courtesy of the formal notice before the minister made the decision to exhibit the application. They received some notification after, and there were a few phone calls made, but they did not receive a formal notification before the minister made the decision to exhibit the application. This is the abuse of process; this is the complete abandonment of process.
These allegations are not made lightly; they are clearly supported by the facts in this matter. I have absolutely no doubt if the minister, the current minister or the previous minister, wanted to properly repel this censure motion, they could produce the legal advice and some of the relevant documents that were tendered before the planning authority, which would completely put to death this censure motion. However, they have not. They cannot because, if they did, it would confirm precisely what they are saying.
There was a complete and catastrophic failure to comply with the rules of natural justice. Just when you think it could not get any worse, and it is difficult to find any more defects, yes, there is more - there is a further one. The owners, having made several unsuccessful attempts to request information from the minister - unsuccessful to the extreme - had to rely upon the Freedom of Information Act to get material documents so they could properly prepare their submissions to put before the Development Consent Authority in relation to an application which was going to affect their land. The minister did not even have the courtesy to provide these owners with the requisite material to properly prepare their case. There was a complete abandonment of process - an invalid application, unlawful and improper purposes, no notice, a denial of natural justice.
The conduct of the previous lands minister has the potential to expose the Northern Territory taxpayer to compensatory payments. It has the potential, and could have resulted, in the significant loss of the value of land. It could have affected the value of strata title units in the area – indeed, it still may.
A consulting town planner and economist, one June D’Rozario, a former member of this House, in an independent report - it was reported last night on Channel 9 - clearly stated there are no known cases - or words to the effect - in the Northern Territory where a rezoning application made by a bystander has proceeded to public exhibition without the consent of the owner of the land to be rezoned. She went on to state there are no sustainable planning or policy basis for proceeding with the proposed amendment.
The previous minister used a bystander in an attempt to rezone a large portion of the northern suburbs for political reasons. That flies in the face of everything which the Planning Act stands for. It flies in the face of the very fundamental procedures which are designed to stop this man - this type of man - abusing his privilege.
The Chief Minister disgracefully stood steadfastly beside him – that is, the previous minister. She has given him support when he tried to take away airspace over Katherine Gorge. She stood beside him even when he botched the Mandorah ferry tender. Chief Minister, enough is enough! Honourable members, enough is enough! He has acted unlawfully, illegally, and for improper political purposes - irrefutable, on the evidence. Irrefutable!
Mr Stirling: He is listening to Territorians.
Mr MALEY: Irrefutable! He has acted for improper political purposes; he effectively admitted that in his pathetic response to the censure motion. He has acted dishonestly. The Chief Minister cannot stand beside him. To do so will amount to an endorsement of what he has done - endorsement of a minister who has tried to abuse the planning process, and acted improperly and unlawfully. He has a clear track record of incompetence; of shooting his mouth off before engaging his brain. He must go! He can no longer have a portfolio in this government. There is the door; do not let it hit the minister on the way out. He has to go. The member for Casuarina should be sacked from Cabinet.
During the course of Question Time today, it became fairly obvious that the current Minister for Lands and Planning is entertaining this application, it seems. Perhaps in the response that we are to get from the government, he could answer these questions: if the minister is not going to down-zone the land, is he going to reimburse the legal fees of the owners and the people who were forced to attend this hearing? If he is going to entertain the unlawful application and down-zone the land, can he please give an undertaking in this parliament that those people will be compensated: the owners will be compensated for their loss for the damage which this application will do to their livelihoods and investments?
The censure motion is clear. I have touched upon all of the points contained in that censure motion. There is no doubt that the previous minister’s conduct has significantly undermined business and community confidence in the planning scheme. He has as good as admitted being involved in politically manipulating the planning scheme to improve his position. He admitted that in his response. He has admitted the very fundamental systemic failure which we have made out. By his conduct, the former minister, the member for Casuarina, has abused his ministerial powers in such a manner that he has demonstrated that he cannot be relied upon to carry out ministerial responsibilities on behalf of Territorians.
Finally, and with some disappointment, this House must also censure the Chief Minister who was informed of the member for Casuarina’s actions and failed to halt his unlawful conduct. We know that members of industry took the concerns that they had directly to the Chief Minister - he has conceded that he told his Cabinet colleagues. The Chief Minister knew about this and she refused to act. She is standing steadfastly beside him. She must now take some responsibility for this outrageous conduct.
I am asking honourable members to support this censure motion. I am asking honourable members opposite, with a clear conscience, to support this censure motion. Do the right thing by Territorians. Let us send a message to the business community that we do not, and are not, going to tolerate this type of behaviour - this type of abuse of process. It is unfortunate that it has come to this, but it is time for the minister and the Chief Minister to go.
Dr BURNS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to speak to this motion. I do not think this motion has really any substance at all. However, I guess a lot of the issues that we are talking about here arise out of the natural tensions that come out of the planning process and history, and is scattered throughout the northern suburbs and other places of Darwin.
There are areas of blocks of R3 where people can develop to three-storeys and possibly to fourth-storeys with the permission of the DCA, butting right up to areas that are R1, which are ordinary residential areas. Therefore, there is a problem there and we are seeing anger, if you like, and concern expressed by residents in two areas. One is in Undoolya Street, Tiwi, which has been the subject and the focus of a lot of the questions over the last couple of days. The other one is in Ostermann Street, along Dick Ward Drive in Coconut Grove. There are issues there and we, as a government, need to work through them, and we will work through them.
The Chief Minister made a statement on National Nine News. She was talking about these things. She said it was a very difficult issue and this government would offer the greatest caution about anyone changing zoning: ‘I believe we can find a mid-way point’. I know what the Chief Minister is saying there; we are a government that is aware of residents’ concerns and also aware of the rights and concerns of developers. These are very important issues and one of the major forums for settling these sorts of issues has been the Development Consent Authority.
The crux of the argument and the questions that have been put by the opposition over the last couple of days has been to do with the legality of the former minister accepting the down-zoning application and turning that down-zoning application over to the DCA. Regarding the sections of the act that are involved, section 12 has been bandied around here a bit regarding the application being on an approved form. That has certainly been a pivotal part the arguments put by members opposite. The other part relates to section 15 which is all about mandatory notice.
I believe the member for Casuarina has made it abundantly clear in what he has said today, and addressed - as I have today as well, in Question Time - about the approved form. Certainly, a form went forward that was not signed, but it was as an attachment to a letter by the person lodging the application, which was signed and dated. I will say it again: my legal advice through the brief that I have received from the department, is that that was quite lawful and acceptable.
The member for Casuarina also addressed the issue, as I did today, of the mandatory notice, and the fact that notices were sent out. However, there were some people who had incorrect details within the Titles Office. The member for Casuarina has said that he did address that issue, that he was quite flexible in that regard.
In essence, what we have heard over the last two days - possibly 20 questions on this issue - has revolved around legal issues. We have had a bit of a legal team operating on the other side - the members for Goyder and Macdonnell. I have been trying to find a name for that legal team. Horace Rumpole and Uriah Heep might be a good one; passing little notes and geeing each other up. They have tried to turn this whole thing into: ‘We have the legal expertise, we know’.
The member for Goyder has tried to present his views as being the only acceptable views. As a government, we rely on the legal opinion that is provided through our departments. The advice to me has been very clear: the application that was accepted by the minister was quite within the process. There was nothing unlawful, as the member for Goyder has suggested, neither was there anything unlawful - or whatever he wants to attribute - in terms of the mandatory notice.
There has also been an accusation that, because the person making the application took the application to the electorate office of the member for Casuarina, somehow this represents a huge conflict of interest. Once again, in the legal advice that I have seen as part of my brief, there is certainly nothing illegal, unlawful or unseemly about it. Those of us on this side who are ministers, and those on the other side who were ministers in the previous government, know full well that people will often come to your electorate office, whether you are the minister for what there on about or not, and bring stuff that really pertains to ministerial activities. That is the nature of people. People out there in the electorate do not really make the distinction between a electorate office and ministerial office in town.
Part of what has been put to me is that, for the member for Casuarina to exclude himself because he is a local member who would represent a mighty disfranchisement of his constituents. I will come back to the theme that I have been talking about over the last couple of days. This seems to be the aim of the opposition: to disenfranchise, to separate out the residents who live around Undoolya Street in Tiwi away from their right to be part of a process to comment on a development, to have their day before the Development Consent Authority. I am certainly not going to stand in front of any citizen and say: ‘Oh, no, you cannot do that’ if it is within the process of the law.
The CLP should have a big soul search on this. I have already spoken about the tensions that naturally exist because of the situation we find ourselves in with R3 abutting R1. These tensions naturally arise. We, as a government and parliament, have to work through them.
There are some important issues that I have raised in relation to that. Most of the questions have come to me. I think there has been one question to the Chief Minister. I believe that I have answered all the elements that have been asked of me by the opposition as openly and as frankly as I can. I will repeat, from the article that was on page 4 of the NT News that I believe was misquoted today by the member for Goyder. I want to place on the record what I said. It goes to the crux of the allegations by the opposition:
- … Dr Burns said there was nothing ‘irregular’, and that all processes followed the act.
He admitted that the application had not been signed, but said it was not a requirement under the act.
‘The act does not require that it has to be signed or unsigned - it just says it has to be in the approved form,’ he said.
‘The approved form is entirely at the discretion of the minister or the DCA - that is all the act requires’.
Dr Burns also denied that landowners had not been told of plans to exhibit the application.
‘There was a letter sent on 6 October to about 30 different names and addresses supplied by the people in the
Titles Office’, he said.
Following a public hearing last week, the Development Consent Authority will soon make its recommendation to
the minister for a decision.
Dr Burns said he had not yet received the DCA report and he would not foreshadow any decision.
In relation to some of the questions the member for Goyder asked me, I am not going to foreshadow the decision that I will make. I am yet to receive the report from the DCA. I will read that with avid interest including, very carefully, all the submissions by residents and those property owners who feel they are affected. I will make my decision on the basis of that. I am not foreshadowing a decision. I am certainly not foreshadowing anything to do with compensation, as the member for Goyder has tried to draw me on. That is a deep issue. As a good minister, I will take advice from the department about all those sorts of issues.
Mr Baldwin: Cough up. You should make him pay it out of his superannuation.
Dr BURNS: Well, you prosecuted a very weak case. You could feel the censure coming on and it was just going absolutely nowhere. I do not know why you got rid of Jim, because Jim would not have allowed this sort of debacle.
Mr Dunham: You want to read what that minister has just dropped on the table.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Kiely: Get yourself a southerner and look what happens.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! It is getting very disorderly. Order!
Dr BURNS: Basically, we heard language from the member for Goyder about ‘bystanders’. He said this person that made this application for rezoning was a bystander. The member for Casuarina has already outlined this particular person is not only a resident in the area but he is also a landowner and property owner, with a property that is likely to be affected by down-zoning. Acknowledge people’s right. This person has every right, under the processes of law, under the Planning Act, to make an application.
Mr Dunham: Yes. He can do it under the law.
Mr Baldwin: Are you going to pay the costs, Kon?
Mr Vatskalis: You are. That is prescribed costs, do you remember it?
Mr Baldwin: Your super’s not looking real good, mate.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: If I could just continue. The Chief Minister also made the point today that yesterday the opposition was clambering for every citizen in the Northern Territory to have the opportunity to comment on applications for a liquor licence. Then they are turning around today and saying: ‘Well, residents should not have an opportunity to comment under the Planning Act’. I really wish that they would get their story straight.
Mr Baldwin: Are you paying the costs or is the former minister?
Dr BURNS: You have made a lot of claims, opposition, particularly the member for Goyder and the Opposition Leader and, to a degree, the member for Macdonnell. I will issue you a challenge here today: go outside this place and make the same sort of allegations that you have made inside here. Go outside and make them. I give you that challenge, and I say I do not believe you will. I do not believe you will.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, members for Macdonnell and Daly!
Dr BURNS: The member for Goyder has already learnt that lesson. You can follow suit if you like.
Mr Baldwin: Do the right thing.
Dr BURNS: Do the right thing. Well, there is a lot of rubbish that is being pedalled by the other side, it takes a while to pick it up.
There have been all these allegations about my predecessor, the member for Casuarina, regarding his ministerial role and how he has not done the right thing as a minister.
I draw some attention to the member for Daly over an issue to do with Rapid Creek when he was minister. One of the people who is a landowner along Rapid Creek came to me quite early in 2002 with a problem. This person said: ‘I do not understand what is going on about this 50 m zone from the mid-point of the creek to my side of the creek as being a conservation zone, because I went to the previous minister and he showed me a map, and I have this map here that he has given me’. This resident produced this map with cross-hatching. I have it here - do you want to clamour for me to table this? - showing this 30 m zone. This person said: ‘It cannot be 50 m because the previous minister has given me this map with this cross-hatching, and it only shows 30 m; it is not 50 m ...
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If he is going to reflect on me, he can get it right. It is 50 m, and I stand by that. If he thinks it is 30 m, bring on a substantive motion and let us have that argument. I am happy to do it. He is getting off the track, but he should be able to quote me right.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! We are in the middle of this censure motion, member for Daly. There is no …
Mr Kiely: You are thin-skinned, Tim! Thin skinned!
Mr BALDWIN: No, I am happy to debate it. Bring it on! Bring it on!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: I have a letter here that I wrote to the then minister on the 14 February 2002. I said:
Finally, I have attached two maps that have been given to this particular person, purporting to represent the
conservation corridor.
- I would like to inquire with the departmental officers about the status of these maps.
This is the map here, and you can see nice little cross-hatched area there. The signature down the bottom says ‘T Baldwin, 23 February 2000’ …
Mr Baldwin: I signed it, that is right. Not like your minister.
Dr BURNS: … and it has a little note and the cross-hatched area and it says: ‘60 m public access corridor’, and is clearly showing the 30 m.
I wrote to the minister and I received a reply back from the minister. It says …
Mr Baldwin: In my opinion …
Dr BURNS: No, no. It says, about the map: ‘The other is the final … - I sent him two maps. It said: ‘This is the final zoning map which was declared and, therefore, shows the correct zone boundary’. I sent him the town plan signed by the former minister, the member for Daly, that did not have the cross-hatching on it. They say that is the correct one. The one with the cross-hatching says: ‘… but this version …’ - meaning the little one with the cross-hatching I just held up – ‘… indicates an overlay of information and annotations and has no formal status. It was, I think, used by the previous minister for explanatory purposes at some stage’.
Here we have the amateur cartographer, the member for Daly, sitting behind his desk with all the files that he never got to, cross-hatching - it is nice colouring in - and then showing it to residents purporting that that was a conversation zone. That might be very harmless enough, except it has a profound influence, because they are talking about the value of land, and confidence in the market. There was a block of land up the road from this particular person’s land that was auctioned. It went to public auction, and it went out with a prospectus showing the 50 m corridor as being excised off the bottom of the land …
Mr Baldwin: No, it did not. No, no.
Dr BURNS: However, because of all the shenanigans that went on around the previous minister, the actual area was a lot more than that, because that conservation corridor had been shaved off. How would buyers who were bidding on this land know the exact area? It was not just a couple of metres; we are talking about substantial amounts of land here …
Mr Baldwin: How much did the block go for?
Dr BURNS: You have form over there. You are trying to make attributions and cast shadows against my esteemed colleague, but just look into your own backyard because it is not a pretty state.
I believe the opposition moved a very fatuous and flimsy motion of censure. I would just like to go through the motion and try and deal with it. The Leader of the Opposition alleges that, under section 15, my predecessor acted unlawfully and illegally – wrong!; acted unlawfully and contravened section 12 – wrong!; used his power as a minister for planning unlawfully and in an unprecedented way for political gain – well, he certainly did not doctor any maps up; undermined both business and community confidence in the NT Planning Scheme - I do not believe he has done that; created unrealistic expectations and misleading Territorians – well, those Territorians know that the process has to go through the DCA and I will be considering that particular application; undermined the integrity of the planning process …
Mr Baldwin: And you will say, ‘No’, and lead the people up the garden path.
Dr BURNS: Well, I would not interject too loudly, member for Daly.
… threatened the integrity and reputation of the Northern Territory as an attractive place for investment – well, that is a big one coming from someone in the previous government; acted in a dishonest manner, denying natural justice, abusing his ministerial powers - wrong, wrong, wrong!
Mr Baldwin: Absolutely. Prove that the documents were doctored, you idiot! Should not be a minister; should be sacked!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Daly, you have been spoken to!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, this is a very flimsy motion of censure. Most of the questions were directed at me. You have tried to include the Chief Minister in all of this. You asked her one question today which was basically hypothetical and had no substance. So you ask her a hypothetical question and then you try to draw her in to this big motion of censure. One description that has been put to me might describe this motion: ‘pathetically lame, wilted lettuce effort’. I have another one, it is ‘spongiform phallus’. A censure should be on a serious matter. All questions were answered. The opposition has not developed any case. They seem to be clutching at straws for issues. I believe you are still divided and are wallowing around like drowning men and women. You have no direction. Your leader put in a very weak effort today.
Madam Speaker, I move that the motion be put.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the censure motion be supported.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 10 Noes 13
Mr Baldwin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Burke Mr Ah Kit
Ms Carney Mr Bonson
Ms Carter Dr Burns
Mr Dunham Mr Henderson
Mr Elferink Mr Kiely
Dr Lim Ms Lawrie
Mr Maley Mr McAdam
Mrs Miller Ms Martin
Mr Mills Ms Scrymgour
Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion negatived.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that Government Business, Order of the Day No 2 be deferred until the next sitting day.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Statement - AustralAsia Railway – Completion
Continued from 17 February 2004.
Mr HENDERSON (Business and Industry): Madam Speaker, today I speak in strong support of the statement from the Chief Minister on the advent, after 100 years, of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway. What an exciting time it has been for Territorians, particularly to see those first two trains coming into Darwin station and also passing through Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Katherine.
It certainly is a time to celebrate the aspirations of Territorians for 100 years to see this railway completed, and to thank many Territorians who have worked so hard for many years to bring this railway to fruition. The Chief Minister, in her statement, thanked dozens of people who had a part to play in seeing the construction of this railway.
It truly has been a nation-building project, one that has certainly captured the imagination of Australia. It has captured the imagination of many people around the world, and it has done so unlike anything else that has happened in the Northern Territory for many years. There were a lot of great, eloquent and well-made speeches during the period of celebrations to the effect that, when Australians do come together and put their minds towards massive nation-building projects, we really can pull it off.
What a great partnership this has been; a partnership between two states and the Commonwealth of Australia, and one that has, to a large extent, been a little under-acknowledged in respect of the private sector, which put up the majority of the funding for the railway. It was a partnership between the people of the Territory and South Australia and the Commonwealth parliament, and a tripartisan partnership between the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, and the Country Liberal Party with regard to the railway. It is often that we have some divisive and heated debate in the parliament and outside but, on this particular issue, we were at one in wanting to see this railway completed.
My colleague, the Treasurer, the member for Nhulunbuy, recalled the night, as did I, that the then Chief Minister, the member for Brennan, at a point where negotiations were very close to getting over the line and were, essentially, stalled when a bill was presented in this House. I believe it was unprecedented in the Westminster system where the bill and the deal was done on handshake between the members for Nhulunbuy and Brennan. It was a whatever-it-takes bill: whatever sum of money was required to get this project over the line, we would commit to sight unseen based on a full explanation on determining what that figure was. That was the amount of trust, faith and confidence that we had in the then government of the day to conclude this deal. It truly was a bipartisan approach and I doubt, in the history of parliaments around Australia, that a Treasury bill has been approved by the parliament unanimously, sight unseen, regarding the dollars that may need to be appropriated.
It is truly a time for celebration and to thank all those people who brought that dream to reality. The Chief Minister has named many of those people in her statement. I will not go through them again.
The challenge now is to see this railway achieve what everybody who has believed in the railway has visions for it to achieve. Again, that will be done as the result of a continuing partnership between governments of whatever persuasion in South Australia and the Northern Territory over the coming years, and FreightLink, who are operating the railway. It will be a partnership between the public and private sectors, which will build those freight loads and, from The Ghan’s point of view, obviously, to attract tourists to undertake one of the great railway journeys of the world.
Before speaking about The Ghan, I would like to talk as trade minister on the importance that this piece of infrastructure has in really seeing the aspirations for Darwin to truly become Australia’s Asian gateway for imports and exports over the coming years. That is going to be an evolutionary challenge; it is certainly not going to be revolutionary. There will be a need to be a lot of work, particularly from FreightLink, in the service and the freight rates that they can provide to make it an attractive alternative to existing trade routes. I believe that it can work, it will work, and we are working with FreightLink.
The trade strategy that the government has adopted, by 2007, seeks to see 50 000 containers a year over the Darwin wharf. That is a significant increase on the 12 000 to 14 000 containers a year that we had over the wharf prior to the railway. It is a challenging statistic, but it is one that we are right there with FreightLink in trying to achieve those targets.
The member for Greatorex was highly critical in debate earlier this week about the government having done absolutely nothing in encouraging the freight route until the railway was completed and the first service ran. Nothing could be further from the truth. Since the first day that we came to government, both the Chief Minister and I travelled overseas on many occasions promoting the coming railway service, the coming opening of the port, and the opening of the new trade route. However, there is a world of difference between promoting what is coming at a certain point in time as an opportunity, to being able to travel in the region with FreightLink, and saying: ‘We are open for business. Here is the person to talk to in regards to the service that can be provided and the freight rates that can be struck’. That is a world of difference in terms of the response that is being received in the region, because no longer is it an opportunity, it is a reality. The reality is that, in terms of existing freight forwarders in the region, within Australia, of existing shipping companies who are locked into shipping routes and booked for years in advance into slots in particularly Sydney and Melbourne ports, that those shipping companies and freight forwarders want to see a demonstrated viable and reliable service, at rates that are competitive and a service that is better than existing routes. They are not going to commit in bulk to switching their existing trade and shipping routes until such time as the rail link has established a level of reliability and credibility. That is the reality of commerce. Those slots, particularly into Sydney Harbour, are very precious and hard to achieve, and that is the challenge for FreightLink.
The first three days after the arrival of the first freight train in Darwin I, along with John Parkes, FreightLink’s new International Trade Director, and President of the Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce, Bruce Fadelli, spoke to a major transport conference in Jakarta promoting the new trade route. On the way to Jakarta, we stopped in Brunei and made presentation to representatives of the Port of Brunei, shipping companies and freight forwarders in the region. It was a tremendous success. Over 150 people attended the presentation, and I am pretty confident that, within the not-too-distant future - within the next month or two - as a result of not only that visit, but a lot of hard work that has been put in by Rooney Shipping in particular, we will see a new shipping service into the Port of Darwin committed over the next two months. Because it is commercial-in-confidence, I cannot talk about the name of the company, but they attended the Global Freight Connect Conference in Darwin recently, and they believe that it is a very exciting time.
The work has just started; the port and the railway are open for business. That challenge of 50 000 containers by 2007, I believe, is achievable. However, it will be achieved evolutionary and not revolutionary, given the way that existing shipping services and freight contractors are currently structured. It is a world of difference from promoting an opportunity to promoting a business that is open for business, and there is somebody who can talk directly to potential customers about rates and services.
It is a bit chicken and the egg – attracting the containers and the shipping lines. However, already, we have seen Swires Shipping commit to the crocodile route, as they are calling it – a weekly Darwin/Singapore service. They have committed to that for 12 months, which is fantastic. Perkins and Rooney Shipping, two Darwin-based companies, are looking at opportunities and working strategies. As I said, hopefully, an announcement of a new shipping service to Darwin will be made within the next couple of months.
We have not been standing still - contrary to the ludicrous allegations by the member for Greatorex. We are working in partnership with FreightLink, freight forwarders and those shipping companies in developing that freight. That partnership was further demonstrated when, on 9 and 10 February this year, on the initiative of the Chief Minister and the Office of Territory Development, we held a Global Freight Connect 2004 Conference in Darwin – a major conference sponsored by Toll Holdings, who have an $18m investment at the Darwin Business Park - with a list of guest speakers and an agenda which would normally be held in a major hub like Hong Kong, Singapore or Sydney.
It was certainly a big coup for the delegates of that conference to come to Darwin from all over Asia and Australia and actually see the railway and the port open and running. Again, it is far different than talking about the opportunity. Some of the speakers that the conference attracted included Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, who, unfortunately, could not be here as transport minister in person, but provided a direct video link address; Access Economic Director, Chris Richardson; Toll Holdings Managing Director, Paul Little; Singapore Telecommunications President and Chief Executive, Lee Hsien Yang; and Linfox Malaysia’s Regional Director, Asia, Ross Ellison. It was a fantastic mix of key speakers.
If we look at some of the representatives from a cross-section of companies that came to the conference they included the San Miguel Corporation based in the Philippines - they do a lot more than just ship beer; 21st Century Logistics from Malaysia; Ports Department and Ministry of Communications from Brunei; Nestl Australia, New South Wales; Flinders Port, South Australia; Patrick Shipping, Victoria; Westgate Logistics, Victoria; ANL Container Line, WA; and Parmalet Australia, Northern Territory. It is not an exhaustive list, but a very substantial cross-section of companies. The Global Freight Connect Conference came at the right time and gave people a first-hand view of the railway and the port in operation. There was a lot of excitement around that.
We can also see the private sector investing with confidence based on the new infrastructure. I have already spoken about Swires committing to a new route, but we also have the Exel (Australia) Pty Ltd, which is a global leader in supply chain management. On 15 May, well in advance of the completion of the railway, they were so confident in the emerging opportunities, they opened a new global freight management and contract logistics facility in Darwin. I was very proud to be invited to officially open that new business. For a company like Exel - one of the global leaders in supply chain management - to come and invest in Darwin in May, some six months ahead of first train, shows they are very serious about growing this business. Again, they are working in partnership with government, FreightLink and shipping companies to grow that business. So, to Exel again, welcome to Darwin.
We have also seen an announcement just a few weeks ago from FreightLink where a company by the name of FCL Interstate Transport Services, one of the top five transport companies nationally, have opened a branch in the Northern Territory. They are contracted by FreightLink to provide transport and freight services – consolidation, freight forwarding and distribution - out of Tennant Creek and Katherine. They are very excited about the opportunities that are going to emerge as a result of this railway. Speaking with their Chief Executive Officer, he believes it really is the beginning of opening up the economy in Northern Australia and is particularly excited about the opportunities for the Katherine regions. Therefore, we have companies with the vision coming here that are well established, both globally and nationally, and they are prepared to invest in the Northern Territory and work in partnership to develop their vision. It is great that this infrastructures has attracted that investment.
Other people are actively pursuing opportunities. I spoke in the trade statement the other night about Rooney Shipping and Trading. Graeme Lacy, CEO, has extraordinary vision and is working very hard in the Asian region in eastern Indonesia, Brunei, Malaysia and beyond, in trying to build the Rooney business on the back of the railway. I have great admiration for Graeme and the crew at Rooney. They are really working in the very competitive area of global shipping. They believe this railway will provide them with significant opportunities and again, are working in partnership with the government and FreightLink to try to develop those opportunities.
We will also see an announcement next week. I will not go to the details of it because I do not want to steal the Army’s thunder. However, there is going to be a good announcement next week regarding the Army’s use of the railway. It is interesting talking with previous senior officers in the Australian Defence Force. The ADF deliberately did not buy into the debate of committing to any use of the railway because they did not want to be lumbered with any part of footing the bill for the construction. However, I believe our Defence Forces will become a significant customer of the railway, and there should be announcement within the next week or two to that effect.
I advise honourable members as well that the International Business Council put out a press release yesterday. I will be travelling with 15 Darwin businesses to Brunei this weekend to participate into a major international trade exhibition in Brunei. Again, there are a lot of opportunities from shipping from Labuan, Brunei through the Port of Darwin, opening up opportunities throughout Asia and into China. It is good to see that level of interest from the business communities in participating in that particular event in Brunei.
The Chief Minister spoke extensively about the first Ghan. If ever there was a sleeper in regards to the impact on our economy it has been the passenger services. Originally, nothing with legs was going travel on this railway and, almost overnight, there has been a lot of hard work from Great Southern Rail and their parent company Serco. There was $18m worth of business underwritten for the passengers service before the first train had left Adelaide. Over the two days of that first journey - which I was very privileged to be on along with the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. To see 50% growth in regard to passenger inquiries from the moment the train left Adelaide, given the amount of publicity this journey was receiving, nationally and internationally, was fantastic. We have to work hard with the tourism industry to focus not just on the journey, but the destinations at either end and in between. There are great opportunities there.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a time for celebration, thanks and congratulations to people who have worked so hard over all those years to achieve this dream. Of course, there will be a lot of hard work now to turn all that into success.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will preface this speech, as I have done before on matters relating to the railway, with the fact that I believe I am in a very fortunate position as a descendant of a family that has been involved in it for a long time and always saw it as a reality - always.
My great-grandfather worked on the railway as a contractor, lived at the railhead towns of Pine Creek, Emungalen, Katherine, Larrimah and Birdum, and built pubs in the latter three. He was instrumental in having, once the railway moved back from Birdum to Larrimah, the town also uplifted, probably at great cost to himself because he had bought several blocks in the place.
My grandfather also was a fettler on the railway. Thus, my mother lived in Mataranka, Parap, Larrimah, Katherine and other places associated with it. My father worked on the railway as a linesman.
In our family, we have never seen this as a faded dream. We have never seen this as anything other than the Territory’s due, and have lived with the knowledge that this will eventually happen - that goodwill will prevail.
We were buoyed, prior to self-government, by having people like Paul Everingham speak. It is important in debates like this, when we throw tributes around, to go back before self-government. I would like to quote from the Parliamentary Record of 26 May 1976 at page 239. This is Mr Everingham, who went on to be our first Chief Minister. His contribution was made when they shut the railway. Some praise was given to a gentleman by the name of Mr Hill, who was instrumental in shutting this railway. He name is not held in good stead among historical scholars of this matter. I will read the contribution by Mr Everingham because it is worth going through again:
- I do not know whether members are all familiar with the terms of the Northern Territory Acceptance Act. I refer them
to section 14(b) of that act which is in Part III relating to the provisions for carrying out the agreement to surrender
that part of the state of South Australia which now forms the Northern Territory to the Commonwealth government ...
- The Commonwealth, in consideration of the surrender of the Northern Territory and the property of the
State of South Australia therein and the grant of the rights in the agreement mentioned to acquire and
construct railways in South Australia proper shall, amongst other things, construct or cause to be
constructed a railway line from Port Darwin southwards to a point on the northern boundary of South
Australia proper ...
… and so on. Of course, nothing has been done about that at all and we now see them in fact resile and renege on what
little piece of railway line there is at the present time. That is the letter of the law. Here we have unfortunately a
government which apparently is prepared to disregard this piece of law, which was passed through the federal
parliament in the period preceding the first world war.
My view is that the Commonwealth has a special duty to maintain this railway line and in fact to continue construction.
The road is not an alternative because we know how it is seasonally unreliable and is unable to stand the strain of
the additional traffic upon it. In fact, if we look at the experience in Queensland where railway …
Etcetera. He goes on to say:
- I call on the federal government to reconsider its decision which just cannot be justified on legal or moral grounds or
grounds of national importance, national development and defence.
They were prophetic words. When people see the railway finished now and they clamour to thank recent contributors - and they do deserve thanks, and I include the names that have been included in the Chief Minister’s statement - there has been a long history to this. This contribution pre-dates self-government. It buoyed those residents of the new Northern Territory of Australia that we had members out there who were happy to fight and put the case.
The local member for Katherine, for instance, Les MacFarlane, had talked to shopkeepers, like the owner of Katherine Store, Les Cox, and I will quote from Hansard again at page 250, Wednesday 26 May. He talked about two storekeepers, Mr Ah Toy and Mr Cox. Both of those families are still well known in the Northern Territory, and are still passionate about matters regarding this.
- Both storekeepers spoke strongly against the move to close the railway. One, the owner of the Katherine Stores,
Mr Les Cox, likened the position to a man with an infected finger. There is something wrong with the railway
and … with the man with the infected finger - and to cure him, you cut off his head! It is that simple, is it not?
It fixes the finger.
You can see the closure of the railway in 1976 was an act of a paternalistic, overbearing federal instrumentality. It was driven by work that was done by Mr Hill, who went on to fame in the ABC, and stood as a candidate for the Labor Party. It has been a long fight in this place, and it goes back to generations and generations of people. It is important to thank those who finally achieved it, but it is important not to forget that it was never, ever a faded dream for many of the people who live here.
This Chief Minister had two jobs, in fact: her government had to provide passenger terminals and the celebrations. It is my sad duty to report to this House that she mucked them both up. The passenger terminal at the termination of the railway is in the wrong place. It is next to a mangrove, which, in its beautifully pristine state, is absolutely full of the various biting insects that come out of it, including mosquitoes and sand flies. It is in a fairly low portion of country and, on a visit there last weekend, I noticed that some of the bitumen has, in fact, been patched. I do not know the reason for that, but it would not be traffic. I do not claim to be an engineer, but I would say that there are definitely problems with that site in terms of it sitting on top of a mudflat. It should be next to where people live.
We had a cruise ship come in and we put on a celebration in our mall with a craft fair. Why would you not be able to do that in Palmerston? Why would you not be able to have something like Mindil Beach, which could put in to fast use at a very quick time, and bring those people to provide those sorts of goods to the railway. I believe the government has to rethink this - admit you made a problem and fix it. I do not think it is that hard. The Chief Minister has, in her statement - and this was for about the third time on that day - said sorry. I believe she should say sorry about the passage of terminal and just get on with doing it properly.
The other sorry was just how badly mucked up the arrival event was. I do not know how many members went. I was foolish enough to be talked into going, against my better judgment, because there was a family wedding that afternoon. At the outset, I can recall saying to my wife: ‘This has all the hallmarks of being a big muck-up, given the great numbers that had flooded to see it up the track’. I knew that Darwinians would turn out in force because that is what they do. I was in a traffic jam that came from Berrimah lights, and it was very difficult to ascertain just where the end of it was. I took some comfort in the fact that the Chief Minister’s car was not far in front of mine. I thought: ‘Well, I am roughly on time and I guess we will get through’. She was given a police escort through, much to the chagrin of many of the people who were log jammed in the queue. We got to the top of the Berrimah hill at Marlow Road. You could see just what a mess it was going to be getting to the place to get on a bus.
Once you travelled for about an hour thus - and in doing so you crossed the railway line behind the cattle yards - there were many Territorians looking southward to where they thought the train would appear. Little known to them, the train was, in fact, to their right. Many people had stood there for a long time in the mistaken belief that they were waiting for the arrival of the first train. The scene at the port was not much better, because everybody had to be conveyed there by bus, and you could only leave by bus. Everyone chose to leave at about the same time - which is not unusual, I guess - and the capacity for people to get out of that place was not good; there were many elderly and young people. I believe there was a great opportunity that was missed. I personally do not have a problem with people having a beer and watching the train come in, and I do not know how that all turned into such a mess.
They were the two jobs the Chief Minister had: find a location for the passenger terminal and organise a booze-up. Interestingly, if you look at the fact that the Chief Minister has been all over this thing - particularly all the good news - when it turned to a muck-up, she was nowhere to be seen. ‘Not my problem’. It was not until poor old Mr Tyrrell gets kicked out the door to make the apology that we get any acknowledgement that it had anything to do with the government. It is interesting that when there was a problem, people who are now claiming to have their backs patted were nowhere to be seen. In the Chief Minister’s speech, where she gives her special thanks to Mr Paul Tyrrell and I quote:
… for his leadership, expertise and persistence in the early concept and planning phase, through to
completion of construction …
I would like to put on the Parliamentary Record ‘and his valiant attempts not to be a scapegoat for the Chief Minister, but his gentlemanly nature in accepting that that was his lot’.
I turn to one of the other issues: freight damage. Freight damage is a problem for business and I do not thinks it is being properly addressed. We are all keen to be part of this thing, and we all have to be keen to admit and sort out the problems. I was disappointed to hear a spokesman say: ‘Look, the freight damage is only 1% or 2%’. When you read a statement like the Chief Minister’s where she talks about 350 000 tonnes, it is not acceptable for 1%, which is 3500 tonnes, to be a reasonable parameter of damage. I would hope that can be addressed quickly. Speaking to Duncan Beggs, there are things that can be done. However, remember, the lifeblood of this thing is the support and confidence in it, and that is where it has to be focussed.
That is also true of the passenger experience. The Minister for Business and Industry talked about it. The passenger experience has not been good, partly because of the siting of the terminal, problems with transport, and difficulties in accessing such a inaccessible site. We have to move quickly on this, because there is $18m of pre-paid investment here. We want good passenger experience. We want to articulate things out of and onto the train - including the cruise ships, which is a good success story. Some of the issues before government certainly are those: to look at issues of freight damage, customer experience and passenger experience.
I was disappointed that the Chief Minister has used the arrival of the railway to talk about the disappearance of road trains. If I was in that industry I would feel like Paul Everingham talking about the closure of railway and the jobs that were involved in that. This is a big industry for this place; it is a safe industry. It is an industry that makes us competitive. It is an industry without which my son would not have a job, because the live cattle trade depends on these big trucks on our roads. To see them going past and to whiff the product that is inside them, I always say to my family: ‘Well, that is the smell of wealth’. That is what is contributing to the Territory, so let us get away from this thing that the railway is here to get rid of trucks. There is room for both, and that is what has to be grabbed by government.
I was very pleased when Professor McKinnon talked about the university moving to a professorial chair in transport logistics. Although it is not in this speech, that is a good starting block: to look at articulation from air, road, rail and ship, obviously. We should not be looking at some of these people as pariahs or to have one style of transport usurp the other. We have to move to articulate those.
I would also like to thank some of the heritage people. I put Trevor Horman and others on that list. The train at Adelaide River is on a good site. It certainly jumps out at you a bit visually as you come past. There are some engineering types who say it has the potential to jump out at cars. Personally, I cannot see that. Those people are doing a great job there with trying to resurrect a historical line. It is in good nick and it is very picturesque; it is a beautiful little drive along that railway route. It is that sort of stuff where we could start to value-add to this product, and have a heritage product, a war time product, an actual railway where you can have a journey. It will complement what we have at Pine Creek.
Therefore, there are some jobs here for government. Maybe they just need a smart facilitator to draw it all together and present a submission to Cabinet and say: ‘Well, that is what we are going to do’. I believe there are great opportunities that can be grabbed by government. Maybe they will not break even in money, but they will break even in this product enhancement.
In one way, even though I was keen to talk to this statement on the day it was delivered, I am probably glad I did not, because I went to the Bombing of Darwin Commemorative Service and saw Mr Coulter and Dr Conn. I was able to give them a copy of the statement thus far and I know that they will be looking in to see the rest of it. I, like my colleague, the member from Brennan, would like to place on the Parliamentary Record a debt of gratitude and thanks to those two gentlemen. I know that there were times - dark, dark times where I agree with the anecdote - they were only two out there who were saying it was doable if they could only crack the code.
One of the ways of cracking the code was this report called The Report of the Committee on Darwin. It was a good Barry Coulter style of flushing out the enemy. He virtually got them to write down why it did not work, and then he went to work on putting all those things to bed. Even thought that so-called Brown Report did put the railway to bed, it said that, with certain conditions, it could happen. The government just went about fulfilling those conditions to make sure it happened.
Tim Fischer should be mentioned in this statement. Tim Fischer is immensely knowledgeable about matters relating to railways around Australia, and was an incredible powerful lobbyist in the position as Deputy Prime Minister of this nation. His subsequent efforts as a railway ambassador really mark him as a man who should be congratulated and thanked.
There is the Army also. There is an inevitably about the immense amounts of gear that has to be carried for the Army. However, that is a double-edged sword, as it is for lots of business here: if you can bring small parts in to repair big things up here, you can take big things out and repair them somewhere else. We have to make sure that this does not turn into south-bound traffic that benefits suppliers in other places. We want the gear coming here to repair here, and have the capacity to be built here. We do not want to see the railway turn into something that transports gear out of here to be value-added, repaired or, in some way, maintained in another place. That is the vigilance that is required. We should not be looking at tonnages, we should be looking at whether things are coming to this Territory to build manufacturing and construction service effort here, not to diminish it. It is a note of caution that I ring.
I am glad for the opportunity to have contributed to this debate. We have to have several more debates on it, and they should focus on what the government will do. I was pleased with the frankness of the Minister for Business and Industry and that he did thank so fulsomely the business sector. Interestingly, Halliburton - who have been thanked in the Chief Minister’s speech - copped a bit of a hiding from his colleagues over in the union movement. Nonetheless, they were important contributors.
What we have to move form here to is: let us see what the government will do. We know what others have done, we know our heritage, we know it is in place. Now we want a catalogue of government promises to kick this thing in. They have to be with helping business, enhancing the customer product for freight, enhancing the customer product for passengers, transport logistics and articulation, and making sure that those various legs of transport are not in some way disadvantaged by this great asset that we now have.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak on this statement because I believe that the completion of the railway is such an historic occasion that everyone in this House should place on record some comments. I also believe it is time to put to bed some of the myths that have been put around.
I came from a small Victorian town where the railway and the wheat trucks went through the town. It was just part of life; you accepted it. There have been a few myths peddled around that Alice Springs is going to suffer terribly from all these big trains rolling through. The truth is that Alice Springs has had six freight trains and two passenger trains arriving every week for years and years.
I live on the other side of the line, on the Larapinta side. If I am not clever, sure I will get held up at the railway crossing at Larapinta. However, if I time my travel properly I miss out on that. The freight trains have always come in early morning or at night. If you look at the timetables for the freight trains at the moment anyway, they usually come in late at night. They leave a bit later or early morning to go on to Darwin. Coming back, they arrive at about 4 am and leave about 7 am. They are approximate times, obviously, but the freight trains are not coming into town and disrupting people going to work or general traffic at all. They are coming in late, as they always have. The passenger trains obviously arrive in the afternoon or morning, and that is fine because we want them to; that is the time they already have.
There has been some press about a crossing at Ilparpa that the member for Araluen has raised. That crossing has been there for years. The traffic of the trains at the moment - five freight trains and two passenger trains a week - has not changed. It is still occurring that way.
There was an unfortunate incident when one member of the public almost hit a train at the Bradshaw crossing which has lights. However, that crossing has been there for years, so you cannot suddenly start blaming the influx of numerous trains, saying they are going to create a hazard. As far as I am concerned, we have worked around them for years and we will continue to work around them because they have always happened.
The buzz that was about was the fact that it went from Alice up to Darwin, and quite rightly so. I was absolutely thrilled to see the enthusiasm of the Tennant Creek and Katherine people when The Ghan arrived. I was thrilled to see the support given by their town councils to this event. You could see the smiles on the people. The welcomes by the Mayors were wonderful. Unfortunately - and I am talking particularly about the arrival of The Ghan - when the Alice Springs Town Council was approached to participate, they said no. Why would you do that when we know this is going to benefit tourism so much?
I am really disappointed with the Alice Springs Town Council because I cannot think of anything constructive they have done to promote the town, particularly in the area of tourism. When the Alice Festival went to them for money, they first said no, yet this festival brings people from all around Australia. They are willing to spend $1m upgrading their offices, but when it came to putting in $10 000 to help the celebration in Alice Springs, they said no. That is an absolute disgrace and a reflection on the town council, particularly, as I said, when I saw how enthusiastic the other small towns along the route were.
I did go to the luncheon put on by the Great Southern Railway at the Convention Centre and it was fantastic. It was such a contrast to the dinner in Darwin, which was a little more sophisticated and aimed at that audience. The one in Alice Springs was really highlighting the Centre. At each table was an ambassador who lived in that town. Who were the ambassadors? Schoolchildren. They were such a hit with the visitors from out of town. Whoever thought of the idea of placing these children around the place - it was a winner; an absolute winner. People who were guests on The Ghan just thought it was great.
The program at the luncheon was also fabulous. It included Fiona O’Loughlin, our local comedienne. If you know Fiona, her humour comes from telling anecdotes and stories. She had the audience rolling. They linked up to the interactive video with the School of the Air, so they had the teacher from the School of the Air talking to students out on different stations. It was just so great, even though the interactive network is not two-way at the moment - and I guess in time it will be - you could see the teacher and hear the students from many pastoral properties talking. One of them said: ‘Yes, we got up at 6 o’clock so we could go in to Kulgera so we could see the train go by’ and things like that. It was great.
Then they made a presentation to The Ghan Society President, Warren Snowdon of a special plaque for this commemoration. I do not know whether they realised how much The Ghan Society appreciated that gesture. They have a little museum at their siding and they were just chuffed to receive this commemorative plaque from Great Southern Railway. That was, in my opinion, a bit of a coup. It was also a bit amusing at the end of the dinner to see the members from The Ghan Society go around the tables and pick up the empty Crowny bottles, because they had the little Ghan on them as well. They said they were taking those out to their museum, plus the flags and the poster that was given away; so that was great.
To finish off, they had Barry Skipsey, who is a local photographer and musician, perform. As Barry sang, behind him was flashed all his beautiful photographs of the Centre. It made the hairs on the back of your neck creep up, because it was so good, just to see all this visual image of the Centre, as he sang his song. Of course, we all know Barry wrote the song All Aboard, which I believe he also sang on Late Line, or Stateline, specifically for the occasion. He is one of the quiet achievers in Alice Springs, who perhaps does not get the recognition he could. His photography and his ability to sing, to perform, is certainly exceptional. I want to thank Great Southern Railway for putting that on for the town and the tourists. It was a coup, there was no doubt about it. It was very, very clever.
The Ghan has brought extra benefits to the town. Because it is in town for a short period of time, people who are on that train can go on different tours around Alice Springs. The Desert Park has organised a very nice package, where they take them out there, show them around, show the film, give them lunch, and bring them back in time for the train. There is a move to also include other businesses in town so that tourists will have an option of where they will go in that short period of time, if they are actually going on to Darwin.
Although some people tend to want to dwell on the negative side, there are benefits for the town, and there will be. We talked about the freight services and the damage to freight companies at the moment. We also must remember that there are some up sides of that, because some of the transport companies have said they will still use road transport. NTFS have said - although they have a big contract with the railways - they are going to bring their perishables to Darwin by road because, in fact, they can get them there quicker.
The Minister for Business and Industries mentioned the garnet mining. Olympia Resources, who are hoping to mine the garnets soon, out Winnecke way, will be bringing truckloads every day into Alice Springs, which will then be offloaded from the trucks, then loaded onto the freight train. One of the things the government probably does have to address is the bulk loading facilities at the port here for when the train arrives with all this material.
I believe the whole transport versus the rail thing is an ongoing feast, I guess. It is not static. Perhaps there were some hiccups to begin with but, as things like Olympia Resources get going, there will be other opportunities for people to come around. The Alice Springs Council are doing a study of the impact. Well, what might be today may not be so in five years time, and you certainly cannot stop still and say: ‘Oh, horror, horror, this is what has happened’ when, in fact, there will be benefits that will be ongoing and new opportunities created. We have already seen it, as I say, with many of the passengers who are getting off the train in Alice Springs. I believe we have to have optimism. It is so easy to knock, but it is far better to promote and achieve.
I also bring up a point for the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. There is a family in Alice Springs whose father, James Bransome Orr, worked on the Commonwealth Railways in Alice Springs in 1929. It was when Alice Springs was called Stuart. He spent a lot of time working for the Commonwealth Railways at that time. The family wrote to the Place Names Committee and said: ‘Because he has this affiliation with Alice Springs, we would like to have a street named after him’, or could they consider naming something after him. The Place Names Committee wrote back to them as far as 1996 and said:
The committee considered your father worthy of commemoration and has decided to place his name on the
Alice Springs reserve list, and due to the time that has elapsed since you first sought commemoration of
your father, the committee will give his name priority when considering road names in the future.
Unfortunately, knowing there have not been many new roads in Alice Springs because of the lack of development, there has been no recognition. However, about 18 km north of Alice Springs, there is an overpass that has been built – it is where the train goes underneath. Obviously, the overpass belongs to Transport and Infrastructure. It is my plea to the minister to consider naming that overpass after James Orr because there is a definite link between him and the railway. It is a historic link, but it also recognises his work on the railway in those very early days. I hope the minister will give that his due consideration, because the Place Names Committee recognised the worth of commemoration of him.
There are many people that the Chief Minister and other members in the House have thanked. I will not go through them all. I believe that there should be congratulations to all people, on both sides of the House, public servants, private sector - everyone who has been involved in making this project happen and getting this vision here. I really believe it is one of the biggest projects Australia has had a for a long time.
I wish governments would think with the same sort of vision that they brought to the railway. I am just waiting for the water to be pumped to Alice Springs from the Ord River, even though they keep telling me it has to go uphill, so that is why it makes it so difficult to do so - Alice Springs is so much higher. However, it is that sort of vision that makes this place special.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the Chief Minister for her statement on the railway, and I certainly support the railway and what has happened.
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have to admit I am a railway enthusiast. I like trains and have travelled on many trains in Greece and in Australia. I have travelled in rail cars, steam trains, diesel trains, trams, suburbans. I have travelled in some funicular railways and some cogwheel railways - something unique in Europe.
However, I have to admit the best trip I have ever done by train was from Perth to Adelaide with the Indian Pacific in 1997, leaving Sunday night and arriving in Adelaide on Tuesday morning. It was great being on the train. I was not a rich traveller; I took a sit-up section and spent most of the time in the bar with some other young friends. Then I went to Port Hedland. That is a heaven for railways, considering the fact that there are enormous railway lines - very heavy duty - from Port Hedland to Newman; from Dampier to Paraburdoo; from Karratha to Tom Price. They are all heavy duty haulage railways. In Port Hedland, in particular, they have five engines, 400 to 500 carriages and one driver with a telecontrol system controlling the whole train. The joke in Port Hedland is that, when you stop at the level crossing for the train to pass, you take your book and you start reading because you are going to be there for 10 minutes.
We came to Darwin in 1993 and, of course, one of the first things you do when you go to different, new place, is go to the museum. I recall very well going to the Fannie Bay Gaol Museum . In the Fannie Bay Gaol Museum was the old steam engine and the carriages still there. I read the history and believe it was the train that was used in the film We of the Never Never. Of course, the illusion was shattered when I read in the story that the train was not operational and, when they filmed, there was a truck behind the train pushing it along the railway line so that it looked like the train itself was actually operating.
I learned the history of the train from Darwin to Larrimah. There were all different nationalities that worked on the construction of the railway line - the Chinese, the Greeks. Later, after the closing down of the railway line in 1976 with the sale of all the remaining railway stock to Tasmania, there was the destruction of the railway line by people who used the line as fence material.
In the past few years, we have seen the renaissance of train travel, with many new lines constructed mainly in Europe, the upgrading of lines, the introduction of new fast trains, to such a degree that now trains in Europe can compete with airlines. For example, the train from Paris to Lyon travels at great speed and can do the trip at 150 km/h to 160 km/h and competes very easily with the airlines, especially for people who are not in a great hurry to go from place A to B and return.
It was really disappointing when I read the history of the Territory and found that the first promise of the railway was over 100 years ago and things were not advancing. Promises were made again in parliaments as recently as the 1980s but nothing ever eventuated. I have to say that I was very pleased when, finally, the Territory and federal governments and private sector agreed to the construction of the Alice Springs to Darwin Railway - not only because it is a dream come true but because you can see the potential of such a railway connecting the north to the south of the continent and, ultimately, east to west. In America, when they were building the railways across the United States, they said that railways build a nation. It is true; even today the railways can build a nation despite the fact that we have a very good road network. The fact is that the railway provides the capability to open new areas and new industries and to transport vast amounts of trade fast and efficiently.
The dream now is a reality. I would like to congratulate the people involved in the dream and the planning of the railway and, finally, finding the money, persuading the banks to loan money. Our departments had to come together and work to make the railway a reality. I would like to congratulate Paul Tyrrell who worked tirelessly for this railway to eventuate, and all the people in the departments, the public servants, who worked for the railway - and who still work for the railway. Another person who always had a dream about the railway is Barry Coulter. He was on the Board of the Port Authority and, when I was a minister, I worked very closely with Barry. Even now, Barry is a very strong advocate of the railway. The only difference we have is that Barry does not want to entrust to the railway anything with legs. I believe the railway transport in people or cattle has a great future, particularly people.
I have the portfolios of Mines and Energy and Primary Industry and Fisheries, and I believe my portfolios will benefit the railway greatly. Also, people working in the mining and primary resources industries will benefit from the railway greatly.
The combination of the north-south corridor of the railway, together with the East Arm Port, will create a new seamless system for Australia linking the southern economic interest and centres with the 150 million people who live to our north and are closer to us than Melbourne, Sydney or Adelaide. It opens for us unique opportunities, new markets and the ability to move fast from south to north and through our port to Asia trade and, at the same time, to import quickly from Asia to Australia through our Port of Darwin and through the railway, consumer goods and other goods that we already trade. The reality is that the combination of shipping lines, the port and the railway can do miracles for trade in Australia by shortening significantly the time it takes to send something out or bring something in. For example, from Adelaide to Darwin, the railway will take 43 hours and from Darwin to Singapore will take three to five days, while Singapore to Adelaide by boat takes 10 days, Singapore to Melbourne takes 11 days, Singapore to Sydney takes 12 days, and to carry it to Adelaide 13 days. That is significant savings in time and certainly in costs and, as the trade through the Port of Darwin increases continuously, the price per container will come down which will further attract business and bring more people to utilise the railway and the Port of Darwin.
I was not here during the arrival of the first freight train, but I was here during the arrival of The Ghan. It was a fantastic atmosphere to see the first passenger train come into Darwin. It is something that will remain in my mind. It was a historical event. Adelaide, at last, is joined with Darwin and people can actually travel 43 hours in luxury and comfort from the southern Port of Adelaide to the northern Port of Darwin, something that many years ago people had dreamt when they first started discussing the issue of the railway.
From my point of view, mining in the Territory is a significant commodity and brings the Territory a significant amount of money - 23% of the gross state product is generated by mining. In 2001-02, the mining industry generated $3.2bn, while the energy, production, oil, natural gas and uranium was $1.7m, mineral ore was $900m, and mineral manufacturing accounted for about $501m. They are significant products at this stage in the Territory, and people are talking enthusiastically about the ability to transport huge quantities of minerals all the way to the Port of Darwin.
Bootu Creek is one that is expected to commence operations in mid-2004. The owners of Bootu Creek, which is about 110 km north of Tennant Creek, are talking about 400 000 tonnes per annum of bulk manganese ore that they will bring via road to the railway siding, load it on the train and bring that train to the Port of Darwin to export by ship to Asia. The operators already have explored different ways of loading the ore on to the train. Certainly, people from the Port of Darwin and owners of Bootu Creek and other mines in the Territory recently visited South Africa to explore different bulk loading facilities. The iron ore loading facility is still operational, but it must be altered if we want to load a boat very quickly. We will have to acquire new equipment.
Another big project is the Harts Range garnet project, 157 km north-east of Alice Springs. They are talking about 60 000 tonnes per annum of garnet that will be sent through the Port of Darwin to Asia and America. They expect to increase the ore to 200 000 tonnes per annum. This is expected to commence operations in late 2004.
Other significant volumes to be exported are things that, a few years ago, companies in the Tennant Creek area considered to be spoils without any value, and they would just deposit them outside the mines because they did not have the capacity, the ability or the technology to further process it. As a result, in Warrego there is about six to eight million tonnes of magnetite. Magnetite is used in washing coal or as a metallurgical iron for the production of steel. Six to eight million tonnes of magnetite is a significant volume of ore to be exported. The only way you can export this volume is magnetite is through a railway and, since Warrego is not far away from the Tennant Creek to Darwin railway line, the expectation of the companies is to utilise the railway.
Peko has a rehabilitation project. They acquired the Peko tailings that include two to three million tonnes of magnetite. Once again, they expect to process it and export it to Darwin via the railway. As you can understand, the railway provides that opportunity now to move very quickly, efficiently and very competitively, large volumes of material that before was prohibitive because of the distance and the fact that, if you utilised trucks, you had to use a large number of them, and the time and cost was increased significantly.
Closer to Darwin is the Frances Creek iron ore mine that closed down in the 1980s. It is not confirmed yet, but I believe people are looking at it because it has significant reserves of ore – two million tonnes of iron ore. They are looking at the possibility of freighting it to the Darwin port.
As I announced today, we issued the 700th exploration licence recently, since this government came to power. Of course, this exploration licence translates very quickly to mines. Not only that, but also the exploration licence for gas and oil has significant benefit for the Territory. There are a large number of mining exploration companies looking at the prospects of various areas of the Territory.
Once again, one of the reasons that they are here, as it was explained the other day by Sweetpea Corporation, is the fact that we have the infrastructure; the railway passing the area they are going to explore. That means they can bring equipment very quickly and efficiently and, certainly, if they strike oil, the railway will be one way of providing equipment and material.
Something that we have not considered seriously yet is the primary resources sector. I am aware that, during the Timor crisis, a very entrepreneurial person in Alice Springs cultivated hydroponic lettuces, and he was exporting 5000 head of lettuce every week to the Australian Armed Forces in East Timor.
With the expansion of horticulture in the Territory - we have the table grape production in Ti Tree and date production in Alice Springs – some Aboriginal communities are now exploring the potential of their land to grow olives and grapes. Again, the railway provides the opportunity and ability, with refrigerated modified atmosphere carriages, for export either south or north. I am aware that also people from the Ord River Scheme are looking at the possibility of exporting down south, or even north - from Kununurra to Katherine, and from Katherine, transfer to a train down south. Therefore, the railway currently provides the ability, even to sensitive product like fruit and vegetables, to be transported quickly and efficiently to other markets.
There is a possibility of exporting not live cattle, but value-added meat, with the possibility of a multi-species abattoir to be established in the Territory. Good quality meat products form the Territory can be exported to other states with refrigerated carriages, and the other way around. We currently import to the Territory, and re-export our quality products via Darwin to major Asian ports and centres. We have done very well with exporting seafood; barramundi is doing very well in the United States of America. Territory products are doing very well there. Of course, the railway gives us the opportunity to transport big volumes of these products to other markets outside Australia.
It is a significant step forward. It was a very important issue for the Territory to participate in the construction of the railway, and, as I said, before the train came through. I am a very strong supporter of the railway and tourism. We have seen that the first Ghan brought 400 people to the Territory. I understand that the second or the third Ghan had an extra carriage connected because of the demand. I tell you, it was a great view coming up from Alice Springs to Tennant Creek: driving along the Stuart Highway and, about 300 m to our right, this silver bullet was coming along, with a lot of tourists. It was really fantastic to realise that 400 tourists were coming all the way to Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin.
At the same time, the railway line provides us with different potential. I was talking to the CEO of The Ghan in one of the airport lounges, where we found each other. We were discussing the potential of The Ghan and the railway, and I suggested that, as the railway line is going to be used once or twice a week either side, and it will stay there for the rest of the week, has anybody thought about the possibility of a rail car from Darwin to Katherine, since there was a rail car from Darwin to Larrimah. A photograph of that rail car - and I believe it was in the 1960s, and it was one of the first rail car services that was airconditioned - is still in the Larrimah Railway Museum, where you can see it. However, a rail car service from Darwin to Katherine can accommodate tourists, backpackers, and the people who do not want to travel on The Ghan but who want a comfortable way from going from Darwin to Katherine.
Railways have become very popular for people who live in one town who want to go somewhere to do their business. I recall very well when I was in Bunbury in Western Australia, The Australind train was cancelled by the Liberal government and was reinstated by the Labor government of Western Australia. The Australind was modified and updated - they used new equipment, new rolling stock - and they modified the itinerary so that it would leave Bunbury at 7 am and be in Perth at 9 am or 9.15 am, so people could go to Perth, do their business and then catch The Australind at 4.30 pm or 5 pm and, by 7 pm, be back in Bunbury. Something like that would benefit greatly not only people from Katherine, but those from Adelaide River, Pine Creek or anywhere else where they can catch a train to come to Darwin. It would also benefit the regional centres by bringing down, very efficiently, quickly and comfortably, tourists, backpackers, people who want to go for the day to Katherine and they could come back in the afternoon.
Of course, everything will come down to cost; it is something that will have to be costed. I suppose if it is supported and demanded by the community and has the support and proper advertisement by the operating company, it might be the future. It does not have to be something very expensive or very sophisticated; the regular service can be something that can be established very quickly.
I am very impressed by the quality of the engineering that has taken place for the construction of the railway line; I have seen it. I am very pleased to see, at last, the railway find its way all the way to Darwin. I would like to congratulate, once again, everybody who was involved in dreaming, planning, financing and constructing the railway. I would like to congratulate also the people who worked in the railway during the construction phase - wherever they came from – because, by participating in the construction of a railway line, they were participating in the building of our nation. I would like to commend the Chief Minister for her statement on the railway.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is with pleasure that I talk today on the AustralAsia Railway. It is a dream of 100 years that has finally been realised with the extension of the railway link from Alice Springs to Darwin.
Many people have been mentioned over the last couple of sittings in relation to the railway line and the building and development of it. Therefore, I do not intend to mention people’s names. However, I would like to acknowledge all of the people who were involved in it from South Australia, the Northern Territory, federally, all the public servants – everybody who was involved with it - and the cooperation of the three governments. They worked very well together with private enterprise to bring about the reality of this dream.
I would like to talk mainly about what has happened in Katherine and the benefits that have been afforded to Katherine due to this project. The sleeper factory, which was established in Katherine, employed 50 people at its maximum, with 90% of those locally employed, and 40% of those employed being local indigenous people. Therefore, the economic benefit to Katherine was pretty well received. The factory, while it was producing, produced some 860 000 sleepers.
One of the local companies, called Downes Graderways, set up an accommodation camp on the corner of Zimmen Drive and Victoria Highway, which was only a couple of kilometres from the sleeper factory. This camp began with 100 men, who worked on the track laying, and achieved a maximum of 200 men at one time. It provided employment for locals and, in addition, the associated benefits to business for the supply of goods and services to the camp. In addition, most other accommodation places in Katherine benefited, from time to time, with personnel visiting during the construction.
The track laying began in Katherine in 2002 on my birthday, 8 April. I celebrated! It was the 8 April. The local Katherine people were given the opportunity to watch an amazing piece of equipment lay this track. I do not know if people here had that same opportunity, but most of Katherine was at a vantage point somewhere on the open day allowed for us to go out and have a look at this track laying machinery. It only required three men to operate the machinery, but it was worth mega-dollars. To complete the whole process of laying the sleeper with the track and securing it in one action - this modern technology was almost too much for me. The days of hard labour in the sun by gangs of railway workers are definitely a thing of the past. The record completion time of that railway line is well and truly documented, and quite remarkable considering the dynamics of the huge project.
The arrival of the first freight train in Katherine on Saturday, 17 January, was a very exciting occasion. It was fortunate that it was on a Saturday, because I am sure there were not too many people who slept in that day. Most of them arrived at vantage points either on the overpass - where they were not supposed to be – or in every spot that they did not think they were allowed to be, and they were – which was great because they were up close and personal. We had trouble finding parking, which was wonderful – very exciting. I could not even find a park for my car in Katherine. The majority of the residents were there lined up for great lengths of time to get through the gate to get their souvenirs. Some had actually been there since 4 am to make sure they got their souvenir key ring. Everybody had that opportunity to get right up close to the train. Nobody was prevented from it and, what is more, it was on time. The excitement of the Katherine people certainly added to Tim Fisher’s enthusiasm as he called out from the train as it pulled in. He leaned out of one the carriages, waved his hat and said: ‘It is finally here’, with a great cheer. We were very fortunate that it arrived at the cooler part of the day early in the morning, and everybody was able to get very close and be part of the celebrations without risking their safety.
As the freight train left the Katherine terminal it was farewelled by two big Mack prime movers, from Downes Graderways, which had been placed on either side of the track at the overpass. This was a pretty amazing sight because most of us had been able to walk up fairly close to the overpass and, as the train went very slowly went under the overpass and tooted its horn continuously, the big Macks tooted theirs as well. It was a pretty moving experience for those of us there. It was a great tribute of the road carriage to the rail carriage and an acknowledgement of the future direction of freight carriage in the Northern Territory.
After all that excitement, I was not sure whether The Ghan passenger train would generate that much interest to bring that many people back out to the track, but it certainly did. It was during a weekday. I underestimated how many people would be prepared to come out to the railway line. We did not open my business until after The Ghan had left because we did not want our staff to miss out on a historic opportunity. They would never see that again. It was very special; there were several thousand there. It was very exciting to see so many familiar faces get off that Ghan and to be welcomed and entertained by a fabulous corroboree. That was definitely the highlight for the people getting off The Ghan. I noticed all of the international visitors who were there were attracted to the corroboree immediately. Of course, they were scared witless with three FA18s that flew past very low and left their sound behind them. It was pretty exciting.
The entertainment that was put on by the local people is to be highly commended. The Cantarbillay Choir, the beautiful voices of the young people of Katherine welcoming visitors. The celebrations were extremely well organised by Katherine Town Council and they deserve every praise and thanks, as do all the workers who had to get into some pretty muddy and murky areas the night before to put up all of the covers and the sound systems.
As the train was leaving – it took a while to get everybody back on –three helicopters escorted the train very slowly out of Katherine. That was pretty special because they were able to hover for quite some time while everybody was getting back on. That was very exciting - probably more for us watching than the passengers because they could not appreciate it. However, we did.
Before the passengers left, they were presented with a replica of a rail spike – it was a replica of the old ones they used in the old railway line - and it was made by Earl Gano of Pine Creek. He did a great job and, as a matter of fact, while people might not think it is a very special replica, it related to the railway line. Marjorie Jackson, the Governor of South Australia, was running around trying to find where she could buy some for her grandchildren. We were able to give her a couple.
The building of the railway terminal in Katherine was very much rushed and under a lot of pressure for Trevor Troy to finish that job. Trevor and his subcontractors worked tirelessly to get that terminal building to the stage they did for The Ghan to arrive, and it was extremely difficult considering the weather conditions that they had – very heavy rain stopped work for several days. They had extreme weather conditions and I give them full credit for finishing as much as they did in the time they did.
I am pleased to report that the freight depot under the management of Chris Bennett is very busy and getting busier each week. At present, there are six established companies using the freight train and, so far, over 180 containers have been handled in Katherine. There is great potential, of course, to develop that beneficial link with the Kimberley.
Now that all the excitement of the first trains is settling down, the passenger terminal has finally been finished off, with outdoor lighting, paving, kerbing, landscaping and a general tidying of the area. One of the challenges that is becoming apparent with the railway is that we are faced with weeds starting to grow prolifically all along the track. Obviously, the weed management problem has been discussed with government, so I would like government to advise if appropriate measures have been put in place to deal with the problem.
I have placed three framed posters of the history of the north-south railway, including one photo of construction of the Katherine railway bridge, in the reception area of my electorate office, along with a locally crafted quilted silk, hand-dyed wall hanging - that was a mouth full – depicting the railway from Adelaide to Darwin. This magnificent work was designed and created by local artist Kerryn Taylor. Everyone is welcome to come and have a look because it is a magnificent piece of work.
The new railway line has opened up great opportunities for not only the freight companies, but also for the development of new tourism ventures to cater for the large number of leisure market people we have arriving at our train station each week. It is up to all of us to make sure we give The Ghan passengers a very happy and memorable trip to our great Territory.
One of the previous speakers talked about a passenger train. Several years ago, a company did a feasibility study on a passenger service from Darwin to Katherine. Quite frankly, I have not seen the results so it may not have been good at that time. However, I would like to see a passenger train that services the needs of the sporting community in Katherine. We have a lot of teams that compete in the Top End and it becomes a cost factor that prevents many of them from travelling to Darwin. I would like to see that happen in the not-too-distant future.
I would like to touch on the Steve Irwin incident that occurred prior to The Ghan’s inaugural journey. Great Southern Railway had chosen Steve Irwin as their marketing figure to promote The Ghan internationally and nationally, and named the first locomotive to bring The Ghan to Darwin Steve Irwin. While I appreciate that Steve Irwin is recognised favourably internationally, and is well known and was a great marketing strategy for Great Southern Railway, Steve lost all credibility with me and thousands of others when he decided, very inadvisably, to dangle his one-month old baby son too close – or appeared to be - to a very large crocodile. Whether he was as close as the cameras portrayed or not is not the issue; it was his comments following the uproar of the showing of that footage that generated anger in the community.
I have had several names proposed to me that people consider would be more suitable for the naming of The Ghan locomotive that travels the length of Australia. While some of them are general and common to many proposals, there is one name that stands out, which has not been used anywhere else. That name is Polly. Polly was the name of John McDouall Stuart’s favourite mare, a bay, on his expeditions through the centre of Australia. I had no idea until this person told me about Polly.
The following is an extract from William Hardman’s The Journals of John McDouall Stuart and related to Stuart’s fifth expedition. This extract relates to 25 February 1861:
- Following the course of the Finke, they arrived on the 25th at some springs which were rendered memorable by
Mr Stuart’s favourite mare ‘Polly’. She became very ill, and on the morning of the 26th slipped her foal. Polly
had been with her master on all his previous journeys, and was much too valuable and faithful a creature to be
left behind; besides, she was second to none in enduring hardship and fatigue. They therefore waited another
night to give her time to recover, and Mr Stuart named the springs ‘Polly Springs’ in her honour.
Apparently, when they arrived back in Adelaide, Stuart would be bedraggled with torn clothing from going through the scrub, but Polly arrived back safe with scratches all over her. The fact that she survived all the expeditions is pretty marvellous, considering the conditions in those time. She was eventually put out to pasture. She survived the trips very well, so I thought Polly was a rather nice name.
To finish, when The Ghan first arrived in Katherine - and I was a little alarmed as to whether Steve Irwin was going to be dragging it into Katherine - I was particularly pleased to see the lead locomotive was called Port Pirie. My husband and I boarded The Ghan in 1989 in Port Pirie, where we were living at that time, to travel to Alice Springs for our very first trip on The Ghan, so I thought it was rather symbolic that it was Port Pirie that brought it through Katherine for the very first time. I am very pleased to see The Ghan arrive. I am pleased to see the freight established the way it is already, and I believe it can only go to bigger and better things for the Territory.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I recall very clearly when the announcement was made that the Alice Springs to Darwin rail project would be given the go-ahead. I was travelling to Blue Bush, an indigenous homeland about 100 km north-west of Tennant Creek. I happened to come across Geoff Liddle, a member of the well-respected Liddle family from Alice Springs. Geoff was out on the rail corridor doing some preparatory work for McMahon’s, and, in his own laid-back way, simply said: ‘It is all going to happen; the rail is a goer. There is going to be an announcement this afternoon’. Naturally, I was as pleased as Geoff Liddle who, along with thousands of other people in the Northern Territory, perhaps thought that we would never see this great project brought to fruition in our lifetime. We always knew it would happen but, perhaps, not as soon as we expected.
At the opening of the sleeper factory in Tennant Creek, I had the opportunity to meet up with Bob Kuch. Bob is a wonderful person, who was also heavily involved and committed to this project, and would often visit Julalikari Council prior to the project getting under way, trying to secure local indigenous employment. On the occasion that I saw him at the sleeper factory, we really did not saying anything to each other, we just shook hands. It was a wonderful moment, I guess, not so much for myself, but more so for Bob who had obviously put in a very great amount of work. I congratulate Bob for all that he has done in respect to this project.
After 75 years of heartache, broken promises, and false starts in respect to the Alice Springs to Darwin Railway, it has finally happened. I wish to pay tribute to the courage and commitment of members on both sides of this House who fought so hard and long. Sometimes, there are accusations that whilst we were in opposition we were not supportive of this great project. Nothing could be further from the truth. There would not be a member, past or present, who did not support this project. That is why it is important that this great rail project should not stand as a monument to any one politician or one political party. It is a monument to the people of the Northern Territory, the people who we, collectively, represent.
At this point in time, I also pay tribute to a number of people involved, such as Paul Tyrell, Neil Conn, Larry Bannister, Des Smith, Phil Cross, Bob Kuch again, Duncan Beggs, David Ross and Tracker Tilmouth from the CLC, and also Norman Fry and Galarrwuy Yunupingu from the Northern Land Council. All of these people played an important role. I particularly pay tribute to the traditional owners whose country the train now traverses. Thanks also to people associated with Asia Pacific Consortium and, of course, a whole host of people attached to ADrail. It is not appropriate for me to name everyone here, obviously, other members have done that. However, I very sincerely thank very much all those members involved over a very long period of time, on behalf of the people of the Territory.
Of course, it would be remiss of me not to express my appreciation to our Chief Minister for her stewardship of this project, and having the foresight and vision to factor in the passenger tourist component. I also pay tribute to the previous Chief Minister, Denis Burke, and, obviously, to other Chief Ministers, such as Shane Stone and Paul Everingham, and to Barry Coulter who also played an important role - a very crucial role in respect of the finalisation of this project.
I would like to extend my appreciation to all the workers in whatever capacity they served: from surveying to clearing the line, undertaking earthworks, working in the quarries, making the sleepers, and doing the catering. All of these people deserve a special mention. Perhaps we should give some consideration to rounding up a list of people from the Northern Territory who were involved and are working on the project, and write them a short note thanking them for their contribution, because it was an important one.
The crowds up and down the track celebrating the arrival of both the freight train and The Ghan were superb, but none more so than the people of Tennant Creek - particularly our younger people who turned out in their hundreds - probably in excess of 2000 people for both events. Particular thanks to the organisers, the Tennant Creek Town Council and their CEO David Wormald; Eric Schoppe, the works manager; Wendy Matthews, the Project Liaison Officer with the Tennant Creek Town Council; and also Mike Baker and all the workers. They worked very hard. In fact, on the night that the freight train went through, they did not complete their operations until about 3 am. I extend my thanks to them and also to Bonnie Kappler Thompson from DIPE. Bonnie played an important role. To the service clubs, thank you very much. Also, most importantly, to the cadets from the Tennant Creek High School who acted as traffic wardens on both occasions. These young people performed their duties beyond their years and are a credit to themselves, their parents and, more importantly, the community.
The freight train arrival and the opening of the freight terminal was very special for the Warumungu people, and none more so than for Ruth Dawson whose artwork appears on one of the locomotives.
The celebrations are now over and the task begins to value-add to the freight and tourism opportunities that will clearly flow from this new and exciting project. In Tennant Creek about a month ago, I had the opportunity to witness the unloading of 44 tonnes of bananas from Lakeland, a small community about 75 km south-east of Cooktown. Previously, this freight had gone from Cooktown to Parkes, then on the train through to Sydney on through Adelaide to Perth. Clearly, there were economic advantages, and those bananas are now coming to Tennant Creek where they are put into refrigerated containers and continue on their way to Perth.
FCL are now actively marketing for produce from the Bowen/Burdekin area in Queensland - products such as corn, pineapples, and beans. Ross Keenan, the manager of the FCL in Tennant Creek, has basically said: ‘If it comes out of the ground, we will freight it’. I congratulate Ross for his foresight and aggressive approach in developing Tennant Creek as a freight haven. FCL are also accessing furniture and other such household goods from Mt Isa via Wridgeways. These containers are then trucked in to Tennant Creek, then on the train to Adelaide and Perth. I also understand that there are some items and goods that are actually coming on to Darwin. Copper oxide is rail freighted from Burra in South Australia to Tennant Creek and to Mt Isa for the mines. Cement is freighted down from Darwin to Tennant for Giants Reef.
FCL are converting the sleeper factory into a warehouse, and the sleeper factory will revert to a three-bed factory as opposed to the previous 10-bed configuration. My advice is that the sleeper factory will be in production again, possibly with the potential to provide up to 10 jobs. In the not-to-distant future, Bootu Resources will be operating a manganese mine 110 km north of Tennant Creek, freighting about 400 000 tonnes of manganese per year to the port here in Darwin for export.
Trevor Tennant of Bootu Resources, also Territory Iron, will also be freighting approximately one million tonnes of magnetite from the Warrego tailings 50 km west of Tennant Creek, per year, for the next five or six years bringing, potentially, another 10 jobs. The Minister for Mines and Energy has also referred to the Peko rehabilitation project and I know that Jack Savage is very keen to freight the magnetite tailings which, I understand, are around about $4m for export as well.
Giants Reef have increased their gold production from about 60 000 ounces to 100 000 ounces per year and will spend about $2.2m on exploration drilling their Comstock/Eldorado corridor, and also near there existing mine at Chariot. These initiatives by Giants Reef provide real confidence for other mining and exploration companies to link with the rail. I have no doubt that, in the medium to long-term, copper and iron ore will also be rail freighted out of Tennant Creek to the port for export.
I just want to say something about Giants Reef. It is a gutsy and innovative mining company and, obviously, we will talk about their successes at another time. However, on this occasion I would like to pay tribute to Nick Byrne, one of the founding fathers of Giants Reef who stuck with Tennant Creek and Giants Reef through the hard times. Nick is a visionary. He always respected the rights of indigenous peoples’ undeniable connections to their land. Nick never played games, never played politics with the Warumungu people. Nick always told me, as indeed he did to whoever wanted to listen, that the rail link between Adelaide and Darwin would return Tennant Creek to its glory days as Australia’s and the Northern Territory’s premier mining province. Bear in mind that, at today’s prices, in excess of $5.5bn of gold bullion have been mined from areas surrounding Tennant Creek.
To you, Nick, and the Board of Directors of Giants Reef, past and present, you were right about Giant’s Reef and I have a gut feeling that you are going to be right about Tennant Creek. In fact, only last week, Joe Ariti, the CEO of Giants Reef said to the Minister for Mines and Energy and I that they were fishing. They were getting the odd nibble and catching the smaller fish; they were waiting patiently to catch the big barra. I sincerely hope that they do. What a great day that would be for that mine if indeed it occurred, so every best wish to everyone associated with Giants Reef.
As mentioned previously, the challenge for us in the Barkly is how to grow jobs as a result of the completion of the rail line. We made a start last week at a mining industry seminar which was held in Tennant Creek and attended by 100 participants. About a quarter of those participants were local businesses and, clearly, their focus was how they were going to utilise the rail or the industries value-added to the rail in providing goods and services. Ross Keenan, the manager of SCL, will soon be visiting many of the pastoral properties, marketing Tennant Creek as a freight hub. Members may or may not be aware, but the vast majority of purchases for goods from the pastoral properties in the Barkly are from Queensland, and Ross’s message will be very simple: ‘We will freight your goods by rail to Tennant and distribute by road’. An immense potential exists for companies like Wesfarmers and Elders to set up in Tennant Creek and, obviously, grow the local community.
The Minister for Mines and Energy previously mentioned the abattoir in Tennant Creek, which is possibly Australia’s best regional abattoir and has an export licence. Clearly there is some capacity, and a lot of potential in regards to that operation coming back into existence and, hopefully, adding to the economy in Tennant Creek and the Barkly in being able to freight meat and other products for export.
Ms Jenny Purdie and Peter Davenport from DBIRD are also planning a pastoral industry Meet the Buyers seminar, similar to the mining industry one that occurred in Tennant Creek previously mentioned. They are talking about coinciding this pastoral industry Meet the Buyers seminar with the Tennant Creek Show. It may be a bit soon, but certainly next year in May, it could be tied in with the proposed Barkly May Day Muster, a new major event centred around the horse sports industry. It is a real possibility.
Horticultural production is now very feasible around Tennant Creek. Places like Ali Curung, Singleton Station, Gilberts Swamp, Helen Springs, Elliott have immense potential to grow mangoes and other goods for shipment to the southern markets. For this to occur, we have to be very aggressive in terms of developing strategies. It is perhaps something that the Office of Territory Development might like to look at: how they can provide assistance and support to the local communities and, of course, local companies and to the private sector in general, in developing an industry around Tennant Creek.
Without doubt, the upgrading of the Warrego Road to Lajamanu holds the key to Tennant Creek becoming a large freight hub. At the moment, all the freight from the eastern seaboard comes via Tennant Creek to The Granites and Tanami Mines. I have always believed that, by upgrading the Lajamanu road, companies will use Tennant Creek as a freight hub to service those two mines and those potential sites that will undoubtedly come on line between Tanami, Granites and Warrego. Again, that is another opportunity and another challenge for government. I am absolutely certain and convinced that we will make every effort to ensure that it occurs. Quite apart from that, I suspect that economics will demand, at some time in the future, that the road be upgraded.
The other topic on which I wish to speak very briefly is that, obviously, there will be opportunities for tourism for Tennant Creek as, indeed, there will be for all the other regional centres throughout the Northern Territory. The Tennant Creek Regional Tourism Association is now in the process of being restructured. Consideration will be given to representation from people across the Barkly. My understanding is that it will be renamed the Barkly Regional Tourism and Marketing Association. Clearly, apart from the drive market, a real focus will be developed over time in respect of The Ghan. Coober Pedy in South Australia attracts tourists to their community very well, and there is no reason to believe that Tennant Creek cannot go down the same path.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank everyone associated with the rail over a very great period of time. On behalf of the people of the Northern Territory, we extend our appreciation and thanks for your input. I commend the Chief Minister’s statement to the House.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Mr Deputy Speaker, like everyone in this House, today I congratulate all those who have been involved in delivering the Alice Springs to Darwin leg of the railway to the Northern Territory. It has been a wonderful achievement which many of us have held our breath about for quite some time. It was marvellous last month to be able to let go and enjoy the moment as both the freight train and the passenger train, for the first time, came all the way from Adelaide to Darwin.
As far as I am concerned, the railway line from Alice Springs to Darwin is one piece in a complex jigsaw that is all fitting together very nicely now. When you add in the port that we have built, the wonderful harbour that we have here, the secure government of the Northern Territory - regardless of which party’s in power - the government system of Australia, which provides security to Australians, it makes us very attractive for investors from Australia and from overseas, as we sit here at the gateway into Asia. With our port and railway, with our soon-to-be completed gas plant, these are all pieces that are falling into place to deliver prosperity to the Northern Territory so that one day we will not have to rely on the largesse of southern taxpayers. Instead, we will be generating the income to assist our southern Australians.
One piece that is missing, and I am quite sure will come on board in the near future, is the arrival of gas to the Northern Territory, which we can actually use to generate power here in the Top End which will provide cheaper power so that we get a manufacturing base kicking off in real strength in Darwin. My prediction is that, within the next 50 years or so, we will really see Darwin bloom. My congratulations to all the people and the companies who have been involved in the delivery of the railway to the Top End of the Territory.
There are a couple of less than satisfactory points which I feel I must speak on. First of all, is the site of the railway station. Everyone is very well aware that it is not actually in Darwin per se, but just outside of Palmerston. As far as I am concerned, it was the cheap, easy site for the passenger train arrival. It certainly lends nothing to the joy of arrival for passengers on The Ghan. My understanding is that, for many of them, they have to get out of the train a long way from the station, traipse along the surface there to get to the station, hauling their baggage. If they are lucky they can get a taxi. I know that when the first Ghan arrived, it was many hours before they could actually get into Darwin itself. Therefore, the site is a disappointment; it was easy and cheap. My hope is that, one day, as Darwin and the Territory prospers, we will have the money to avail ourselves of a far more dramatic entrance to Darwin. That may be, as I have mentioned in the past, a rail on pylons around the edge of the harbour so that people would have the most amazing arrival or departure from Darwin crossing areas of the harbour. This would not be an engineering impossibility; it is something that could be considered. If that is not something that can be done, we still have a rail corridor that goes into the CBD area. There may be an opportunity there to allow for the rail to extend so that people can actually get off in Darwin and not have to go through the logistical trouble that they have at the moment in getting from the bush site at Palmerston into the Darwin urban area which, quite frankly, is where most of them intend to go.
The arrival of the first train, the freight train, as we all know, ended up being a disappointment for many people who had gone to the rail sidings in an effort to catch a sight of the train as it went through, particularly in the rural areas of Darwin and Palmerston. I have had a number of people complain to me about the fact that there was so little warning that the train would actually go through sooner than expected. To think back on to that day, which was an incredibly hot and humid day, and of the people who possibly spent hours waiting for the train to come, not realising that it already passed, I know it was hugely disappointing for them.
Another point which I touched on last week, and I will only comment on briefly here, is the naming of one of the engines Steve Irwin. As members would be aware, this is a hugely disappointing name now, given this man’s notoriety and his behaviour in dangling his one-month-old baby, while feeding by hand a crocodile at his zoo in Queensland, for the titillation and excitement of paying customers. The use of the name Steve Irwin does nothing to enhance the image of the Northern Territory. In fact, I would suspect many people from other countries would think that Steve Irwin is meant to be synonymous with Territorians. I am sure all of us would be horrified to think that people would draw that conclusion. We have far greater respect for crocodiles, and I cannot imagine that there would be any Territorian who would condone the behaviour that occurred.
I plead with the Chief Minister to do all in her power to negotiate with the parties involved to have the name Steven Irwin removed from that engine; to stop having his name linked to the promotion of the Northern Territory and South Australia; and to replace the name with something far more uplifting which, to my mind, would be Albert Namatjira. He was a man who contributed vastly to the cultural wealth of the Northern Territory and Australia and who, I am sure, we all admire, and whose artwork could feature - obviously in prints - in The Ghan for the enjoyment of the passengers as they travel through the land that his artwork represents.
On a more cheerful concluding note, one of the joys that has come out of this railway and its saga has been the penning of the song, the Railway Song, by two friends of mine, Wayne Zerbe and Terry Mills. I am sure I have not heard the last of it. I look forward to hearing it years from now, and I congratulate those two men on their creative abilities with regards to the train. Once again, I congratulate everybody involved in this wonderful achievement.
Dr BURNS (Transport and Infrastructure): Mr Deputy Speaker, I add my comments to the important debate in parliament concerning the Alice Springs to Darwin railway and vice versa, Darwin to Alice Springs, or Darwin to Adelaide, or Adelaide to Darwin - it all sounds music to my ears.
Through the debate on this statement, there has been a lot of talk about parentage of the railway. It is very important to put things on the record. I have listened with a lot of interest on those issues. Certainly, Barry Coulter is someone who deserves a lot of credit for his energy, vision and perseverance in bringing this railway to a reality. There is no doubt that Barry Coulter has been very appropriately recognised for his contribution. He could certainly claim a lot of credit, along with others over the last 100 or so years, for this railway that we have all waited so long to see and applaud.
It was Barry who used a saying: ‘Success has many parents, but failure is always an orphan’. That saying of Barry’s really has come true. This is very successful, and there are many people who - I suppose most of them legitimately - want to claim some part of the railway. Bob Collins, I suppose, in a mix of cynicism - or just to balance the ledger probably would be a better way to put it - recently said they would need to do a DNA assessment to discover the parents of the north-south rail link. It is proper that we should recognise those who contributed, but it is probably impossible to name them all. I am not going to try and do it here tonight because many others have. However, I have saluted the hard work of Barry Coulter over many years. He put his energy and resources, in a willing and enthusiast way, along with the public sector, to help develop and promote this particular project.
I would particularly like to pay tribute to the member for Brennan. I was moved by his contribution here. Politics and the hurly-burly of politics aside, once all that politics has gone to the horizon, Dennis Burke, the member for Brennan, will be and is recognised for the contribution that he has made to this project. It is evident to me, particularly after his contribution in this debate, that he put his heart and soul into this project. I commend him for that. It is an achievement of which he can justifiably be proud. He has played a great part in the development of the railway, and bringing it into reality.
There has been talk about the history of the railway over many years but, going back through the records, in more recent time Brian Ede also played a part. He gave the project a little of a jump start in October 1991. He brought forward a matter of public importance and, basically, asked some questions about where the project was. In a way, that probably really facilitated things to move forward to the next stage. It was in that same debate that I mentioned that the then Opposition Leader, Brian Ede called it the north-south railway and proposed port redevelopment, the Australia/Asia trade link, which is fairly similar to AustralAsia Rail Corporation and the freight operator is FreightLink. Therefore, Brian Ede can certainly claim some worthwhile contribution to the development of the railway. In that context, there was a spirit of bipartisanship in all of this because I know that Barry Coulter worked with the then opposition and gave them briefings, and talked to Labor Caucus in relation to issues concerning the rail project. That is evidence of a bipartisan approach associated with this project.
However, moving to my contribution as Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, the completion of the north-south rail and port link provides real opportunities for trade development and, in particular, the development of stronger exports. Our primary producers, among others, are now able to easily transport goods from regions directly to the Darwin East Arm Wharf, ready for export within a day or so, which is a huge a boost to their trading capacity.
Recently, I talked with representatives of a major shipping company who attended the Global Freight Connect Conference which was hosted by the government some four or so weeks ago. This particular company is already heavily involved in shipping through the Port of Darwin, and they are very excited about the opportunities that the rail and port connection has now made available. They advised me of current and planned investments that are being made by freight forwarders to capitalise on this project. These investments are a clear vote of confidence in both the railway and the Territory, the Territory economy and opportunities within the Northern Territory.
Enhanced freight capacity is not the only benefit that the railway brings to the Territory. Clearly, communities and small businesses of the towns which the rail link travels along have already benefited from the construction process. The influx of rail workers brought with it demand for goods and services, and provided a short-term boost to these communities that will now be replaced in part by the tourists travelling on the world-renowned Ghan. The degree of international interest in this unique rail journey has exceeded all expectations, and there is every sign that this interest will continue.
I know that tourism operators, particularly smaller operators, are very excited by the prospects brought to the Territory by The Ghan. The completion of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway also provides new challenges to Territorians in relation to road and rail safety. While the people of Alice Springs, particularly those who travel south of The Gap, have lived with the railway for many years, those living and working in the towns along the Alice Springs to Darwin route are still becoming familiar with the traffic changes and safety issues that have accompanied the arrival of the railway.
As members would know, the biggest safety issue is that of road and rail crossings. Traffic control at railway level crossings in the Northern Territory is determined using Australian Standards based on car and train numbers as well as the physical characteristics of the crossing location. Level crossings on the Tarcoola to Alice Springs railway line in the Northern Territory comply with Australian Standard recommendations and national best practice guidelines. It is a credit to the designers of the new section of the railway that the standard of the level crossings on the Alice Springs to Darwin section of the railway line exceeds best practice guidelines. This was done to promote public confidence and safety awareness, as a whole new set of road users encountered railway level crossings on the Stuart and Victoria Highways and in other built-up areas of the Northern Territory.
A Northern Territory Rail Crossing Safety Committee has been established through my Department of Infrastructure and Planning. This committee meets regularly, and its members include operators, police, owners, regulators, users and safety groups in both the road and rail industry, who promote operational and safety issues associated with the railroad interface.
The Rail Crossing Safety Committee will maintain an ongoing review of safety issues at level crossings throughout the Northern Territory in accordance with best practice guidelines. Level crossings in the Alice Springs area will be reviewed as the initial priority. There have been a number of issues raised by the public regarding these crossings and a recent serious incident that will be included in the review. I have already given a commitment to the member for Araluen that I will accompany her to inspect rail crossings in Alice Springs when I am next there, and discuss any concerns that may have been raised with her by local residents.
Further to the work done by the Rail Crossing Safety Committee, a memorandum of understanding regarding level crossings is currently being developed within the Department of Infrastructure and Planning, between FreightLink, as owner of the infrastructure, and local government authorities. This agreement will establish governance principles for level crossings and will identify responsibilities and maintenance obligations for all level crossings in the Northern Territory, taking into account the existing obligations of FreightLink in respect of level crossings.
The member for Katherine raised a very important issue in relation to weeds in the rail corridor. I place on the record that the Bushfires Council and pastoralists have made their concerns known to me in respect of fire issues associated with the corridor. Now that ADrail have passed ownership of the corridor to FreightLink, government is in a position to negotiate with FreightLink, who I understand have contracted weed and fire control of the corridor out to another company. These are important issues and I am mindful of them. I thank the member for Katherine for raising them. Given the quite wet Wet Season we have had this year, we need to attend to these things carefully because we do not want either fire or weeds getting out of control. They are issues that we need to take up with the owners of the corridor to ensure that control measures are in place. I will pursue them.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion, regardless of the parentage and forensic DNA profiling, it is without doubt that the Alice Springs to Darwin railway - and, added to that, the Adelaide to Darwin railway - has become one of Australia’s greatest land transport achievements and captured the imagination of all Australians and many international visitors. It is a great credit to all involved from the government and private sectors. I commend them all. The railway is already paying dividends into the Northern Territory economy, helping to build business, promoting tourism and providing a conduit for export trade development.
The Chief Minister has emphasised a number of points, including that the first freight and passenger trains are not the end of the story; they are the beginning. Now it is incumbent on government, Territorians and business to grow and use the railway, to employ the railway for the best possible result for the Territory. That is our commitment as a government. We will be building on the very good work that preceded us; I have acknowledged some of the key players. I am proud to be part of it, looking into the future, and I commend the Chief Minister’s statement to the House.
Ms MARTIN (AustralAsia Railway): Madam Speaker, I thank everyone for their contributions. Particularly noteworthy were the positive contributions because, whatever side of the political divide one is on, this is a great project for the Territory, and one that has been celebrated right throughout the Territory. I really want to commend those who, in their contribution to the debate, recognise this as a great achievement.
We have talked it for the best part of 120 years. The commitment was given in the early 20th century. It was 1907 when the federal government discussed with the South Australian government that they would build us a railway, just for the price of having us hand it back to the federal government. It was signed and sealed, supposedly, by 1910. It has just taken a little while to get here, and a lot of effort. That what was really recognised in the debate; that a lot of people have contributed commitment and hours of hard work. They have committed to what seemed like a dream at times, and made it a reality. This has been an extraordinary feat, from those involved in the Territory working with South Australia, the Commonwealth assistance, but also all those in the private sector and the public sector who made this great project come alive.
It is appropriate to talk about this as nation building. It is not just a Territory dream realised. This is about nation building. All it takes is looking at a map to see how this has really added such a strong component to the sense of Australia as a nation, now that we have rail connecting all the capital cities, except Hobart.
I want to make a point about those who whinged about a lot of things; it was really disappointing. It was done from a partisan basis by those who could not say this is a great project, it has been done with commitment and energy and done well. However, there were members on the other side of the House whose entire contribution was negative and whingeing, and that is very disappointing, because this was an opportunity to say thanks for the hundreds of people - those who worked on it, and brought it to financial close - everybody who was associated with getting this great project done.
Of course, as the member for Johnston just said, this is only the start. This is not the finish of anything. It is actually the finish of building a rail, and one that has taken a lot of dreaming and a lot of commitment to happen. However, this is really the beginning of the challenge. If you thought that stage one - that is, getting to financial close and construction - was the tough one, really, the serious challenge now is making it work. The start has been great. The start has been beyond expectation. The freight moving into the Territory has happened quickly, and freight going south has been beyond expectation.
The Ghan - not in the original calculations - has brought enormous and immediate success in tourism. The flow-on to our economy just from those passengers - the extra 30 000 who will use The Ghan to come north and go south each year - has an immediate flow-on to the economy and, certainly, a great benefit for tourism and the broader retail area.
The criticism of the passenger terminal at Darwin. We had problems with Tennant Creek, and I think we sorted that out – nod from member for Barkly; yes we sorted that out. It is interesting that there was significant criticism about the passenger terminal at this end. As we have always said, this was not part of the original calculations for building the rail. It was an addition after financial close, and it was really in response to Great Southern Rail’s real enthusiasm about being part of all this. I believe we have put in very effective rail terminal buildings. Yes, you would not say that the one in Darwin is forever. It is not a permanent structure for the next 10 or 50 years, but certainly to meet the needs of a once-a-week train, it is adequate and Great Southern Rail are very impressed with it. Initially, there have been some teething problems with public transport there and how passengers are getting off the train. It will be sorted out. We are working with Great Southern who are actually operating it, to make sure we sort out those issues. Descriptions of ‘it is a grotty place to see Darwin’ are absolute rubbish! To look back over Darwin from that side of the port is a wonderful sight. For anyone criticising where it is and saying it is a grotty, mangrove-ridden, sand fly-ridden area, has it wrong and is not really seeing the potential of that site. It was done cost effectively. It was not a mean and cheap option, but was done cost effectively.
With regard to the discussions about the need to have a spur line in to Darwin – just start adding the tens of millions on. When you are looking at whether you spend those tens of millions, and whether it is realistic, anyway, to bring the train into Darwin, then compare that with putting that money towards a convention and exhibition centre, there is no difficulty in deciding where those funds should go. The flow-on to our economy from a convention and exhibition centre is significant. Where the passenger terminal is to meet a train once a week is adequate for 2004. We will be monitoring the situation into the future.
One of the great things about coming up, both with the freight train and with The Ghan, was the true delight of South Australians and Territorians to see those trains. The celebration was contagious, Madam Speaker, as you experienced in Alice Springs - it was contagious. However, it was not only from South Australia and the Territory; it was the rest of Australia which was also caught up by this wonderful experience – this new experience – and the rest of the world. On The Ghan, there was international media making documentaries, reporting daily on what was happening. There was the BBC, CNN; there was world coverage for the Territory and our wonderful environment, with the opportunity of one of the world’s great train journeys just starting - 3000 km.
This is a time for celebration. It is a time for marking the end of a long journey in getting the train to happen. It is congratulating those who have been involved, but also looking to the future and looking to - because of this new trade route and passenger route - a more prosperous and brighter future for all Territorians. The thanks we need to make have been made by every member who contributed to this debate, but we should never forget those who put their heart and soul and hard work into making this happen.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
ELECTORAL BILL
(Serial 195)
ELECTORAL (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 196)
(Serial 195)
ELECTORAL (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 196)
Continued from 27 November 2003.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, at the outset, it is the intention of the opposition to support this bill. Nonetheless, it is beholden upon us to draw attention to areas of concern.
Before doing so, I note that it is a comprehensive reform,, and the process that was implemented to arrive at this bill could justifiably receive some criticism. However, I do not want to put too much weight on criticisms of the amount of time that was allowed for community consultation, when we acknowledge that there were over 40 public submissions, which are commendable. There could always be comments about the process, the time frame, the cost, and so on.
One criticism that I make is that the report that we have - the final report, which was finalised and tabled in October 2003 - contains so many recommendations. Often, the recommendations conflict with each other. I would have thought it would be more useful if we had a refining of those recommendations because, in fact, we have the whole range of possibilities against most of the options flagged, which makes it rather difficult to respond to if we have a choice. It is like when you put your kids in front of the fridge and tell them they can have a drink from the fridge. That slows the process down because they look at every possible drink that is in the fridge and it takes them so darn long to choose. Whereas, if you want to speed the process up you say ‘Fanta or Coke’ and we have the decision made quite quickly. So I would have to say that though the recommendations that follow from the community consultation and so on are admirable and, in some case well considered, the do cover just about every possible base.
I would like to move to a couple of areas of concern. The first one is the fact that we have had registered the amendments - I think they came through on Tuesday, which is only yesterday. Contained in those amendments was the third amendment being the registration of political parties. That is an amendment that really threw me and members of the opposition. In the original bill, I believe it refers to the number of 50 that would be required to constitute a political party. Now the figure is 200. That is a quantum leap and it leaves me, and anyone who would be looking at this bill, to speculate as to why there is that quantum leap from 50 to 200. We could go down conspiracy theory lines and think that now the Labor Party has come to power, the power has seduced so that, by the utilisation of this mechanism with 200 required to formulate an official party, it basically takes it out of the reach of community groups and puts it largely into only the domain of more established parties such as the ALP or CLP.
It seems to fly against the community perception of the Labor Party that they are the supporters and encouragers of community activity. Fifty is fine; we recommended 100. The report, which I am happy to go into in a moment, recommended 20 I think; and the Greens recommended 10. In the spirit of the reform, it needs to take on board that this whole process is not about the retention of power; it is about the empowering of the citizens so that, if they do have the desire to gather together and express their voice in an organised sense, they are authorised and enabled to do so by the construct of the legislation. By having it change from 50 to 200, it is such a departure from every held view - including previously held positions by the Labor Party - it just leaves me puzzled as to what on earth is behind this change.
I want to hear and understand the thinking behind this quantum change at the last moment. I am sure many Northern Territory community groups would also be wanting to know what is behind such a change. Is it that the organisation of like-minded people into official groups that could appear by name on a ballot paper could either pose a strategic threat to the Labor Party? We had the ploy that was used by our political opponents during the last election - admittedly, effectively – against One Nation. By raising the bar so high that the birds of a philosophical feather that may flock together around the Labor cause would cause some embarrassment - such as extremist leftist groups that may lower the tone a bit and make the perception you are endeavouring to project to the community of being responsible citizens a bit hard - the strategy that you used against the CLP in the last election could come back and bite soundly. Some people may speculate that is the rationale.
Whatever the rationale, a question that lodges soundly in the minds of the community is going to be: what on earth is going on here? I will say it again: it flies against the fine-sounding rhetoric of the Labor Party when they say they are the champions of the people. Today, we have had extensive discussion, and the basic defence and line of argument was that ‘we are looking after the people’. This amendment denies and refutes that sentiment. I look for further clarification from the Chief Minister on that very important point. I am sure it will be raised by my colleagues and others. I know the member for Nelson would be concerned about that amendment and the thinking behind it.
I move now to the timing. In my analysis of the bill, I cannot see the mechanism for transition between the current situation and the new situation. I am left to see that, when we reach the point of making a decision in this Chamber – and let us presume that it is passed and becomes law this evening – from that point on, we have a completely new system.
Ms Martin: Yes, when the Administrator signs it.
Mr MILLS: Therefore, does that take effect from that point forward in election timings? It is difficult to see within the bill the mechanisms to transit from one to another in the need for a redistribution. When does that occur?
Ms Martin: In the bill.
Mr MILLS: Go on. You are going to have your opportunity to explain it in detail. I will endeavour to outline as best I can, Chief Minister, the concerns that I have.
Ms Martin: That is fine. You were asking me directly. I thought you wanted an answer.
Mr MILLS: There seems to be an absence of clarity in understanding when this will actually apply. When this is created as law, does it mean that, contained within is the whole new timetable regime regarding redistribution and the earliest possible date for the next Territory election? I look forward to receiving clarification on that matter.
I would like to touch, whilst I am still on timing, on terms. It was interesting to see what the community had to say about timing. I will give my own views on that. I have spent time observing two elections recently; one was in Victoria and the other in New South Wales. In Victoria, there was this prolonged sense of anticipation, and jostling and speculation as to when the election was going to be called. I was involved in that - observed it from a distance - and spent a little time in Victoria.
Then, on my way back, I called through New South Wales and said: ‘So you have an election coming? When, about?’ They said: ‘No, we know exactly when it is coming’. They had, in one of the officers I called into, a calendar and it said something like: ‘143 days to go’. I said: ‘You mean it is set, that is it?’. ‘Yes’. It was a completely different approach. The community did not have to go into that sense of speculation; they knew when it was going to be on. The campaign was so different, and I felt that the whole agitation and unnecessary travail that the community goes through when they know that the political parties, particularly government, are jostling for the best position and playing the game to the gallery so that, finally, when the gallery is leaning their way, then whacko! they will jump it on them. Or perhaps they hold it off and it creates a level of frustration in the community.
However, by contrast, in New South Wales, I have to say it was a completely different approach. I felt that it was cleaner and put less pressure on the public service. It tidied up the public agenda, and the media did not have to spend all their time speculating. They probably had time to write about other things of more importance, as to when. It is reflected here in the Territory when we have council elections; it is clear when that is occurring.
I was persuaded that fixed terms, as a result of my experience, would be a courtesy that would be well worth extending to the Northern Territory community. Then, when I looked at some of the other arguments, I thought, I certainly do not like the idea when it could be any old time, and the community is strung out and they start talking this nonsense. Every time you go to a barbecue they say: ‘When is the next election?’ ‘Don’t know, it could be now, it could be then, or whatever’. You get tired of that. I believe the community actually wants to just talk about how things are going, and when we have the opportunity to decide, finish it, and talk about the issue rather than the timing.
In the end, I guess I am happy with the compromise, but I would have felt better if it had been the fixed term. I am sure that I recall the Chief Minister, whilst in opposition, was wedded to the idea of fixed term. It appears to me, once again, that in the issue of raising the bar from 50 to 200, something is lost when there is translation from one side of the Chamber to the other. I refer once again to the seduction of power. To give yourself that option to position yourself so that you are able to be in the most strategically beneficial time to your own agenda is probably just a little too tempting. Therefore, you have gone back a bit on the position that I understand you were previously wedded to.
Going to the voting, I was also really hoping that we would see some fairly strong recommendations. They may be in there, Chief Minister. However, I spent many hours looking at this and I could not see that there had been changes made to look after the citizens when they turn up to vote. We have had so many discussions at Central Council - and I am sure you have had, amongst your party - of whether we should take this position and pay the citizens a compliment and say: ‘Look, stress-free voting’. I could not find it in there. I thought we could at least have gone some distance to take the pressure off them. I know freedom of speech and all that is difficult.
There was one comment made in the consultation feedback that I thought had real merit; that being the express lane. If you wanted to turn up to vote, you could have that express lane like you have at the shopping centre - if you only have eight items, just swoosh - straight through. If you are going to vote and you know what you are going to do - you do not want to be hassled - you could go through this line where you are not allowed to be hassled. Therefore, you were given that freedom to attend your place of voting without the hassle. I reckon that has real merit. However, I cannot find it in the legislation that we are debating now; it is just the same as it was, and will be for some time.
I go now to an issue of concern of assisted voting - a vexed issue. However, at the heart of this lies the question of - as was mentioned - education and the empowering of the citizenry to be in a position to make, ultimately, their choice without outside interference. Going down the other path, we meet such ideas as paternalism and we violate - if there is assistance, as it is offered in this legislation - that very central principle that it is ‘Your choice; you choose, in private, in secret’. That is the sacred cornerstone of our democracy. The well-intentioned offers of assistance violate that and can be seen in quite another light, because I believe it is actually not providing the right message or the right context for a citizen to be empowered to ultimately make their own choice and take responsibility for their own decision. Worse than that, it leaves the opportunity open for the distortion or the manipulation of the electoral process, because it does not take too much of an imagination to see how it could be organised to find appropriate assistance of ‘let me help you vote’, rather than ‘you help me to vote’. I do not see the adequate protection in there between ‘I actually want to make my own mind up but I request assistance’, rather than the organised assistance. I cannot see adequate protection for the rorting of the system by having organised assistance. It could have been avoided by having only the electoral officer, the person in attendance, manage that assistance.
Recommendation 52, in fact, is an adequate measure recognising that, of course, there are those who have the need for assistance. They want to vote, but there is a protection against the system being rorted. In recommendation 52, I read:
- In any case, where a voter is being assisted by an electoral officer, a voter should be able to appoint a person to
assist the voter to communicate his or her voting intentions to the electoral official. We also recommend that the
Electoral Commission be permitted to appoint interpreters for voters needing assistance, whose first language is
not English …
In this recommendation I see that central is ‘the electoral officer’.
Going back to read from the report - I have observed this too, and it is not so much in the domain of the system being rorted, but is the violation of that sense of the individual making a choice. I have seen those individuals - this is in a federal election - coming up to make their choice and, because there is a capacity for assistance, and the assistance and the scrutineers are there, you get a crowd of people standing around. I have seen the person who is actually there to make that choice feel quite intimidated. That is the last thing we want. I do not see adequate protection against that, and that disappoints me.
If we wanted to work towards that end of empowering an individual to have the capacity to choose with limited assistance from the electoral officer, then we would put additional resources into the capacity of the independent commission to provide strengthened education processes so that we then put the tension in the right place: if you are unable and really do need assistance it is available to you through the electoral office but, ultimately, you are being steered down the line where you are being provided with education because you need to understand this process, rather than not creating the desire for education because ‘Do not worry we can organise assistance for you’ and there would be voters friends nominated. We then reduce the internal dynamics of a citizen to aspire to want to understand more so that they have greater autonomy as an individual. We end up working against that by having the voter’s friend enshrined in this legislation, something that I am not happy about because I believe it sends the wrong message and we do not end up on the location that we need to be where we have autonomous, self-determined, informed individuals making their own decision. It is open to being abused and to the intimidation of a citizen in their opportunity to make their decision.
I now turn to the bill. There is an issue that I uncovered last night that I would like to draw to your attention. On pages 63 and 64 of the bill, it talks about Part 8 - Redistributions. It says in section 138(4) of the act:
- Despite subsection 1(a) the first redistribution conducted after the commencement of this section must start as
soon as practicable after the commencement.
That was the only transitionary clause that I could uncover. Undoubtedly, you would be well informed on that side and, of course, you will show me that I am completely out of my depth and that I do not understand this for a moment. You will be able to show me others I am sure, Chief Minister, as you are obviously now looking at section 138(4). However, I draw attention to ‘despite subsection (1)(a)’ - if you go back and look - I cannot see subsection (1)(a). There is section 138(1), but there is no subsection 1(a). Maybe it is just a typographic error, or maybe I am not understanding it. However, it is quite clear that there is no subsection 1(a). I look forward to clarification of that when the Chief Minister makes her closing remarks.
To that end, the concerns that have been raised are well-considered and, I believe, widely-held concerns. Because this reform package contains, in majority part, recommendations that were contained in the CLP submission, we are in a position where we offer our support. However, as I have done, we raise our concerns and to seek clarification on a couple of elements that have been mentioned. I also register, once again, my very strong concern about raising the bar to 200 for the formation of a political party. That, at the last moment, is something that has made it a little more difficult to offer support because it is a distinct paradigm shift on the initial bill. It deserves greater clarification when the Chief Minister comes to her closing comments.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I only want to make a few comments about this bill. May I first of all say, Chief Minister, that I welcome the fact that you are implementing this bill. It is long overdue. It is great that we should have an independent Electoral Commission not attached to the Chief Minister’s Department, and that it should report to the parliament as do some of our other independent officers such as the Ombudsman and Auditor-General. This is a really great step and it is a very important bill.
I did make submissions to the review committee, and quite a few of my concerns were not included in the bill. I want to mention one, which is section 13 of the bill: Supply of roll extract to MLAs and registered party. I wrote to you, Chief Minister, after I saw this, asking why you have created this playing field that is not level.
At the moment, the bill says roll data can only be accessed by major political parties or elected members. Therefore, anyone who stands as a candidate who is not a member of a major political party or a current elected member does not have access to the electoral data. Of course, we all know that that data includes things that are useful to candidates. It has a range of fields, not just the name and address, but it also talks about the sex, the date of birth, the occupation. As a candidate, if I want to target a special area such as seniors or health workers or educators, I can go through the roll and do that.
As it is at the moment, access is restricted to incumbent members and major political parties. Basically, all the other candidates who are standing for elected office do not have the right to access that information. I know in your letter you talk about privacy of information, but you are overlooking the fact that major political parties have hundreds of members who are able to access that database, so I cannot see that privacy is a concern when it is accessible by so many people in the first place. We should have a level playing field for all candidates, whether they belong to a political party or not. I urge the Chief Minister to re-think that area because it smacks of inequality and discrimination. It does not provide equality to the whole system.
I noticed the member for Macdonnell has an amendment that says that an officer of the Electoral Commission should, in fact, assist with the voting. I have to support that because I have seen abuse occur many times with assisted voting. I have even seen an ACPO and a teaching assistant being given assisted voting when they did not even ask for it. In my opinion, anyone who wants assistance with voting should ask the Electoral Office staff, who should then take it upon themselves to assist. The idea of having friends or things like that – other people there to do that – leads to misuse of the system. However, if we have electoral officers who are trained to do this, or even electoral officers who have an interpreter beside them, then we would know the system would be fair, and there could be no instances of people walking in to vote and being told: ‘Come over here. This is how you should vote’. It should be proven that they are not illiterate. It is as simple as that. The electoral officer should be able to establish whether they are literate or not and, if they are, then they should not be interfered with. They should be able to go off and cast their vote without any interruption from anyone else, or any coercion.
The other area that I was concerned about is the timetable for elections and getting postal votes out to station people who have to rely on mail planes. Quite often, they miss out because of the fact that the timing of mail planes does not allow for that flexibility. The Electoral Commission should bear that in mind, even if a special run has to be done to make sure those people have their democratic right to vote. Too often, the small remote little outstations and stations themselves miss out, and it is to do with the timing of the mail plane or whoever gets the votes there.
I am tending to jump around the place here, but I also believe there still needs to be a lot of education in many places, and that the Electoral Commission should take on the education role. If it is a truly independent commission, then they should be able to develop the materials and get out, before any election, and assist to make sure the people know their rights, how to go about it, how to assess it. They could take a more proactive role in education programs.
I know electoral boundaries will probably be looked at. Some of them are rather strange at the moment. I know I have about 4700 voters in my electorate at the moment. It seems to be slowly growing so there must a disparity across …
Mr Stirling: We are losing Alice Springs people, Mr Elferink tells us.
Ms Martin: They are all leaving.
Mrs BRAHAM: Well, no they are not. They are all coming to Braitling then - that is all I can say.
Mr Stirling: The member for Macdonnell tells us they are all leaving.
Mr Elferink: Well, they are. You want to have a look at the numbers in Alice Springs, mate!
Mr Stirling: Huge numbers on her roll!
Mrs BRAHAM: Yes, it is. What I suggest is that …
Mr Elferink: Are they still there? They signed up months ago, years ago.
Mrs BRAHAM: No, this is all a case of updating regularly. However, it is always very difficult to redistribute. I would like to think that the current member has some say in what is going to be carved off if you lose some. I know …
A member: Amen!
Mrs BRAHAM: Yes, I dream, I dream! I know government usually does it to suit themselves, as we have seen in the past. However, perhaps in the case where you think you are going to lose a chunk of …
Mrs Miller: Supporters.
Mrs BRAHAM: Friendlies! … you might like to see that there is some consultation. I know that some of the bush electorates are huge. I do not really know how the members for Stuart and Macdonnell actually service their electorates. I know we have tried to talk about keeping numbers even, but there should be some consideration, when there is such a huge electorate, to having less numbers in those.
Mr Stirling: It is a Queensland National Party idea, that idea.
Mrs BRAHAM: Shush! Regarding truth in political advertising, I guess I have said this before. At the last election, the CLP put up this poster, which was not true; it was quite misleading: ‘Late news - Braham in secret vote deal with Labor’. Might I add, the Labor Party put me fourth, so it was a great deal! ‘A vote for Loraine Braham is just a vote for Labor’. That was just not true. I tried to get in touch in Barry Hamilton - who was very busy on that particular day - to get an opinion of whether it should be taken down. When I finally got hold of him, he had to get a legal opinion and, by the time it got back to me, the day was over. There should be a system whereby people are on standby to answer these queries immediately. It is only fair on all candidates - and there are a lot of us around who get confronted with these misleading posters - that, according to the act, it should not be allowed. To get an answer within a short time on whether that is valid or not under this current system, is hopeless. It is to do with us having to go through people in remote areas going to find the commissioner in Darwin who, obviously, on voting day is extremely busy.
There could be designated lawyers or somebody candidates could, in fact, ring and get an opinion from quickly. I believe that is fairer because truth in advertising is something we should all be aiming at, and there should be strong penalties for any party if they put out material that is misleading, and is designed to mislead the voter. That is so very wrong.
The only other thing I want to mention was polling booths and their location. We had an instance where a polling booth was at the Tangentyere Council office a couple of years ago. What happened there was quite wrong, because it was such a biased polling booth - I do not think it will ever be used again. We have to strive to get independent places as our polling booths so that people do not feel as though they are being coerced, harassed, or bribed before they take their vote. That was a terrible polling booth in that the barbecue was on for everyone and, when they went inside the polling booth there were so many people there to assist them. It was badly done and I am sure the Electoral Commission remember that.
What I am saying is that we should be looking for polling booths that have impartiality, where people do not associate it with one party or the other - like a council office or perhaps a school - but certainly not in a situation where it can be associated with a party at all. I suggest that, perhaps, there could be a small group who work out the locations - a small committee of people who could say: ‘These are the locations’, and somehow or other try to get something without bias there.
Otherwise, Chief Minister, I am pleased you presented these bills, and we look forward to their implementation in the next election.
Mr STIRLING (Education, Employment and Training): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this strikes as going to be a debate of some interest. I listened closely to the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Brailing. However, I will lead, picking up some of the points they made, with the exception of one I will go to later which I will leave to the Chief Minister, who has carriage of this particular legislation.
We often say that a lot of things are done differently up here in the Territory, and we are different, with our free and easy-going attitude to life, our general sense of humour and, I guess, an inclination at large to stick our nose to authority when it suites us. However, one thing very different in the Northern Territory is how we run our elections, because we have elections held over some of the remote, inhospitable, hostile, inaccessible places that you could ever hope to cover. It is no accident, on that point that, when the newly created majority rule came about in South Africa, they recruited a Territory-based electoral officer to implement the electoral system in some of the more remote parts of that nation. Why would they do that? Simply because that person would be as well experienced as any electoral officer anywhere in the world in getting the democratic will of the people expressed through an election in that sort of country.
I have contested elections in planes, Toyota Land Cruisers, Nissans, helicopter - but only on one occasion because, after that one election when I had the pleasure of chartering a helicopter for a short time, the Electoral Commission decided this is a good thing to travel in, and they have chartered it ever since. You just simply cannot get your hands on the helicopter that the Electoral Commission likes to use. It gets them into those places that you would not otherwise get into, because they simply do not have a strip at all or a serviceable strip. It does have one disadvantage: the fixed wings are faster. The time I was in the helicopter I was overtaken by the opposition in the fixed wing. So that was a decided disadvantage. You could get to places where they could not, but they could beat you to places more often. It did have drawbacks, but those helicopters are a lot of fun.
This mobile polling system that we have in the Northern Territory and across thousands of kilometres, often is to get to a handful of people to vote. I have been where there have been more officials for both sides, and more electoral officers on the ground, than there are voters to cast the vote. Nonetheless, those people have been able to express their democratic right, and it has always a bit of fun to try to be the most tightly organised crew on the ground in getting your stuff together and getting your campaign team out on to the strip, into the plane, the doors closed and the wings up before the other mob are off the ground, because it is very important who gets to the next community first. In that sense, it takes a fair bit of time - it takes a lot of dollars – but we do allow people the right to express their democratic vote. It is compulsory in the Northern Territory, so there is a responsibility to give everyone that opportunity.
There are stories that have become legends over the years of conducting elections in the Northern Territory. A bit like the Old West, I suppose, and the older people are the more bizarre are some of the stories that you hear from them. I remember one in 1994. It was a tough election and I was struggling for every vote I could get, particularly in town. There was a dear old Spanish gentleman, an old friend of mine. He had worked with Nabalco in those days for many years and he had retired. There were three standing for the election, and he came out and he sat down with us outside the booth and put his arm around me and he said: ‘I like you’. He said: ‘I like you, I gave you three votes’. He has passed away now, the dear man. I did not have the heart to tell him how much he had almost broken my heart by giving me three votes. The other bloke he liked a little less so he gave him two, and that bloke that he really did not like at all, he gave him one. ‘Thank you, Antonio and God bless you’ and off he went.
I remember a by-election in Stuart that brought the current member into this Chamber. I fronted at the airstrip to find out that someone had cancelled all of Labor’s charters the day before. We never found out just who made that phone call, but it proved a bit troublesome. We all turned up at the airport and, ‘No, you charters were all cancelled yesterday’. We never employed it ourselves, but I always tuck that one away in the back of my mind. That was not a bad ploy.
Neil Randal Bell, the outgoing member, was flying himself - always a bit of a risk I thought - in that election. Maurice Rioli and I were stuck out - I cannot remember just where we were. We had done our bit and the news came through, ‘No Neil;. Neil had gone off the radar and no one knew where he was. Of course, Faye was quite upset and Brian was starting to get a bit short back at headquarters. Belly has landed on some strip that no one could pronounce the name of, and no one had landed there for about five years.
Ms Martin: There were trees in the strip.
Mr STIRLING: There were trees coming through the strip. That same election - and I must share this one - Maurice and I were in a particular community and there was a bit of dispute with that community and the Central Land Council at that time. I guess in the manner of these things, we were a bit on the nose in that community. So I went in to scrutineer inside the booth and left Maurice with the how-to-votes outside. The community was all lined up to vote and they looked hot to trot. That was always a good sign, I thought, for us, that a community is out there and we had this clobbered. Through they came and there did not appear to be any Labor how-to-votes in their hands. All I could see was the colour of the CLP, and could only assume that the vote was going down the same way. Well, after 20 or 30 of these, I had had enough. I ducked out to find Maurice and I said: ‘What is going on out here, Mr Rioli?’ He said: ‘Mate, they will not even look at me, let alone take the how-to-vote cards’. That is what can happen in elections up here. That was a pretty tough, hard day for us out there, but we did pick up, just towards the end. I would have been broken hearted forever if we had not received votes at all.
I guess there are lots of stories. There are a couple of others that I could probably relay. However, the legislation before us tonight does enshrine that sense of the uniqueness about the Territory, and it puts it into law. It also guarantees, most importantly and fundamentally, independence in the electoral process.
Many Territorians would be surprised, I would think, to know that, until we came to power, the electoral process was run from within the Chief Minister’s Department, no less. That means that the resources of the Electoral Office and its ability to do its job was governed by an agency of government. Under the new system, the appointment of polling places and mobile polling places will not be subject to any minister.
Members need to be aware of how this changes possibilities in the conduct of elections, because any member in a bush electorate knows that where mobile polling takes place can accurately determine the number of people who vote in an election. Bush populations can be quite fluid, and move from one community or outstation to another, often depending on business being conducted by residents in different parts of the electorate. I have not been through one election in a Northern Territory or federal election in which we have turned up at a community to vote on the Monday or Tuesday and voted accordingly. You have your pretty normal round of people, and then you go to the community the next day to find that they all left early in the morning to travel to the community where you voted yesterday or where you are going to vote tomorrow, but they will be back tonight. There has not been one election in which that has not occurred. It has been Northern Land Council meetings, mining company meetings, funerals - any range of matters that take people away. It does happen, and it is something that we have to live with, and the best system in the world is not going to overcome that mobility factor, where people are there today but not tomorrow.
If there is no ability to be flexible about polling places, many voters in an electorate will miss out. It could determine an outcome. An independent commission will have a view to more flexibility to make those decisions without a minister of the government looking over its shoulder.
Electoral rolls are also changed in the bill. Until now, the rolls could be closed on the day the election was announced. In the case of the Millner by-election in 1991, this is what occurred. The member for Millner resigned at 11 am, the rolls were closed by 6 pm. That really is ludicrous when you have, on the other hand, compulsory voting. When you have compulsory voting, it is incumbent on government and the Electoral Commission to ensure that everyone in the community has an opportunity to vote or, at least, you maximise the opportunity to vote. By closing rolls within seven hours of a resignation, you wipe out the opportunity for people who have moved to a new electorate to register. That is particularly important in a community such as the Northern Territory, where we continue to have mobility and transience throughout the population.
Under this system, two whole days will be allowed before rolls can be closed. In federal elections, the Territory has usually recorded, numerically, the highest number of last-minute enrolments anywhere in the nation. This will certainly now be an opportunity available for Territory elections as well.
Electoral roll data will now - and I think the member for Braitling picking up some of these points - be limited. We have had public access to electoral roll data for many years, and this data has included such matters as a person’s age and occupation. That will no longer be the case. In an age of increasing privacy, that is a reasonable thing. Electoral enrolment information should be available to the extent that it makes it possible for MPs and political parties and Independents to have reasonable access to voters. However, to know someone’s age or occupation is not particularly important, in my view.
I do remember one election in the early 1990s during which certain roll data was gained and it identified all of the aged pensioners. Our political opponents, at that time, used that to direct mail everyone of pensionable age across the Northern Territory.
As of now, the Northern Territory will have an independent redistribution process. Again, this was touched upon by the member for Braitling. I do not think the CLP ever did sink, even in their worst redistributions, to the depths of what we saw with the National Party gerrymander in Queensland for many years. You would have to say - and I would agree with the member for Braitling - that there were some particularly odd decisions - odd, I would describe them -- made over the years that could be interpreted to have substantially benefited the government of the day in some parts of the redistribution process. I will say no more than that. Whether by accident or by design, that was the outcome. The process itself …
Mr Elferink: My redistribution was a monument to government interference. Do you think the way it worked was an advantage to me?
Mr STIRLING: Well, it ill behoves the members opposite, who had many, many years to address this, but chose not to. They chose not to, and you can only assume because it suited them so well. I hear, with a little reluctance, anything too much from the other side.
However, that system of redistribution was never put under the microscope, never properly analysed, and never made properly, fully independent, as is most appropriate, and as will now be the case. Now there will be no perception of tainting or corruption. I am not saying that was necessarily the case before but, certainly, there existed the potential for perceptions - quite strong perceptions - to be drawn about why particular communities were taken out of what was an eminently sensible electorate for them to be placed in, and placed in another electorate. Therefore, it makes absolute good sense to have this whole redistribution process in the hands of independent people.
The registration of political parties and new nomination process also makes sense. Every member of a political party in this parliament, I believe, would understand the nightmare that is the current signing up requirement for members of parliament. There may only be five members of your electorate eligible to vote and on the electoral roll who are required to sign your nomination form, but that is times 25 for the political parties contesting all seats and, for the poor old party secretary, at the end of the day, it is an absolute nightmare. They have to check all of those names and, if they are not valid, get more. The clock is against them; nominations close that night. It is an absolute nightmare to ensure that nominations are valid under that system. Look at what happened to the Liberal Party shadow Treasurer in Victoria. He failed to nominate in the last state election. It was not a good start for the Liberal Party in that state. Getting off on that sort of footing did not help them in the outcome. I have never heard of him again and I do not know that anyone else has either.
Under a central process, it does make eminent sense, and we ought not be making it all the more difficult to stand. In a local example – we have to be careful here because we have people who will remember this better than myself - remember the 1990 election. It was in Arafura that the Greens candidate failed to nominate at the last moment. After a bit of publicity and, despite the best efforts to find that person and get their nomination, they failed there; it was too late. Our Labor candidate spent the whole campaign in hospital – Stan Tipiloura – during that campaign. The Country Liberal Party candidate had a stroke during that campaign. The Greens, as I said, failed to nominate. The whole election really was run by proxy. It was just one of those bizarre outcomes, but the end result was an 8% swing to the sitting member.
The subsequent by-election for that seat following Stan’s passing, when Maurice Rioli was elected, I can remember standing between – we had just left Yathalamarra, a Ramingining homeland, and it was Melbourne Cup day. It would have been 38oC out there I reckon. Steve Hatton was there, along with a couple from the other side and a couple of my team – I think we had 7 or 8 together. We pulled up the vehicles and, of course, held the mandatory Melbourne Cup sweep and just managed to get the race across on the radio. The only thing that got up my nose was Hatton won it! I was not on the winner either - I was far too far from a TAB. However, that was a nice little interlude.
There was one gentleman who was a delightful, charming chap by the name of Alfred Djupandawuy who was from Milingimbi. But he knew that area and knew the families extremely well. We tracked around; we started out with a couple of packets of smokes each. Alfred was a Winfield smoker. At the end of the day, the opposition had left, the electoral officers were there and they asked us to sign off the slip and certify that the boxes were locked and closed. I said: ‘Alfred, any smokes?’, and he dragged this crushed old packet of Winfield out of his pocket. Thank God, there were two left - one for him and one for me. He said: ‘Oh, strong Labor country, this one. Strong Winfield too’. So we burned up every available cigarette between us.
Many other provisions of the bill the Chief Minister has covered in her second reading. It is a bill of common sense and, if members opposite step back and try to look at this truly objectively, they will see that it is in the democratic interest of the Northern Territory that this bill is passed. It will not change, I can guarantee, the very unique nature of our elections: the sparse populations, the weather patterns, the eccentricity of party officials. I will not go there, I can assure you, Madam Speaker. All that uniqueness when it comes to elections will live on.
I cannot leave the one issue though, that comes to mind. That is the voter’s friend, as it operates in the Commonwealth. My Mum is in her mid-80s now - very hard of seeing and hearing - and she, for quite some elections now, has taken my oldest sister - the oldest one in the family – what do you call the ones who are responsible for the aged one’s affairs?
A member: Carer.
Mr STIRLING: She has always taken Jennifer in with her, and has her assist in that voting process. It works very well right across the Yolngu communities and all of the indigenous communities in the Northern Territory where English is a third or fourth language, and illiteracy and innumeracy are very much a fact of life for so many people. It is a system that works. Notwithstanding some comments made about potential for harassment and things like that, on balance I would say that is the way to go. They have someone with them they trust, they know, they understand, and they get that vote in the box. That is what, at the end of the day, the bill ought be trying to do: to maximise the vote to ensure that we get the strongest turnout possible and ensuring, in that process, a health democracy. I commend the bill and I would urge all members to vote for it.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, in talking on the bill before the House today, I say at the outset that the opposition has no problem with the lion’s share of the bill. The bill makes good common sense. I am not particularly worried, as a member of parliament, regarding how this will affect me and my electorate. However, there are a couple of areas where I choose to differ from the Treasurer. I have already made members aware of the areas where I will differ, and we will debate that out, I am sure, during the committee stages of the bill.
I would not be the Electoral Commissioner for all the tea in China. It has to be one of the most wretched jobs in the world, especially once every couple of years when somebody has the audacity, I suppose, to call an election. It is a difficult job; it immediately places the Electoral Commissioner under incredible pressure. Indeed, the Electoral Commissioner in the Northern Territory - as the Treasurer has quite rightly pointed out - has to make decisions that deals with an electoral system which is quite unique in the world. I do not know how many Electoral Commissioners in Europe or the United States have to deal with issues like kangaroo tails, almost immediately when entering an election
However, I wish to place something on the record, and it is based, basically, on some of the comments made by the Chief Minister when she brought this bill into the House, dealing with the new independent system that she wants to introduce. I want to put on the record clearly and plainly that, although the Chief Minister wants to paint a picture that the political system in the Northern Territory has somehow been compromised because the Electoral Office was attached to the Department of the Chief Minister rather than being a freestanding creature, I refute that because I believe, from my observations through numerous elections now, that that office has handled itself impeccably.
Although I know that I am not allowed to acknowledge the presence or otherwise of members or strangers in the House, if Mr Barry Hamilton was here in this Chamber and listening to this debate I would congratulate him and thank him very much for the very good way that he has conducted these elections, and the level of integrity and independence that he has shown over the years. This bill does nothing more than change an administrative arrangements as far as I am concerned. I would like to place on the record that he has done a wonderful job over the years. I have been very impressed with the work that he has done. Indeed, I believe that the Chief Minister must feel the same way for simply no other reason than if she truly believed that the system was in some way compromised, she certainly would not have kept him on after becoming Chief Minister. Yet, I believe that he still has that role.
There is another issue that I wish to raise here today, and that is the very surprising amendments which have been circulated in relation to the Chief Minister’s comments regarding the amount of voters. I want to paint a picture, which will start with this quote from the Chief Minister’s second reading speech:
- The bill introduces for the first time registration of political parties in the Northern Territory jurisdiction. The bill
sets out criteria for the registration, including the requirement for a registered party to have 50 members who are
electors.
The amendment that comes into the House today tells us that the Chief Minister no longer thinks that 50 members for a political party is an appropriate number. If fact, she believes that four times that number is an appropriate number. Let me place this into context. I believe that the case in South Australia at the moment - a state with a population well over one million people - has 150 as a registered political party. Although I cannot remember the figures precisely, I know that the numbers in New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and Western Australia are measured in the hundreds - not the thousands or the tens of thousands, but the hundreds. If you proportionally apply those sorts of numbers between the states and the Territory when you consider the population differences in those areas, we would have to put up so many more members of the political party as to be astonishing in a place like Sydney or Adelaide. In fact, one has to ask oneself the question: what motivation could there possibly be for trying to create a system where the changes in the numbers are such that they become excessively erroneous on political parties?
I turn to the recommendations of the committee - Minter Ellison was given the task of doing this review. I was curious to discover that the recommendation from the committee, and I cannot quite put my finger on it just now - ah yes, here I have it. Recommendation 67 from the committee that established this piece of legislation was this:
- A political party should be eligible for registration if it has a prescribed number of members on the electoral roll
for the Northern Territory. The NT government should consult to determine the number of members that would
be prescribed. Our consultation indicates 20 may be an appropriate number to ensure that currently established
politically parties are able to meet the registration requirement.
The CLP cautiously proffered the number 100 in its recommendations to the independent review of the Northern Territory electoral system. I know that was cautious because we are fully aware on our side of the House that that is actually a particularly high number for the registration of political parties in the Northern Territory.
The Chief Minister, in her second reading speech, made it abundantly clear that she thought that 50 was acceptable. Now, through an amendment at the last moment, she wants to proffer up to us 200. The question begs: why? I have been thinking about this, and I can engage in speculation and tell members some of the reasons that the Chief Minister may want to consider this. It may arise from the New South Wales and other elections in which minor parties ran. These were minor local parties with local issues, often a single issue: the Shooters Party and the like. They were registered only in their state, unlike the Democrats and the Greens who have over-arching registration that would qualify - from my understanding of the act - those parties to have their names on the ballot paper when it is finally produced. Perhaps it is the local small, single issue party with an interest in cannabis cultivation – what is it? - the Network Against Prohibition, or there is the Socialist Alliance which I do not believe is a registered party anywhere including in the Northern Territory and any number of other groups. Perhaps there may be rumours filtering around in the community that there would be an organisation with a single issue such as planning that wanted to run a candidate.
Finding 50 people who have a problem with a planning issue in an electorate – take the electorate of Casuarina, for argument’s sake – who were prepared to get themselves together and organise themselves into a party …
Mr Vatskalis interjecting.
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Perhaps in Casuarina - and this is purely hypothetical - they wanted to form a political party. They could be the ‘Casuarina Action Party’, the CAP, listed on the ballot paper when a person walks into a polling booth.
What happened in New South Wales - which is why I mention it - is that although these minor parties did not win seats, they changed the way those seats went. They went in other directions. This Labor government is aware of that, so they want to start making it more difficult for those small parties that have the ability to distribute their preferences in all sorts of directions to appear on the ballot paper - such as the ‘Planning Party’ for the seat of Sanderson or the ‘Drug Party’ for the seat of Port Darwin, or whatever. There is this chance all of a sudden that preferences will spray everywhere.
I find curious the suddenness of these amendments. Why now, at the last moment? Surely the minister was aware of this a while ago. I believe the Chief Minister was aware of this potential a while ago, but it was not seen as such a great threat until some polling was done recently. All of a sudden, we are starting to find the Chief Minister defining a mechanism to obliterate those people who want to set themselves up as parties and get their name onto the ballot paper. Therefore, we are going to make them register with 200 members and, if they cannot, the best they can hope for is to be registered as an Independent on the ballot paper, thus undermining their ability to undermine this government.
The Treasurer just talked about the independence of the system, and how the glorious freedom and independence that this legislation is going to bring to the people of the Territory is going to enhance the democratic process. He then, in the same presentation suggested to us that 200 is going to be fine; that will protect the political system in the Northern Territory. This is a deliberate attempt to obliterate opposition by the Labor government, and that is all it is. I will not be supporting those amendments. In fact, I will be vehemently challenging them. Frankly, as far as I am concerned, although it is a hackneyed and 250-year-old observation, I agree with Voltaire: I may not agree with what people have to say, but I will fight for their right to say it.
If a drugs party wants to field a candidate and put that on their ticket, then they should be allowed to. If the Socialist Alliance wants to field candidates and have ‘Socialist Alliance’ written under their candidate’s name on the ballot paper, then they should be allowed to. I do not care if they can only muster up five members. Although 100 was the decision of the CLP in its submission, even if they could muster up a few, I would be quite happy to see that process continue, because, if a person wants to place a political party’s name under their name on a ballot paper, they should be allowed to.
If people have a problem, such as those minor parties such as the Shooters Party or whatever, then they should have ‘Shooters Party’ written under their name. Surely, in the interests of independence as far as the Treasurer is concerned, this is a fundamentally important issue regarding the future democracy in the Northern Territory. It sticks in my throat to even consider the number 200. It is way too high way, way over the top, out of the ball park and deliberately designed to protect the interests of the ruling government.
This is exactly the sort of accusation they used to level at the CLP. We heard the Treasurer do it again: ‘Oh do not trust that redistribution process, that always had hairs on it’. That was never independent. ‘Oh do not trust this process, it is a bit shonky that the whole thing was attached to the Department of the Chief Minister. That is why we are introducing this new independent system’. Yet, they come in here and say: ‘You need to have 200 registered members of your political party before you can stand’. It is a deliberate attempt to manipulate the legislation to protect Labor’s position in the northern suburbs - that is all that is. I certainly will not be supporting that amendment.
I also wish to turn to other aspects of the bill. I would like some clarification - perhaps during the committee stages or in the summation by the Chief Minister - in relation to the four extra days that mobiles will have the ability to vote. I am somewhat curious as to whether that is going to be an actual expectation, that we are going to have 10-day voting cycles in the bush. It has been my experience in the bush that, universally I might add, the voting happens in a very specific fashion. If you have a booth that is open for six hours, perhaps like the Papunya booth, the majority of the population votes in the first hour, hour-and-a-half, you have one or two voters in the next couple of hours, and then after that, nothing happens at all, except a few of the non-Aboriginal people living in those communities tend to wait until the rush is over and they will slip in later on. However, there is heaps of time to do a place like Papunya in three hours.
I noticed during the last federal election, there was a two-week bush polling session and, in too many instances, we were sitting around remote places where there were one or two voters, for two or three hours at a time - simply unproductive and wasteful in effort. I do not think it deprived, nor did it enhance, anybody’s ability to vote in terms of the hours spent in these communities. This also has the effect of making it difficult for minor parties, in the sense that it is a major logistical exercise.
The Treasurer talked about helicopters and fixed wing aircrafts, Toyotas and boats, spaceships and landing barges and God knows what else. I have been there and done that; we all know the system. Minor parties do not get those options. People with a small amount of funds are flat out whacking out a few posters, let alone organising helicopter flights, barge landings, Toyotas, or covering two mobile booths in an electorate like Macdonnell for days on end. It is undeniable that those are the problems of voting in the Northern Territory. However, to then extend that logistical exercise from six to 10 days will have a detrimental effect on the ability of minor parties to go out there.
I know that the Electoral Commission does its best. When you go out, Electoral Commission officers, if memory serves me, leave how-to-vote cards for the Democrats and the Greens and whoever else, under a brick near the polling booth. They make every effort to keep the system as fair as it possibly can be. However, at the end of the day - especially an independent standing in the federal electorate of Lingiari – it is a major exercise. I believe there was a fellow by the name of Wayne Wright who stood the last time in the federal seat of Lingiari, who was flat out getting his deposit back for no other reason than that he could not cover the booths. He was getting around in a broken-down old ute, trying his hardest to do his bit. Everybody knew he was going to get whacked, but it makes it a more difficult thing to extend it over that time.
What I hoped the Chief Minister would advise is that, although the ability to extend the process for four days is there, it is a discretionary ability rather than an absolute one; and that the normal process that we are used to in the Northern Territory - which have served the bush electorates very well - will continue to operate with the added ability to put on extra booths in places, from time to time as and when required.
On the issue of assisted votes, I know the member for Braitling discussed the issue briefly. As members will be fully aware, I have an amendment before the House. I now signal that that amendment is not cast in stone. The reason I raised this was not to try and be cute, difficult or clever. It has become a concern to me that, especially in federal elections upon which this model is based, the process of the assisted vote has been the subject of some criticism. Indeed, I criticise it because it is an abused system.
The classic example - and I will never forget this – is when I was at the Papunya booth and a young, strapping, healthy woman walked into the booth and the commissioner’s representative behind the booth said: ‘What is your name?’. She told him her name, and he had trouble finding it on the list. He was running down the list. She was standing a good four feet away, the roll which he was looking up was actually upside down to her, and she leaned over and said: ‘That is my name there’. If anybody has ever seen the typeface on those electoral roles, that font size is 6 or 8. At four feet, she could read her name quite distinctly amongst a list of other names, and she was then given an assisted vote. I said to the fellow there at the time: ‘Why was she given an assisted vote?’ ‘Well, she asked for one’. ‘On what grounds?’ ‘Well, she does not really need any - but her literacy, I think’. By this stage he could see where I was going with it and he seemed a little more nervous.
You can understand the process becomes frustrating, and it becomes especially frustrating when it is done in another language. I know that that is a necessity of life from time to time. However, when the same person regularly assists 20, 30, 40, or 50 voters, one becomes a little concerned - especially in a small electorate like the Northern Territory. You know a lot of these folk and that they may not be politically one way or the other, and you are starting to think to yourself: ‘What exactly is the advice they are getting?’
At the Tangentyere booth - one that I remember particularly well - I could not write out my objections and hand them to the presiding officer quick enough, regarding how those votes were being dealt with. I would write one out, tear one off; write one out, tear one off. That was a process that I was very concerned about.
In my amendment, I make the suggestion that the officer in the booth is the only person who can assist with the vote. I draw members’ attention to the current assisted vote under the legislation, section 79(1) which says that, if a voter has satisfied the presiding officer of a polling place that the voter is so incapacitated that he or she is ‘unable to vote without assistance or is illiterate, the presiding officer shall, or direct an officer to …’ Then it goes into it.
I am not so wedded to my amendment as to say this absolutely is the cut-off point. However, there must be - and this is something I hope the government would indicate during the committee stages of this bill - some balance between the position outlined in the bill as it exists. Not because it is going to favour me or any other person, but because it is going to avoid complaints and whinges and undermining the integrity of the system which, in the assisted vote under the existing legislation, has worked very well.
I hope during the committee stages the government will indicate that they are prepared to be flexible and, even if they do not like the amendments I am bringing in, are prepared to revisit this particular issue, because I do not believe that the report that touches on this issue understands the mechanics and the very day-to-day problems which occur in these booths. It is something that has to be seen to get a flavour of the problems that I am outlining. Consequently, I hope that the government could indicate that they are prepared to find another option, and even bring back into this House at some point in the future an amendment which captures these concerns that I know the member for Braitling and other members in this House share. With this particular amendment, if those assisted votes are allowed to go unchecked, any member of this House or any candidate could take advantage. This system needs to be above approach, as the Treasurer has so eloquently put in his presentation.
I also wish to touch on something else that the Leader of the Opposition touched on; the transitional arrangement. I draw members’ attention to page 31 of the recommendations by the review committee into this bill and I quote from that:
This is intended to allow time for the new provisions to be implemented and for supporting procedures to be put
in place before they will need to be used in practice at the next general election.
Therefore, this will allow time for the process of registration of political parties to take place and those sorts of things. There is clearly, in the minds of the people who authored these recommendations, that this piece of legislation will be in operation at the next general election - all aspects of it. What concerns me a little - and I am sure that the Chief Minister will allay my fears on this particular issue - is that, in the next general election, all of the ducks that are needed to lined up in this pieces of legislation have been lined up.
The Chief Minister will need to get a commissioner organised; ratify the commissioner’s position; this bill will have to be assented to so that it becomes law, and that the redistribution process is properly followed as outlined in the bill; and that the three-year time limit will apply at the next general election and apply to this particular term that we are in now. All that the Chief Minister really has to tell me is that the bill will go from this place to the Administrator for assent within the normal period. That normal period, without interference, I think in the Northern Territory is - immediately or 28 days? I have to think about that now. However, within the normal period in the Northern Territory so that we know that the bill that this House is passing today is the act that we are going to be operating under for the next Territory election.
On my reading of the act, the timing means that the ducks have to be lined up fairly quickly if that three-year window is going to be achieved. Because, once the three years of this term has been achieved, the Chief Minister will want the latitude she needs to decide within that last year when she wants to go to the polls. That, I think, makes the window November of this year. I will take guidance as to whether it is from the time of the last election or the first sittings of the House. However, if it is the time from the first sittings of the House then I think November is it. I will have to check …
Ms Martin: October.
Mr ELFERINK: October. Okay, October is it. In which case, the window of opportunity will be closing quite tightly in terms of getting all of the requirements of the act lined up. Assent has to happen sooner rather than later.
Those are the issues that I wish to touch on today. Clearly, the issue of assisted vote is something that should be visited. I look forward to a bipartisan approach on revisiting the issues of assisted voting. I indicate to the Chief Minister now that I will be seeking some assurance that she is prepared to have some latitude on it, either during the committee stage or in her summation.
Madam Speaker, I cannot bring myself to support the suggestion that a political party in the Northern Territory has to drum up 200 members to become a registered party to have its name on the ballot paper. It is undemocratic and drives against the very spirit of what the Treasurer had to say, what the final report from the committee had to say, and is definitely against the spirit of the rest of the bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the first line in my speech did say: ‘The government is to be congratulated on this major legislation’. However, yesterday I received some amendments. So I will start it again.
The government is to be congratulated on this major legislation, but – and I will talk about the ‘but’ later, so I will continue where I was going to head. The Territory is the last jurisdiction in Australia, apart from Tasmania, to have an independent Electoral Commission. As far back as 1991, in debate noting a Public Accounts Committee report on the 1990 election costs, the then Labor member for Wanguri, John Bailey, made the following comments:
- Another issue raised in the committee was the matter of an independent electoral commission. It was suggested, in one
of the submissions … that that may have financial implications … One of the findings of the Fitzgerald Inquiry related
to the independence of the electoral commission. We believe this government should examine this matter. The
Fitzgerald report stressed the need for the electoral process to be seen to be totally independent of the role of
government. In the Northern Territory, there are some problems with the Chief Electoral Officer being a member
of the Chief Minister’s Department, in that there can be perceived to be a possible conflict of interest even in
respect of management roles and day-to-day administration. I hope the government will pick up that issue.
The CLP government did not pick up the issue so, in April 1997, the Leader of the Opposition, Maggie Hickey, presented a bill to create an independent Electoral Commission. She introduced the bill again after the 1997 election, which was then defeated. It proved that Labor was serious about this issue, and that has led us to where we are today.
In my submission to the independent review of the Territory’s electoral system, I started with this:
- The most important aspect of this process should be the establishment of a truly independent Electoral Commission,
which is responsible to parliament and operates at arm’s length from the government of the day. The right to vote is
one of the basic tenets of democracy and, because Australians have to vote, they are entitled to expect that elections
will be free and fair.
It is important the commission’s independence from government is established and maintained by the new
Electoral Act so that Northern Territory citizens can have full confidence that the commission operates
in a non-partisan environment.
I am also pleased to see the Electoral Commissioner will not be subject to the direction or the control of the Chief Minister except in the matter of special reports, and the commissioner will report annually to parliament through the Speaker.
The longer election timetable is welcome. It is not as long as I would have liked, but it gives us a few extra days to get around the electorate if the election is called unexpectedly. I pick up some of the issues about which the member for Macdonnell spoke, such as the difficulty of being an Independent. I stood as an Independent in Goyder some years ago and got in my little truck and went way out to Cannon Hill near Jabiru and tried to put up my posters, then went somewhere else. When you get to mobile polling, you are not in the running if you are an Independent, because you cannot be in six places at one time. One of the problems that also occurred for the Independent was that there simply was not enough lead time before the mobile polling started, which started earlier than the standard polling. The bill has gone some way towards that, but I would have liked to have seen it further.
I particularly welcome the fact that there will now be a minium of two days for potential voters to get on the rolls, whereas in the past, people sometimes only had an hour or two between when the election was called, writs issued and the rolls closed. This was quite unfair in the Territory, where we have a highly mobile population. Many have to change their enrolments from interstate, and a lot of young voters need to get on the rolls for the first time.
I am also a great supporter of the full preferential voting system and am glad to see it retained. I know it was raised the other night in debate. I believe we need an education program to highlight why preferential voting is such a great system. A member spoke the other night about how we have optional preferential in Queensland, but a preferential vote gives us, as citizens, the maximum power as a citizen to vote. No matter whether our favourite person is beaten, we still have another chance. Our vote is very important; it is not just one vote and gone. You have a say in the final outcome of the candidate.
I sometimes say to people, if you do not like preferential voting, perhaps try the European system, where you have seven candidates. You go on a Tuesday, and you all have one vote. If three of them get enough percentages to go on to the next one, next Tuesday all the people go out and have another vote until someone gets up to the 50%. I am sure Australians would love to go voting three weeks in a row. At least with preferential you can do it once and be done with it.
Another important new measure in ensuring the integrity and independence of our electoral system is the fact that the report of the augmented Redistribution Committee is final and cannot be changed by Legislative Assembly. I welcome the changes to the act by the Redistribution Committee. Certainly, it has been an area where, even I have noticed at times and wondered about the boundaries. I remember one political party actually, when it put a submission in, tried to move the boundary so that the sitting member was outside the electorate. I thought that was a bit rough. There are cases, such as in my own electorate, where it seems strange that the top part of my electorate has all roads that go through my electorate in another electorate. When I put those, what I call common sense, ideas to the previous Electoral Commission, nothing changed. Hopefully, this new Electoral Commission has lots of common sense.
Having highlighted what I regard as many strengths in the bill, I suppose you will not be surprised to know that I have some concerns, and that is why I said ‘but’. I will go through some of those concerns. The first one, naturally, is four-year fixed terms. I would like to read what the review said about four-year fixed terms:
- Fixed election dates achieve two objectives. They provide for certainty for election planning, so that all political
players are aware of the election date and can make arrangements accordingly. In the Northern Territory context,
fixed term elections could be used to ensure that elections are always held in the dry season, or in a way that takes
ceremony time into account for example. Fixed election dates in the Northern Territory will also assist with
setting and advertising mobile polling schedules and ensuring that mobile polling was provided at times and
places that suited voters.
Fixed election dates also take the timing of an election out of the hands of the government of the day, removing
the opportunity for the perception that a government may take political advantage by calling an election at a time
it judges to be advantageous to it.
It finishes off:
- Widespread support for fixed term elections was indicated during the public consultation process ...
What do we have?. We do not have that. What we have is really a reaffirmation of what already exists, except now we put it into legislation. I am not sure when the last election was held before three years, but my understanding is most elections have been held between the third and the fourth year. That is exactly what we have in the legislation. I find that extremely disappointing. I remind the Chief Minister that she made a statement in this House on Wednesday, 11 October 2000:
- Finally, fixed four-year parliamentary terms. It is good enough for the American presidency. It is good enough
for New South Wales. It is good enough for the ACT. It would stop this ridiculous argy-bargy. We need to have
that, and we need to clean up government.
Time moves on, but we did not get it, which is very sad. I believe that we should have had it. We have enough states in Australia now which have fixed terms. Local Government, especially municipalities, have fixed terms. It makes more certainty and takes the politics out of setting the date. People would appreciate that. Anyway, I agree with what the reviewer said and, sadly, that is one part of the changes that I do not agree with.
Regarding the display of voting material, I remember pictures in the NT News of masses of polling material at the Wanguri by-election when the honourable member was first elected. It looked like something out of – I don’t know –the circus.
Ms Martin: Great, wasn’t it?
Mr WOOD: It might be great for those who are in political parties because you have to remember they live and die politics; they just love it. However, for a lot of ordinary human beings outside of this place, they cannot stand it. I believe it is overdone by a mile. Surely, there could have been some limitations even on the number of posters. You get the entire school fence covered in ‘CLP this way’ and ‘ALP that way’. You all have to …
Ms Lawrie: What about your chook posters?
Mr WOOD: I only had one truck and one chook. We won the election, so it shows you the whole thing is a waste of time. You have people getting up at 2 am and fighting over who has the piece of fence and who has the best spot in the place. I reckon people say: ‘Get a life; go to bed. Just put up one sign at the front’. Hand out your how-to-vote cards; I do not have a problem with that. I probably would have even supported the express lane, but we are friendly out in the rural area, we do not need an express lane. They are well mannered and, if they do not want a how-to-vote card, they do not take one.
I believe there was an area there where people get annoyed, and especially during by-elections. We keep thinking general elections. In general elections, there are more people spread around so there is not as much bumph – if I can I call it that - around the electoral booths. However, when it comes to by-elections, I will always remember the picture of Wanguri Primary School – that would scare anyone off. We missed an opportunity there; many people would like a lessening of that. Perhaps it is actually part of the government’s economic package – they are trying to stimulate small business, especially in the sign industry. If that is the case, then I might say that is okay. In reality, I reckon it is just an overkill.
I support the amendments by the member for Macdonnell. You might say: ‘Surprise, surprise!’ Well, it is not a surprise. In my submission to the Electoral Commission I said exactly the same: there is too much room for manipulation of that system. It should be an electoral officer. Maybe, Chief Minister, if the government will not agree with that, then there needs to be some way that people who are authorised to assist voters and witness voters, should be required by legislation to sign secrecy agreements. If you are going to allow it, then tighten it right up. These people know that they are governed under a section of the act which says that, if they expose how those people have voted, then there are some severe penalties. It should be an officer. If we need to employ people in those areas with the dialects to help people who do not understand, so be it, but then they come under the Electoral Act. The way it is at the moment is too loose. We talked about fair elections, and I have spoken about that when we have been talking about local government. It has to be fair, it has to be seen to be fair, and you have to reduce all the opportunities for it not to be fair.
Truth in advertising – like the Speaker, the member for Braitling, I had nearly forgotten about those things. I certainly remember great mobs of plastic campaigning about what I have said on ABC radio. The problem was, what they said I said was right, but they had only taken the first start of the sentence and left the next bit out, conveniently. Truth in advertising? No way! What could I do? Nothing! I had to live with it. However, we were able to counteract it. At least we were able to tell people what we really said. I suppose, on the other hand, people who know you know that you have not said it. I suppose you have to put a bit of faith in their common sense, and they knew that it was just a straight-out campaign to try and win the vote for the other team. It did not work. I do have problems at times with the way things are advertised.
I just need to clarify one other area which was mentioned by the member for Macdonnell: when does the date start for the next election? Is it counted from when the Legislative Assembly starts sitting or when the election is declared? What is the story there? I give you just an example ...
Ms Martin: When the Assembly sits.
Mr WOOD: Yes. It was suggested in the 1997 election that, if Shane Stone did not hold sittings he could extend his government term by weeks, months or even years. It appears that this would still be possible under the new act because the election timing is not based on the date of the election but on the date of the first sittings. I would like clarification if that is still the case otherwise, if we do not have any sitting we could have a 20-year term, in theory. It does need to be looked at …
Mr Stirling: No thanks, not for me.
Mr WOOD: Heaven help us!
The final issue, naturally, is the amendments; that is where the bucks comes. I am really disappointed in these amendments. I read the second reading speech. I have it marked here in highlighting. The Chief Minister said this bill sets out criteria for registration including the requirement for registered party to have 50 members who are electors. Then, a day ago, without any consultation in the community, I believe the Labor Party has brought in an amendment which is a deliberately designed to kill off small political parties. There is no way, if we had the ‘Sun Ripe and Warm Tomato Party’ as in ACT, it would find 200 votes in the Northern Territory. It just would not happen. There is no way the Progress Party which used to exist in the Northern Territory would find 200 members. There is no way a party made up of, I think, ex-Labor people - the Territory Alliance Party that stood in the last election - is going to find 200 people. However, they have every right to stand as a party for the next election. I do not care what they stand for. Yet, we now have said you have to have 200 members. You need a 100 in Tasmania where it has – what? - about two-and-a-half times our population. As the member for Macdonnell said, 150 in South Australia - heaps more. The ACT, I believe, is a 100 and that has about two-and-a-half times our population. What are we trying to do? Why has it has been introduced at the last minute? One can only believe that this has been brought in to kill off political opposition. I just think this is a crying shame. This is anti-democratic.
I looked at it today, and I thought that perhaps there is an error. Perhaps they actually mean 20 because that is what the review said - 20. Now we had the review, we have now up to 10 times more than the review asked. I just cannot imagine many small parties having 200 people. I would love to know what the number of members of the Labor Party and the CLP is. How hard is it to go and get 200, in a bad year when you are not in government? What it is like getting 200 members? I would love to hear the explanation because, as I said at the beginning, I was very pleased to see this bill. Generally speaking, I have no problem. However, if I am to support this bill, and supporting this bill means that I will sign the death warrant for any small party that wants to start in the Northern Territory, I will not support the bill in protest. This is putting politics ahead of principle.
I do not know whether the member for Macdonnell has it right and that this has something to do with the northern suburbs; it does not worry me in the slightest. It could be; conspiracy theories are always great for the front page of a newspaper. However, I wonder how many people out there in the community knew about these amendments. How much of this was put to the public to discuss? None, as far as I know. They would not have known about it until yesterday or this morning.
Madam Speaker, I cannot support the bill even though I want to. I support all these moves to have an independent Electoral Commissioner, and all the other changes, generally speaking, I believe are great. I congratulate this government for producing the bill, but they have killed the golden goose. They have manipulated the system which will make this whole bill against the fundamental reason for which they introduced it. They introduced it to loosen up, you might say, the perceptions that the previous government had control over what happened in the Northern Territory politically. They have turned around and made it so hard, or impossible, for people to participate now as a party; unless you want to be an Independent, and I am not saying - they are a good mob, those Independents. I cannot support it and I will not support it, in protest about this anti-democratic amendment.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, I will pick up from where the member for Nelson finished, particularly on this latest, very deceitful move to bring into this House this 11th hour amendment, going against all standards nationally and what has been reported by the authors of the independent review with regards to the number of members you need to form a party. Indeed, it goes against the Chief Minister’s own second reading speech. It also goes against what was first written into the bill, that should stay as it is.
You have heard all the reasons why 200 is an unsustainable figure for the Northern Territory in regard to minor parties. I agree with everyone else, but would like to add another element to what has been discussed here regarding the number of members you must have to form a party if this goes through. That is that, in the current Electoral Act, any person can have access to the electoral roll. Any person can go and view it. For a fee, you can actually purchase the electoral roll.
My reading of the bill - and I stand to be corrected - is that, under this bill anyone can go along and have a look at the roll without a fee, the same as in the current act, but the only people who can have access to take that roll away is either a sitting member or a registered party. There is nothing in there about the individual; ordinary Territorians that I can see…
Ms Carter: Or Independents.
Mr BALDWIN: Absolutely! You will find it in the current act. There is nothing in this new act that says that an individual, who might want to be a candidate and want the information for a seat for which they propose to stand. On my reading of it - and I stand to be corrected, as I said - is that they will not be able to purchase a roll for any situation and it is restricted to only sitting MLAs and registered parties. If we are saying that registered parties now have to contain 200 or more members, then the minor groups, independents, individuals, now have one less tool that they had access to before; and that is to be able to purchase a roll, take it around with them and go and do what it is they want to do in the electorate, like walk the streets and know who is where. We are talking the restricted roll here, which has less information than the more expanded version. It is certainly a helpful tool as all of us in this House know, having access to roll information. Therefore, the individual, it would seem to me, would have to go in and take copious notes without taking a roll away with them. What is the current quota? 3400 voters. They would want to have a good writing hand and a few pens with them, I would suggest, if they want to update themselves and get the information they need. Individuals, whether they are candidates or not, I believe are entitled to purchase this very important set of information, whether it is Territory or electorate specific.
I would like the Chief Minister to explain that. It is very deceitful, as I said, to bring in at the 11th hour this business of 200, when 200 is the figure that New South Wales has. What is the population there? Millions and millions of people. Here we are asking the little old Northern Territory of 200 000 people to now find 200 enlisted members before they can be registered and have their democratic rights available to them, whereas before, you did not even have to have a register of parties and members. It is very deceitful to bring this in here now that we have done all the community consultation and everybody has had their say. The Chief Minister has given an undertaking in her second-reading speech and then, for purposes as has been outlined, particularly by my colleagues, they found that it would be necessary for them to upgrade that by hundreds of people - in fact, by 150 people. It suits their purposes, and I believe for a government that has been talking about fair and open government – well, this just ain’t it.
I will move on to what my colleague, the member for Macdonnell, has introduced in the way of an amendment for the voters’ friends. Obviously, I agree with him on this amendment, and I note that the member for Nelson also agrees. I reiterate what the member for Macdonnell said regarding ‘if you do not like this amendment, at least put in what is currently in the act’, which is very well defined in the act. That states that if a voter satisfies the presiding officer that the voter is so physically incapacitated that he or she is unable to vote without assistance, or is illiterate, the presiding officer shall direct an officer etc, and if the presiding officer of a polling place is satisfied that the physical incapacity or illiteracy of a voter is such as it will not enable a voter to communicate, and so on. So it is very well defined in the current act.
We go to the report. The report had a 50/50 each way bet. Recommendation 51 states:
- Assistance to voters should be able to be provided by EITHER:
Therefore, there was no determination there.
The current act we have, which was written at the behest of the government is, in my view, poorly written and certainly very broad in determining if a voter needs assistance. All it says is a voter who is unable to vote may be assisted in voting if the voter would otherwise be unable to vote. Unable to vote does not mean anything. It could mean all sorts of things. If you compare what is written here as a very bland and broad statement - unable to vote - to other jurisdictions around Australia, you will find that we are out of step. In fact, just about all other states in Australia are in step with our current act that prescribes ...
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: It says, in fact, in Western Australia, under its heading ‘Assistance to voters’, that assistance can only be given by the presiding officer, assistant presiding officer, or poll clerk, with scrutineers and, if there are no scrutineers, in the presence of other elected officers, or another person.
In New South Wales, it says that if an elector satisfies a returning officer that their eyesight is so impaired or that he or she is so physically incapacitated that they are incapable to vote without assistance, then they can appoint a person to assist. If an officer is satisfied that the elector is so illiterate that they are unable to vote, then in the presence of scrutineers, a poll clerk will assist. It is very specific when it comes to what the criteria is for a voter to gain assistance - in some cases by a friend, and in other cases, only by polling officials.
In South Australia, a voter may be accompanied by assistants in certain cases. If the voter satisfies the officer that he or she is unable to vote without assistance, they can have assistance. The officer may express disapproval of a person chosen to assist and, in the event, some other person acceptable to an officer must be chosen. A fair bit of scrutiny there.
In Tasmania, for assistance to certain voters, an elector is to satisfy the officer that: (a) his sight is so impaired; (b) he is so physically incapacitated; or (c) he is illiterate. Then the officer can appoint an assistant.
For us now, after all of these years, where our act regarding assistance to voters has worked so well - and like the member for Nhulunbuy and other members in this House, I have been on many campaigns, both urban, but mainly rural and bush campaigns. I can say, without a doubt, that our Electoral Act as it currently stands, when it comes to assistance to voters, works extremely well. Why would you change it? That is the question I want answered. Why would you change it from the one that we have and the one that has served us so well? Why would you broaden it out? Why would you not provide a specific set of circumstances under which assistance can be given and, if it is to be given, then it is given …
Mr Stirling: In circumstances where you cannot give assistance, which is what you want.
Mr BALDWIN: No, it is not.
Mr Stirling: Yes, it is.
Mr BALDWIN: What we are saying is that the electoral officer …
Mr Stirling: You are not even standing up for your own voters.
Mr BALDWIN: The electoral officer - to pick up on the rude member for Nhulunbuy - is the one who provides the assistance. That is how it has been working in this Territory for such a long time. If the electoral officer …
Mr Stirling: Not every Commonwealth election, it did not.
Mr BALDWIN: So what? You want to be like the Commonwealth?
Mr Stirling: Well, you want us to be like Tasmania.
Mr BALDWIN: You want to be like the Commonwealth? The member for Nhulunbuy should move to Canberra if he wants to be like the Commonwealth …
Mr Stirling: How much further south do you want to get?
Mr BALDWIN: … because our Electoral Act has worked well and he can testify to that, because he has been on many campaigns too, and I have been there with him. I have not heard one complaint from the member from Nhulunbuy, either on the campaign trail or in this House, about how the assisted vote works under the current act, with our electoral officers. It works very well and the electoral officers have done an extremely good job over many years, over thousands and thousands of mobile polling booths.
I have not heard one serious complaint yet, in they waltz and broaden it out to the undefined criteria that says: ‘A voter who is unable to vote’. Well, tell me what ‘unable’ means? What does it mean? That is what I want clarified. It is so broad that you cannot describe every possibility. Because this is poor legislation, you have to put in this act the criteria under which a voter can be assisted or, if you are not prepared to do that, then the assistance must be contained to the very good officers of the Electoral Commission, indeed the new commission, so that there is no unfair bias at all.
Mr Stirling: What are you frightened of?
Mr BALDWIN: I assure the member for Nhulunbuy that if this bill goes through like this …
Mr Stirling: What are you frightened of? Voters expressing their real vote?
Mr BALDWIN: If this bill … Madam Speaker, if I can override the rude member for Nhulunbuy, if he would be quiet for a minute …
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, enough!
Mr BALDWIN: If this act goes through, and particularly this provision within the act, I will guarantee that one of the biggest complaint areas at the next elections, and particularly with mobile polling booths, will be clause 87, Assistance to certain voters, because it is not defined as to who can get the assistance. Certainly, it is defined as to who can give the assistance, but not for what reasons. If you are not going to define the reasons so that it can be contested, debated and discussed with the electoral officer present, then you are going to get very serious complaints in this area.
It happens with the federal election. The member for Nhulunbuy loves the federal act – it happens all the time. Members of his party, his parliamentary wing, and his staff who are directly involved in elections, particularly in bush electorates, would know very well that that is an area that comes in for a lot of complaint. This is going down the same road and there is no need for it because the current provisions under the current act have served the Territory very well. It is a sham to come in here and say we need to broaden it out.
If it is to broaden it out for any particular people like Aboriginal people, you know, members for Nhulunbuy and Arnhem, that Aboriginal people know better than most Territorians, how to vote. They know the systems of voting. They vote more times than most urban Territorians in land council elections, ATSIC elections, their own local council elections, and so on. Why you would want to go down this road, one can only guess, but it is an area that is going to cause serious problems in the future. I would ask you to either put in the amendment that we are suggesting or, if that is not good enough - you do not want to take our amendment – that is fine; put in the provisions of section 79 of the current act that has served us so well.
You can ask your Chief Electoral Officer if it worked well and I am sure that person will verify exactly what I am saying. To go outside of that and outside the normal practice that most other states have employed in their act, is just poor legislation and opening yourself up to much dispute in the future. I am sure we will have it.
I am going to be very interested to hear the detailed explanation of the Chief Minister with regard to that late, devious amendment of 200 members required for a registered party. That is the one - and I thank the member for Nelson if I heard him correctly - that the people out there, ordinary Territorians, are going to be most interest in. When the Chief Minister goes out and says: ‘We have introduced this new Electoral Act and what great people we are’, the one piece they are going to be most concerned about is the rights they have had taken away from them in being able to form their own small groups. As we know in other states, they are small – they might be the ‘Anti-Foreshore Development Party’ – and why shouldn’t they have a say? What have you got to worry about from those sorts of people? A lot of them are on one issue, such as ‘Anti-Tail Docking Party’. Why shouldn’t they be able to form themselves into a political party and lobby the same as any major party?
Ms Martin: They can.
Mr BALDWIN: Well they cannot unless they have 200 members.
Mr BALDWIN: How far would you have to go back to find when the Labor Party had 200 members? What, five years at the most? They would have been out of existence with 200 fully paid financial members. Probably you would have to go back no more than five years ago, and they would have been out of existence as a major registered party, although this provision allows them because they are registered federally …
Mr Stirling: Oh, you have decided to pick that one up?
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, but we are talking about local groups, looking after local Territorians. Remember? Looking after local Territorians and local groups, member for Nhulunbuy. There is probably a group in Nhulunbuy that would like to register a party and fight the next campaign, maybe against yourself. Why should they not be able to?
Ms Martin: They don’t register now.
Mr BALDWIN: Well, why should they have to find 200 members in Nhulunbuy before they can?
Ms Martin: They do not have to. They do not have to register.
Mr BALDWIN: They do not have to register?
Ms Martin: They can do what they like.
Mr BALDWIN: Will they be a registered party?
Ms Martin: They will not appear on the ballot paper …
Mr BALDWIN: Will they have access to the rolls? No.
Ms Martin: No.
Mr BALDWIN: No, not according to your new act, they will not. This is very restrictive legislation Madam Speaker - very restrictive legislation - and I am looking forward to the very detailed answer that the Chief Minister will give, particularly in terms of these 11th hour devious amendments.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I could graze over a number of matters and, to be honest, I was not anticipating speaking in this debate. I have read the report; I have looked through the bill.
Having heard some of the arguments put tonight, I would like to use this opportunity to formally register my protest in relation to clause 87. It is a disgrace. I will not go through and repeat everything my colleague, the member for Daly, has said. I thought he made some pretty compelling and persuasive arguments. Do I anticipate or have any expectation that the Chief Minister and her colleagues will listen with an open mind? No. Do I have a real expectation that they might reconsider this clause? No. However, it is important that, as one of 25 members of this Assembly, I register my protest in the strongest possible terms with respect to clause 87.
The member for Daly outlined the existing provision with respect to assistance to voters and I do not think, with respect, a case been made as to why the new clause is so restrictive. It is poorly drafted, it is extremely vague and, quite rightly, the member for Daly has touched upon what he expects - and I share his views - that after the next election, it will be a bun fight about this issue of assisted voters.
Having said that, I also note that there is a lack of criteria contained in this bill as to who is a voter requiring assistance. I am concerned about anyone, in essence, being able to help that voter. I am concerned about it, essentially, because it means you can have one person helping many assisted voters. We know that what that could mean is that the person assisting actually exercises or casts two votes. Politicians say with a grin on their face: ‘Vote early and vote often’. However, we do not actually reasonably expect anyone to be able to cast a vote more than once. My view is that this clause affords the opportunity to those assisting voters requiring assistance to cast their votes twice.
In the absence of criteria, the system is open to great abuse, and we all know why. My view is that a representative from the Electoral Commission should be the relevant person to assist voters requiring assistance. I do not say that just because it is convenient; I say it because the community has a right to have confidence in the democratic system. It has a right to expect that the system works well, that it is not open to corruption, influence, arm twisting, or whatever. Clause 87 leaves the door wide open. The public will not be able to have any confidence in this system proposed by the Labor government. It is important that the community sees - they all go in there to vote - the system working well. When they see, as I fear they will, one person assisting, say 20 or 50 people, then they will have every right to say that this is not quite right, there is something wrong.
It will be to Labor’s eternal shame that they brought in this provision. We all know why you are doing it. It is good to be opportunistic in politics, but really, this is just beyond the pail. I do not know how you can sleep at night coming up with garbage like this. You will need to hold your head high at the next election, and I do not think you will be able to do it with the inclusion of this provision.
I could ask questions in the committee, but I would be grateful if, in her response, the Chief Minister would make some comment on the criticism that not only I make, but I believe others will make, that those assisting assisted voters will, in essence, be able to cast more than one vote. That goes against everything our Western democracy stands for. The CLP has been accused of many things in this parliament, but it never entertained utter garbage like this. Therefore, in her response, if the Chief Minister could attempt to convince me that those people assisting will not be able to exercise more than one vote, I would be grateful. However, as I said at the outset, I register my strong protest with respect to this provision.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, when the Opposition Leader spoke and said we had opposition support for this bill, I am now questioning whether there is, considering some of the statements we have heard. What disturbs me about some of the debate we have heard, is that it is very sadly misinformed. I am very happy to go through and deal with some of those issues, particularly the assistance to a voter. There seems to be quite significant misunderstanding about what is involved, and what, in fact, is in the act. What is very clearly …
Mr Elferink: When was the last time you were at a Papunya booth?
Ms MARTIN: … spelled out under the act. The member for Macdonnell can ask when I was at a Papunya booth. What we are dealing with here is an act that has a lot of detail in its clauses. If we are going to talk about what the bill means, we should actually understand what we are talking about.
I will deal with the issues that have been raised, starting with the Leader of the Opposition who had concern that the report that we commissioned on the review of the Electoral Act simply had too many recommendations, and that was not what we were looking for. The reviewers talked to people - there were 49 submissions, we had public meetings - and gave us options as government. That is the process of government quite regularly: you look at options, you make decisions, you bring it to legislation. While the Opposition Leader might say there were too many recommendations, it was a process that worked well. If you look at what various jurisdictions are doing, and what works for the Territory - very importantly - these are the recommendations in legislation we have brought to the House.
Let us look at the issue that has had a lot of discussion, and that almost every speaker on the opposition raised; that is, the issue of assistance to voters. There are a lot of words being said about what happens in other places. Let us look at that in specifics. The Commonwealth, New South Wales and Tasmania, when it is talking about categories of assistance to voters, is descriptive in the grounds that you are allowed to assist a voter; namely, that you are sight impaired, physically handicapped or illiterate. In Victoria, Queensland and South Australia, that assistance can be given to a voter if the polling official is satisfied that the voter would be unable to vote without assistance. In both those circumstances - and through Commonwealth, New South Wales, Tasmania, Victoria, Queensland South Australia - what it means is the voter does not actually mark the ballot paper; that you are getting assistance. It has been determined that you need that physical assistance to mark the ballot paper. If you look at what the ACT does, the simple condition is that you need that assistance because, otherwise, you would not be able to vote. We have taken that one as a good example because, if you go to clause 87 in the bill, it is spelling out that you have a choice. You can get some official assistance …
Mr Elferink: I know what it says.
Ms MARTIN: I would like the member for Macdonnell to this listen, because he does not understand that you have a choice now under our legislation. You can have the polling official assist, or you can choose to have someone of your choice. If you then go with the person of your choice into the polling booth, you will have to satisfy the official about what kind of assistance is being given. If you look at clause 87(4), then the assistance may be given in a variety of ways:
(a) by acting as an interpreter;
It can be by marking if that so determined, in consultation with the official, and it can be by folding the ballot paper.
Mr Baldwin: There is no criteria as to why they are unable to.
Mr Baldwin: No, there is no criteria.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly, let the Chief Minister speak.
Ms MARTIN: That is the interpretation of the act and that is what will happen. The interesting thing from the opposition is this fighting about getting people assistance to make a vote. This is what this act is all about: empowering voters to make that vote; the voters who want. Very sadly, in the Territory there are a lot of people whose literacy and numeracy - as the member for Nhulunbuy said - is not what it should be. What we are doing now for people for whom English is a second, third, fifth language …
Mr Baldwin: That is not spelled out in the act.
Ms MARTIN: That will be determined.
Mr Baldwin: By whom?
Ms MARTIN: By the polling officials in terms of what assistance is given.
Mr Baldwin: On what criteria?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly, you can question this in the committee. This is the Chief Minister’s reply.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, it is a simple criteria. What the member for Daly is saying is you have to go in and explain, ‘I am sight impaired, I am this, I am that’. It is a simple criteria for the voter to say: ‘I need assistance’. What is so conspiratorial about that? ‘I am a voter, and I need assistance’, and that assistance will be determined. You are not trusting the polling officials, that is it – not trusting the officials! On one hand, we hear from the opposition that you have to trust the polling officials who have done a great job. We are still in the position of saying the polling official will work with the voter and the voter’s friend to determine what kind of assistance is required. We are saying to the voter: ‘You determine that; talk about it with the polling official and that will be done. You do not have to go in and say: “I am illiterate”.’ That is humiliating …
Mr Baldwin: What else can you say?
Ms MARTIN: That is humiliating. The member for Daly said you say to the voter: ‘You have to go in and say you cannot read’ …
Mr Baldwin: Or my sight is impaired.
Ms MARTIN: We will determine that. The level of assistance that is needed will be determined. This is a proper requirement to have in this act.
It is very sad to hear the member for Daly arguing against - the same as the member for Macdonnell - empowering voters to vote. That what it is!
Mr Baldwin: All for it! Absolutely all for it.
Ms MARTIN: Arguing against empowering voters to vote, and it is very sad …
Mr Baldwin: Nice spin you are putting on it.
Ms MARTIN: I am sure the electors of Daly will be very disappointed – will be extremely disappointed …
Mr Baldwin: And I am really worried about it. You do this every time.
Ms MARTIN: … that the member for …
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, would you direct your remarks to me. Member for Daly, you will cease. You are going to have your turn later.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, this is a very important clause and one that we stand by absolutely. We reject the opposition’s criticisms of it and their conspiratorial theories about it, and the other things that have been put forward in this House, partly in ignorance.
This is about empowering voters across the Territory to take part in something that happens, basically in the Territory context, once every four years. It all very well - I think it was the Leader of the Opposition - to say this kind of job should be carried out by the Electoral Commission. Of course, the Electoral Commission is going to carry out electoral information and education. However, if we are talking about some of the things that are to do with numeracy and literacy, I hardly think it is the job of the Electoral Commission. This sadly, for the Territory, in many cases is a fact of life for some people where English is their second, third or fourth language.
Therefore, while we will put more resources into education with the Electoral Commission and the education about elections - that is very important - this is a separate issue. It does bring consistency with the Commonwealth election. I think it was the member for Daly again who was trying to say that there were complaints federally all the time about the assistance to voters …
Mr Baldwin: Yes, there is.
Ms MARTIN: After every election, the federal government holds a review of what has happened and, from my information, those issues do not emerge there.
Mr Baldwin: They do. They absolutely do.
Ms MARTIN: Well, according to my expert advice, they do not.
Mr Baldwin: They do.
Ms MARTIN: You can sit there saying they do but, according to my expert advice, they do not. Certainly they - if the member for Daly says they are rife - do not end up reported to the federal government and …
Mr Baldwin: They do.
Ms MARTIN: Have you reported them then? No.
Mr Baldwin: CLP has. Yes, absolutely.
Ms MARTIN: So this system …
Madam SPEAKER: Talk to me, Chief Minister.
Ms MARTIN: I am sorry, Madam Speaker. This system will work, it is fair, and it empowers voters.
Let us look at another issue raised by the Leader of the Opposition: when will this new act come into operation? Another member - I think the member for Macdonnell – asked how soon will it come in. This act will come in as soon as practicable, and that is as soon as the Administrator can sign it off and we get going on it. Therefore, I cannot give you an assurance it is tomorrow. I do not know whether it is going to pass this House, so I would not assume it at this stage, despite the support. What we want to do is get this act into operation, so that what needs to be done to prepare the Territory in setting up a commission, a redistribution importantly - those aspects - will be done and put into place by the time we have the next election.
For member’s information, the election is taken from the first sitting of the Legislative Assembly. That was 15 October 2001.
The Opposition Leader also raised the issue of fixed terms. He said that he was pretty happy with the compromise of not having a fixed four-year term and that, to have a minimum three year with flexibility in the last year, was something that he could live with. I have to say honestly that I have looked at fixed four-year terms and saw some merit in those; reflected by the community consultation . Some thought there was merit in having a fixed four-year term. Others thoughts ranged from arguments that it entrenches bad governments and you cannot get rid of them, to that it grinds bureaucracy to a halt if you know that it is a fixed term because bureaucratic decision-making can start winding down some considerable number of months out from an election as campaign moves into government rather than pursuing policy and actioning government. Some real issues like that were raised.
This is a balance. Our recommendation is that we have a minimum three years and a maximum of four. Whereas other places do have a fixed term, others have a minimum three. Victoria has a similar situation where you do have a minimum and a maximum of four. You can argue both sides of that but, as the Leader of the Opposition said, it is a compromise position. He did not have particular trouble with that.
There were a lot of inconsistent arguments given. As I look through my notes about the Opposition Leader, about that assisted voting, I refer specifically to what the Opposition Leader said; that an inviolate core principle of personal choice was that you made a vote and nobody else saw it. He does not understand the current principle of seeking assistance at a polling booth. This just expands the choice of who renders assistance. I do not know whether the Opposition Leader did not understand it, but he described that personal choice of privacy as a sacred cornerstone, which was an inconsistent argument. I was concerned about the lack of understanding of what is being proposed from many members who contributed to the debate.
Madam Speaker, you, as the member for Braitling, raised the issue of postal votes and delivering them on time. That will be a challenge for the commission, but now that we will have an independent commission, it will be able to tackle those issues. Because it is independent, the commissioner will decide where the mobile polling is done, and under what time frame. There has been an extra time frame added for the days of mobile polling. They can start on the Thursday before the Saturday before an election, so you have nine or 10 days, which gives the commissioner discretion about the demands of mobile polling and how best he or she is going to meet that. That will also apply to postal votes.
This is about enhancing voting and enabling people to vote. It incorporates many of the principles of the past act. I am not saying the past act was outrageously flawed or anything like that. The critical difference between this bill and the previous act is that as Chief Minister, I do not control the electoral office or what happens there. That is the right when you have an office situated in the Chief Minister’s Department; they are directed by me. That is the theory of it, and I will not go into the practice in the past. This is an independent Electoral Commission standing independently, reporting to this House through the Speaker, and that is the core difference. We are not saying the rest of the electoral laws were particularly flawed. If you look through this bill and compare it with the existing legislation, there are a lot of similarities.
Redistribution is another issue the member for Braitling raised. Because redistribution falls within the independence of the Electoral Commission, it will be done by a redistribution committee made up of the commissioner, the Valuer-General and the Auditor-General. All members will be able to put submissions and argue their case, and it will be done as an independent process. Mentioned was made here of the peculiarities that we might have seen in some of the redistributions in the past. Well, it will be an independent process now. That process will be informed by many different factors: the community, members, political parties, whatever. They will be charged with a redistribution under particular guidelines that are in the bill.
Another issue is truth in advertising. That is a difficult issue and the only state in Australia to have legislation in respect of it is South Australia. What we hope to do is look to the Electoral Commissioner for guidance in that. It is a very complex area. It makes it very difficult, and legislating is not always the easiest or most effective way to go. It is an important issue, but it is also very difficult. The problems that you faced before the last election, you would like to think that there are good mechanisms to tackle that but, in the law, it is not always easy.
The final issue is the change to 200 for the registration of political parties. This is not a conspiracy and it certainly is not devious. Initially, the proposal of 50 was one that was considered but, in looking more closely at registration requirements in other parts of Australia – for example, New South Wales is 750, WA is 500 and other places like Tasmania are 100 – there is a balance, but some of them are quite high. We considered, because of the responsibility …
Mr Elferink: Out of a population of six million!
Ms MARTIN: … because that registration of a political party gives you access to protected electoral information – protected voter information - then it should not be taken lightly. The charge from some members in here that we will stop political parties even being formed is absolutely ridiculous.
Mr Elferink: No, it is not. This is a genuine attempt to cut people out of the picture.
Ms MARTIN: Political parties currently conform; they can stand for election. Because we do not have anything other than the candidate’s name on the ballot paper, under the current system everything would be the same.
Registration gives parties the ability to meet those criteria to have their political party on the ballot paper. It does not stop parties from forming, from having candidates stand for them. It does not stop them handing out information. It can have how-to-vote cards with their political party on it. It can have all those things. Just on the ballot paper, it will not have that political party. The same as now.
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: For a bunch of people who never wanted to change the system, suddenly they are protesting with this holier-than-thou attitude. You never even thought it was important before to register political parties and to have the names of political parties on ballot papers.
We have to make sure, because we are charging political parties with responsibilities, that there is a requirement for a proper amount of membership. We consider that, on the balance of things, to be 200. It does not stop or undermine the democratic process.
Mr Elferink: Yes, it does.
Ms MARTIN: It does not do any of the things we are being charged with. It simply says that on the ballot paper … Member for Macdonnell, if you want to form the ‘Kangaroo Tail Party’ - or whatever you want to do, considering your past behaviour at elections - you can form it. However, you do not get to be registered unless there are 200 people who want to sign up to the ‘Kangaroo Tail Docking Party’ or whatever party you actually want to form. You can do that. You can have your name on the ballot paper; it just will not be with the …
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr Elferink: What about the recommendations of the report, Treasurer?
Ms MARTIN: There are a number of parties the member for Macdonnell might be pursuing. You just hope the member for Macdonnell was not going to be setting up parties in competition with himself, as a member of the CLP.
The conspiracy theory is absolutely unwarranted. We want political parties to think very seriously regarding their registration. There are very serious requirements for political parties. They are charged with protected electoral information, as we members are, and that is not to be taken lightly. Therefore, 200 members of a political party is very reasonable.
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: The misunderstanding from members opposite that suddenly it stops political parties forming - it stops people being able to set up the ‘Anti-Planning Party’, the anti this or the pro this - is a lot of rubbish. You really need to read the legislation and understand what it is about, rather than just come in here and mouth uninformed rhetoric which, in many circumstances, is what we have heard.
I am looking at whether there is anything else we have not covered. Are there any other particular issues that were raised?
Mr Baldwin: Electoral rolls.
Ms MARTIN: Electoral rolls?
Mr Baldwin: Electoral rolls to individuals.
Ms MARTIN: Well, the recommendation - if we are going to look at recommendations that came from the review - was that individuals should not be able to purchase electoral rolls.
Mr Baldwin: Why?
Ms MARTIN: Because it is information that is protected. That they be available to anyone to purchase and take away, is something that is not recommended. We are following through with that recommendation.
Mr Baldwin: So a candidate cannot get it?
Ms MARTIN: As members of parliament, we have access to that; Political parties have access. It does bring us into line with the rest of Australia. There are reasons of privacy. In times when we protect the information that is made available quite readily to us, then I would have thought we would be applauded for making sure that that information did not get to just anyone. That is an important principle to have enshrined in this act.
As members of parliament, we are accountable for what we do with that information. Political parties, because of their registration, are accountable with what they do with that information. If you are just talking about someone who aspires to political office, they are not accountable, and cannot be held accountable, with that information. As a candidate, you do not get access to it; as a member you do; as a registered political party you do. That is fair.
To sum up where we are with this bill, it is an important bill. As I said, it establishes, for the first time in the Territory, an independent electoral process and an independent electoral redistribution process. This is something long overdue. It does not change every law we have about the election process. In fact, many of them work very well. I pay tribute to our election officials. They have done a very good job - as graphically put by the Deputy Chief Minister - over very difficult areas. It is hard to imagine, sometimes, more difficult terrain and circumstances that our electoral officials have worked in over many years - and done a very fine job.
What this bill does is provide a changed framework for elections. Instead of having an election being able to be called any time in four years, it now provides a minimum of three and a maximum of four. The usual 17-day campaign, which has been the norm, will now be a 19-day campaign. You could have arguments about that. An election will be called on a Tuesday and held two Saturdays later. We looked at the balance here. The recommendation from the review was you could have 53 days. We would drive every single Territorian and every single political aspirant absolutely crazy if we had 53 days. Therefore, to get the balance of not grinding government to a halt, driving candidates or the community mad, 19 days is a good balance. To allow two more days to get on the roll is something that recognises, within that time frame of 19 days, the fact that we do have a turnover in population and, sometimes, people forget to put themselves on the roll.
The registration of political parties is different; it does bring us into line with the rest of Australia. The way that we will have full rolls at …
Mr Baldwin interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: The fact that you had to do a declaration vote if you went to a polling booth that was not in the electorate you were voting in has been changed now. Full A to Z rolls will be held and you will be able to vote, and your vote will go back to the appropriate electorate.
Mr Baldwin: Good. That is good.
Ms MARTIN: That is an innovation that is good. The declaration vote when you were perhaps at Parap and you should be voting at Wanguri, were time-consuming. That is now fast-tracked.
Registered postal voters have the same criteria as the Commonwealth. That simplifies things but, again, the whole point of this legislation is to make sure that Territorians can vote and can make an informed vote and get the assistance they need to make that vote.
There are serious penalties in place for people who do not follow the rules, and we do not back off that. If you unduly influence somebody in your vote, there is a severe penalty. If you break any other rules to do with elections, there are severe penalties. We are making that very clear. However, on the other hand, this is about empowering Territorians to vote, and it is a bill we are very proud of.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Electoral Bill (Serial 195):
Clauses 1 and 2, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 3:
Ms MARTIN: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 71.1.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I know that the Chief Minister went through the process in her summation on the second reading. However, I remain unconvinced and unsatisfied with her explanation. It is clearly overstating the need for registered numbers here in the Northern Territory. I remind the Chief Minister of Recommendation 67 on page 85 of the Minter Ellison Consulting independent review of the Northern Territory electoral system, which reads as follows:
- A political party should be eligible for registration if it has a prescribed number of members on the electoral role
for the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory government should consult to determine the number of members
that would be prescribed. Our consultation indicates that 20 may be an appropriate number to ensure that the
currently established political parties are able to meet the registration requirement.
In her second reading summation, the Chief Minister relied on recommendations to justify her position about another matter in this debate. I am curious to know from the Chief Minister why one recommendation is superior to another regarding changing the number of eligible voters to support a political party, from 20 to 200, a factor of 10 which vastly - when you work out the ratios of populations to required members in other states - distorts the position in the Territory to the point where it is simply unreasonable.
Ms MARTIN: Mr Chairman, I made my position clear in the second reading. However, to deal with the issue raised by the member for Macdonnell about why we accept some recommendations from the Minter Ellison review and not others; there was a very strong recommendation from the Minter Ellison review that we have public funding of elections. We rejected it. We looked at all the recommendations and, quite properly for government, we made a balance in what we put forward for legislation. As I said before, a registered political party has particular rights and responsibilities and it should be properly represented. It does not stop political parties from forming or from running for election, but to be registered and all that requires, which means the responsibilities. Looking at the balance across Australia, it is 200 for the Territory.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I realise that the Chief Minister is prepared to depart from the recommendations of the review. Indeed, she did so when she introduced the figure of 50 into this parliament in her second reading speech. Fifty would still distort the ratio regarding how it operates with other states. However, 50 was palatable and understandable. Indeed, the CLP’s own recommendation when responding to the review was 100. However, what the Chief Minister is doing in this case is not merely choosing not to follow a recommendation because it brings us into line with other states - it simply does not bring us into line with other states. It is clearly an attempt to nobble other political parties from getting their political party’s name on the ballot paper. It is clearly at attempt to obliterate any form of political party, other than the majors, getting their name on the ballot paper. This Chief Minister is running scared as the result of her own polling, and I would suggest that this number be lowered to the original number that the Chief Minister so reasonably suggested.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I would have hoped that all members of this Assembly at least would see politics as a fairly serious business; something you have to commit to and dedicate a very large part of your life. We talk about work/life balance sometimes. I do not know about politicians having any work/life balance; it is all work.
What the member for Macdonnell is clearly putting to us is that if you have a bunch of people who want to register a political party - whether is be a single issue or whether it be a set of principles or a full-bodied platform of what they want to see achieved. He says that, because they do not have the will, the dedication, the commitment, the energy to get out there and sign up 200 members, they cannot make it, and that is unfair.
I will give you an example. There is a group in the Northern Territory. It is called Network Against Prohibition. They are familiar to this place because they broke quite a number of laws in invading this place. I would not have any problem about NAP, Network Against Prohibition, forming a political party in the Northern Territory, getting on the ballot paper. However, they must have 200 members. If they have the commitment, the dedication, the drive and the energy such as they showed the day they invaded this place, I am sure that they could go and do it.
It is not an impossible ask. These are the sort of people who stand on the street with large pig heads and thrust them in the face of police officers outside an annual police conference. That is the sort of behaviour in which they indulge, the same as when they broke the law and the privilege of this place by barging right through the doors. I do not have a problem with them. All they have to do is convince 200 Territorians out there that they have a strong reason to be able to form a political party, based around their attitudes to drug laws. If they get 200 people signed up, they are a political party, they are on the ballot paper and they are recognised as such. However, if they do not have that commitment and drive to get 200 people on their books, then they are not a political party and that means they do not have the access to the roll that we are talking about.
I would be concerned with some of the lies that I heard spoken by those people - to me and inside a court of law - that they would be fit and proper people to have access to such information as is on the roll. Nonetheless, all they have to do is get out there, show a bit of commitment to their cause - a little more commitment than barging through the doors of this place or standing around on street corners shoving pigs heads in the face of police officers - get out there and get their 200 members. Then they are a registered political party and they are on the ballot paper.
Mr ELFERINK: That is an extreme example, and it is one that I used. I thank the Treasurer for reminding me of the name, because I had quite forgotten the Network Against Prohibition as the name.
However there are other organisations in the community that will also be nobbled by this process; organisations that have very specific - maybe even electorate specific - issues. Perhaps there is an organisation that concerns itself with such things as power poles on a particular road in the rural area that would like to run a candidate in those areas.
Surely the Chief Minster and the Treasurer are not suggesting that people who have a concern about such things like planning, road maintenance, undergrounding of power, which are specific to particular streets and areas, have to go out and find 200 people sympathetic to their position before they can find their political party’s name on a ballot paper.
It is an absolutely absurd suggestion to try and plead Territorians who have particular issues to involve themselves in the process to the extent where can get their cause’s name, through a political party, onto a ballot paper. If they want to call themselves the ‘Leonino Road Lightpole Action Group’ and register it as political party, then they should be allowed to. Under the existing arrangements, what was traditionally done was nothing more than the candidate’s name.
They have decided to change it but, in the process of changing it, they have decided to marginalise smaller groups in the community because they are afraid of the consequences that will flow in the redistribution of preferences against them, because they know that they are in trouble.
Mr BALDWIN: Mr Chairman, I would like the Chief Minister to answer the question specifically: why, after all the consultation by the review, then your own consultation - one would assume in putting this together into a bill to form the legislation - did you, between the time of making your second reading speech when it was 50 - which you must have thought at the time a fair number - and then now at this late hour bring in 200? Specifically, what changed your mind to increase by 150 members?
Ms MARTIN: Mr Chairman, I have explained this. Maybe the member was not in the House or was not listening. Bills do get amended and you reassess some aspects. We looked at …
Mr Baldwin: Yes, what specifically made you change your mind?
Ms MARTIN: … the responsibility of being a political party, the rights you have as a political party, and the numbers that were needed elsewhere in Australia as a benchmark. If you are saying that we should do what they do in the rest of Australia, well, maybe we need 750 as they do in New South Wales.
A political party, if it registered, has certain rights and responsibilities. That does not stop a group of people who are opposed to undergrounding power forming themselves into a party. To be a party you have to have a constitution, you have to meet all the needs and proper processes of a constitution. That can still happen - of course that can happen. They can campaign as a political party, they can do how-to-vote for the political party.
This is where the hypocrisy is: you never thought it was important to register when you were in government. You never thought it important to change the act. You thought it was fine that we had an Electoral Office under the Department of Chief Minister, not separate, not independent, as we are making it now. Yet, you are arguing the point of how many people can be registered as a political party, how many parties. It is hypocrisy. It is hypocrisy to the utmost.
Two hundred is where a median point is. As eloquently put by the Deputy Chief Minister, if you want to form that party, if you really what to make a commitment to politics, then 200 is fine.
Mr MILLS: Mr Chairman, she might pay credit to the Deputy Chief Minister for eloquently putting it, but she is proposing to the House that this 200 is a median point. We are asking quite directly: please help us to understand why you changed it from 50 to 200, apparently overnight, and you are also asserting that it is in line with what is in most other states.
Ms Martin: No.
Mr MILLS: For most states, it is 500.
Ms MARTIN: No, no I am not saying it is line. You missed most of the debate Terry. You went outside, so I cannot help that.
Mr MILLS: I beg your pardon?
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Mr MILLS: Please help us to understand why you have changed it from 50 to 200?
Ms Lawrie: Already explained.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, it is curious that the Treasurer, in his speech, made the observation that the old system was that in each electorate you had five people from each division to nominate that person as a candidate. If you work that out - I think he said five but the actual number is six - that brings you up to 150 people. So, the theory alone that the Treasurer is running on, is that if the whole party with 25 candidates has to go and grab six people from each electorate to support the nominations, it would bring you 250 people. Therefore, you have to be committed enough to field 25 candidates, according to the Treasurer, to find 150 people - and he talks about levels of commitment which now have to reach 200. He is saying that nothing is changing. Well, the fact is that something is changing, and what is changing is the inability for small parties to run one or two candidates, or a single candidate against a sitting member, because they are unhappy with the performance of that sitting member. They are trying their hardest to sideline those people and that is what this is about - nothing else. This is an obliteration of the minor parties in the Northern Territory, and it is a deliberate attempt to try and get them off the ballot paper. It is a disgusting, cheap trick.
Mr HENDERSON: Mr Chairman, I will be very quick. The hypocrisy of the member for Macdonnell is absolutely outstanding when he talks about trying to obliterate minor parties from running under that banner on the ballot sheet. I remind the member for Macdonnell that they cannot do that at the moment under his legislation that he was proud to stand by.
It has been very clearly argued by both the Chief Minister and the Treasurer as to the reasons why the number 200 was chosen. However, the feigned outrage from members opposite regarding a system when, for the first time in the Northern Territory’s history, political parties can run under a banner on a ballot paper - the first time in Territory elections that they will be able to do so. It is hypocrisy that somehow we are trying to stifle small parties from getting their names onto a ballot paper, when small or large, no political party could get their names onto a ballot paper under the act as its stood under the CLP. Therefore, we are not going to fall for this feigned outrage.
The member for Nhulunbuy gave a very clear example of some of the groups that could get access to electoral rolls under their proposal - and even they went to a 100. If you are serious about forming a political party, getting out there across the Northern Territory getting 200 members to sign up should not be too difficult. We do not want people like NAP and other fringe parties getting access to private citizens’ information. The feigned outrage is absolutely astounding, and I urge them to look at their own hypocrisy if they try and run the arguments any longer.
Mr BALDWIN: In response to that silly claim, Mr Chairman, we know what the reform is. We welcome the reform under this provision. It is a reform, it is great!
Mr Henderson: You could not spell ‘reform’.
Mr BALDWIN: You are a goose! You are an absolute goose! Just listen …
Mr Henderson: You are a goose! You are a hypocritical goose!
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
Mr BALDWIN: Just listen, you might learn something.
We welcome the reform that allows registered political parties names to go on ballot papers. Before, yes, they were not allowed. It was consistent for everybody. We are saying: ‘Let us be a little more consistent in bringing forward those reforms’. When we saw the Chief Minister’s second reading speech where she said: ‘Membership for political parties to be registered will be 50’, we said: ‘Fairly consistent. Fairly consistent with what has been reported in the review. Fairly consistent with what we were proposing. Parties that could get, in a small population, 50 committed people, would be able to have their name on the ballot paper’. We thought that was a great reform.
However, now we find out that the reform is actually very hollow; that only major political parties will get their name on the ballot paper, and minor groups in the Northern Territory that are not federally registered, will not be able to, unless they could get a commitment of 200 people out of a population of 200 000. I just think it is disgraceful. I still have not heard the specific reason why it changed from 50 in the second reading speech to 200 now. I know I am not going to get the answer, because they are ducking and weaving on this issue.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 18, by leave, taken together:
Mr BALDWIN: Mr Chairman, I would like to raise the issue under clause 13, regarding the supply of the roll extract to MLAs and registered parties. I would like the Chief Minister to clarify that this clause 13 provision will now restrict an individual Territorian from purchasing a copy of the electoral roll, whereas, currently under the act as reported in the review - and if you look at our act - the electoral rolls are made available for public inspections and sale. I seek clarification that what we are saying in this new act is that, unless you are a MLA – a sitting member – or, indeed, you are a registered officer of a registered party, you will not be able to purchase a copy of the roll. I would just like that clarified.
Ms MARTIN: That is right.
Mr BALDWIN: Could I ask the Chief Minister to explain then why this dramatic change. What has been the issue that has caused us to go down this road and restrict Territorians from gaining access to a vital piece of information and including, I might add, restricting candidates at the next election from going along to the Electoral Commission - the new commission - and getting a copy of a roll when they have formally and publicly put up their hand to become a candidate, and might require the information pertaining to the electorate in which they wish to run.
Ms MARTIN: This recommendation and this piece of legislation, Mr Chairman, is in line with where other parts of Australia have moved. It is an issue of privacy and it is an issue of using appropriately information that is protected voter information, and to be held accountable for using it. If you are a member of this House you are accountable. If you are a registered political party you can get access to that because there are mechanisms by which you are held accountable. I would have thought this was an important privacy issue, at a time when we do resist giving that kind of information to anyone. Most of us here would express some level of discontent and resentment about the level of information that is held about us in various forms, in various organisations. This is one that we can have a level of control over. Members in this House are accountable for information like that, and registered political parties will be. This is an issue of privacy.
Mr BALDWIN: If it is an issue of privacy, can the Chief Minister then tell me how many instances of misuse of these rolls is she aware of over the last, say few years - few elections even? I knew that ‘it is an issue of privacy’ would be your answer because yes, some of the other states - in fact two or three of the other states - have moved in this direction quoting privacy. However, I would like to know how many incidences of misuse of electoral rolls have occurred in the Territory that you know of?
Ms MARTIN: I do not have that kind of information about the misuse. It is the same where you said there were absolute breaches of the Commonwealth legislation on having a voter’s friend, someone to assist voters. You said there were ‘squillions’. Yet, my expert advice is that information is not reflected in federal reviews after federal elections. I would have thought to say this is an issue of privacy - I have explained it carefully - that that would win your respect. Also the fact that other jurisdictions are moving the same way is to protect information. At a time when, I believe, other organisations have far too much information about me, for example, and probably everyone in this House - from credit ratings to everything like that, to how many dogs you have - then to protect that level of information - and it is protected information – it is important that it goes to people who can be held accountable. That is the finish.
Mr BALDWIN: Mr Chairman, I know I am not going to get further on that because of the privacy side of things. Therefore, let me suggest to you, Chief Minister, that you might take a position in this that covers the privacy of individuals that you are concerned about - and yes, that is a good argument, even though I do not know of that many instances where those rolls have been misused, but I do not have the expert advice that you have. Why would we not give it, in the case of this information being available, not to the registered parties and to the sitting MLAs, but to those candidates who have gone through the proper process under this act to apply and pay their money to become candidates? Why, then, after the electoral rolls have closed, would we not insist that those electoral rolls, if required by properly and formally endorsed candidates, be given to them? Surely, we cannot stand here on the one hand and protect privacy but, on the other, restrict everybody from playing on a level field in an election process?
It could be any independent candidate, or anybody for that matter, who wants to contest a particular seat. They should be able to avail themselves - take a copy with them, not sit there and write 3400 names with all the details - as a properly endorsed candidate to go and try their luck in an election and have the same information that all of us will have and that the major parties will have. Surely that is reasonable, and that is a provision that is available under the federal act. If you so like the federal act in voter assistance, why would you not follow the federal act in this case? I am happy to move an amendment. I have one ready.
Ms MARTIN: I am checking your reference to the federal act. My information is that members are provided with roll for their division and political parties are provided with roll for all divisions so, under the federal act it is not available. That is my expert advice on what you are saying, and …
Mr Baldwin: I can help you there.
Ms MARTIN: No, no, I am on my feet. The Territory’s Information Commissioner supported this proposal very strongly; that we should have a level of privacy about the information that is given out. You are saying a ‘properly endorsed candidate’. Well, that is somebody who just wants to stand and has paid $200. What we are saying is, and what every other place has moved to, is about members, who have to be held accountable.
Mr Baldwin interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: No, the member is not interested.
Mr BALDWIN: Mr Chairman, I might refresh the Chief Minister’s memory here and provide her with information under the Commonwealth Electoral Act, Provision of certified list of voters to candidates:
The Electoral Commission, as soon as practicable after the close of the rolls, must give to each candidate in a
House of Representatives election a copy of the certified list of voters for the division for which he or she is seeking
election.
That is fair and reasonable and I have an amendment ready that could be circulated. You can read it and we can come back to it if you like. Without going to the extreme to allow all Territorians to have this information to protect their privacy, we could at least let candidates have it. Surely, all of you here who have been candidates - particularly the Independent members who are not aligned with any major party - know how important these rolls are when you are going to contest an election. It is incumbent on us as fair legislators to give everybody an even go in a campaign for an election held democratically.
Ms MARTIN: Well, I have to inform the member for Daly that I do not agree, and this side of the House does not agree.
Mr Baldwin: True?
Ms MARTIN: I certainly take back what I said about the Commonwealth legislation and accept that you are right about that. Other states and territories have moved the way we are moving and there are significant privacy reasons for that. I would have thought there were even more significant privacy reasons in electorates as small as ours, and that is significant.
Mr ELFERINK: Just one more question by way of advice. It has been a practice up until now that when I visited the Electoral Commissioner’s office I was able to view the rolls. Will that practice continue?
Mr Stirling: View the rolls, yes.
Ms MARTIN: Certainly.
Mr ELFERINK: I am a little confused. If privacy is such an important issue and you want to prevent people like Mr Meyerhoff from having access to the rolls, then it follows that Mr Meyerhoff is still able to view the rolls in the Electoral Commission office if he walks in there and asks?
Ms MARTIN: Yes, that is the case. That is what I made clear.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, where is the privacy protection in that, Chief Minister? If your justification for preventing to give electoral rolls out to candidates is that it would represent some serious breach of individual privacy, where Mr Meyerhoff would use that information available on the roll that is provided to him for some unholy purpose, surely Mr Meyerhoff - or anybody else for that matter - should be prevented from seeing the rolls in the Australian Electoral Commission Office. I take it that would be a consistent position, Chief Minister. What is your comment on that?
Well, I notice that the Chief Minister is not climbing to her feet, Mr Chairmen. It is an obvious and straightforward question. The justification for not providing rolls is privacy yet, the Chief Minister is making no amendments, or suggesting no changes to the policy of keeping the roll as a public document. This is an absurd situation, and is clearly part of an attempt to achieve another end. I would suggest that end has a lot more to do with preventing candidates from having access to rolls and, therefore, disseminating information, rather than actually being able to protect people’s privacy. However, I would ask the Chief Minister again: would she care to comment on that?
Mr BALDWIN: Mr Chairman, in light of no response from the Chief Minister, I just point out in the bill that we are pursuing here, under clause 14, Use of roll extracts, it is quite explicit what a person may or may not do:
- (1) A person must not use protected information for –
- (a) a commercial purpose; or
(b) any other purpose other than the approved purpose.
Surely, if we let formally endorsed candidates have access to these rolls to take away with them to use in a campaign, we could describe in the use of those roll extracts some very specific things that are allowed and are not allowed to be done, as has been done further in that section 14 of the act for MLAs. We could actually guarantee by writing into the legislation that candidates would be the same as for MLAs and registered parties - candidates who have gone through the proper process. There would be no or very little risk, or as much risk as with MLAs or registered parties, that those rolls would be misused.
Surely, to be fair to all people who do contest elections, if we wrote candidates into the same restrictions as the MLAs, we could allow them to have the rolls and give them a fair go. Are you absolutely refusing to take on some recommendation that allows candidates to get access to these rolls? Would you like to come back to this and look at it, or is that it, you absolutely refuse?
Ms MARTIN: I have made my position very clear.
Mr BALDWIN: Is that that you absolutely refuse, Chief Minister?
Ms MARTIN: I am saying I have made my position clear. I have worked through the arguments, and you can continue to argue about it, because you are not accepting what I am saying, you are disagreeing. What we have to do is agree to differ.
Mr BALDWIN: I take it that she absolutely refuses.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I seek a point of clarification, member for Daly. Were you introducing an amendment or were you going on?
Mr BALDWIN: Well, if the government would accept the amendment, I can introduce an amendment to this.
A Member: No.
Mr BALDWIN: Then I will not waste the time, although I will state that I would have liked to …
Mr Stirling: You have to make sure that the members stay in the House.
Mr BALDWIN: Mr Chairman, I will ask you to tell the member for Nhulunbuy not to reflect on who is and who is not in this House.
Mr Stirling: Call a division. Let us test it.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! I will put the question that is before us, and we will see whether that amendment is accepted. The question is that clauses 4 to 18 stand as printed.
Clauses 4 to 18 agreed to.
Clause 19:
Ms MARTIN: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 71.2
Amendment agreed to
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 81, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 82:
Ms MARTIN: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 71.3.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 82, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 83 to 86, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 87:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I move amendments 73.1, 73.2 and 73.3.
On the issue of assisted votes, no shortage of members articulated some of the problems with assisted votes. Then, in the Chief Minister’s closing speech, she responded to it by saying it is not a problem in the ACT. I appreciate that, and I understand …
Ms Martin: I did not say it is was not a problem in the ACT. So do not verbal me, thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: I appreciate what the Chief Minister is trying to tell us. I am not here to try and scream and screech and say it is all unfair. I am quite happy to go to the next poll in relation to this as it stands at the moment. What I am concerned about is that there will be allegations that come out of this process, and those allegations will go to the process of assisted votes, and what happens with assisted votes and those sorts of things, as they have done in the past, repeatedly. The Chief Minister may cite legislation from the Australian Capital Territory or federal legislation, and say how important it is to fall into line with that legislation, but the fact of the matter is, as the Treasurer pointed out, that the Territory is a unique jurisdiction, and very unique things happen. We have to be aware of the large number of people in our environment who have language difficulties and such things as physical impairments and other impairments.
In the existing legislation as it stands, clause 79 says that certain people may be assisted if the voter satisfies the presiding officer of a polling place that the voter is so physically incapacitated that he or she is unable to vote without assistance, or is illiterate, the presiding officer shall, or shall direct another officer to assist the vote. That is not a major problem, and it has produced a lot less conflict than the federal elections have done in the past in the Northern Territory, because there is always a question mark that has been raised about the legitimacy of some of the assisted votes.
I am not particularly worried about it, but the problem is that, as a member of this parliament, I am concerned that, because of the specific environment we have, this application that is made by voters - a voter who is unable to vote may be assisted - is too broad in many senses. What are the criteria, I ask the Chief Minister, for the term ‘unable to be satisfied’?
Ms MARTIN: Mr Chairman, I have pretty effectively dealt with this issue, but I am happy to go through it again. I pick up the point erroneously made by the member for Macdonnell - and if he is going to quote me, he should at least quote me accurately - about why we decided to go with the use of an assistant to help the voter, known as a voter’s friend. We looked at what was happening in other parts of the country. In somewhere like the Commonwealth, New South Wales or Tasmania, there were those descriptive grounds in the legislation. If someone wanted assistance they had to say: ‘I am physically handicapped’ or whatever. In Victoria, Queensland and South Australia you have to satisfy a polling official that you are unable to vote without assistance. That is a fairly simple criteria. The one in the Australia Capital Territory, which seemed to be the most constructive way to go, simply said that you are unable to vote. I do not know what the problem is. That will then be discussed with a polling official; and that is fine.
We trust our polling officials to make those decisions. If it is inappropriate, then that will be rejected. However, the polling official will talk to the voter, who will explain what the problem is. If you look at clause 87(4) there are a number of different ways that that assistance can happen and it will be overseen by the official. The member for Nhulunbuy gave the example of his mother, who takes his older sister in. You can choose people you feel comfortable with to go in and make that vote. As you get older, that is very important. If voting is very important to you, you want to make sure you get it right – that you get what you want put down. Therefore, taking someone who can understand your language, or somebody who understands your impairment, is very important.
This idea that somehow or other it is going to carte blanche and there is going to be people forcing other people to vote the way they want, is absolutely absurd and simply conspiratorial. It reflects more on where the member for Macdonnell is coming from than what this legislation is doing.
Just move away from having to be prescriptive. This is about a voter and their rights. They will talk with the polling official - who, in your own words, have done a great job and really understand what the process is all about - and that is how the voter’s friend will be able to assist, according to the criteria that will be explained under section 87(4) of the act. It is straightforward. It is not the same prescription that you see in other acts, but it has a prescription about it, because they are the only ways that you will be able to assist; and that will be determined. It is straightforward; it is empowering voters, and it moves us forward as a jurisdiction.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, all I asked the Chief Minister to really tell me was what were the criteria to satisfy ‘unable’. It’s a fairly straightforward question.
Mr Stirling: What part of the word ‘unable’ do you not understand? Unable to vote.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, I will pick up on the interjection. The Treasurer used an example of his own mother, who is taken to the polling booth and, I would imagine, there are reasons why that voter is assisted – perfectly legitimate reasons. Perhaps the age of the Treasurer’s mother would make her eyesight not up to scratch or perhaps some other physical incapacity …
Mr Stirling: My mum would be embarrassed if she knew we were talking about her like this.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, you raised it …
Mr Stirling: She votes Liberal anyway!
Mr ELFERINK: This is the issue: that there is a criteria and she matches it. There is a physical or eyesight incapacity or she may have difficulty hearing. Whatever the case it, the issue is that ‘unable’ is a little on the broad side and I would just like a more descriptive way of doing it.
Mr Stirling: Unable means unable.
Mr ELFERINK: If the Chief Minister wants to call me prescriptive, well she has been fairly prescriptive about the rolls and about the number of voters in the political party. Now, all of a sudden, prescription is not an acceptable idea. Chief Minister, what are the criteria for ‘unable’?
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I would have though ‘unable to vote’ means exactly what it says: unable to vote. Why would you be looking for a hidden meaning here or an explanation of the words ‘unable to vote’?
Mr Elferink: I am asking for clarification.
Mr STIRLING: Advice we had was that, under the federal system, the Australian Electoral Commission will operate a very similar provision. By far and away the majority of assistance offered under this system is undertaken by polling officials in any case.
That would be my experience because, mostly the need for a voter’s friend is in the mobiles, in the remote and rural areas of the Territory where age, infirmity, illiteracy, innumeracy are factors. That has been pretty much my experience. On many occasions it would be a voter’s friend in operation - a trusted family member or a close friend of the person going in to vote. However, most of the time it would be undertaken by the polling official in any case. Unable to vote means unable to vote and that is something that is confirmed by the polling official at the booth. I cannot see why the opposition has such difficulty with this.
The member for Daly claims a great deal of experience - and he ought to have; he has been in here a long time - on polling booths. He would know, and would well remember and recognise, the difficulties that occur when you swap from one regime to another. For example, you have been through a federal poll under the voter’s friend system and people understand that, and the next election is a Territory election and they rock up with their friend and the polling official says: ‘Excuse me, you cannot come in here. I will deal with this because it is under the Territory system and it is the polling official that takes it through’.
Why do, and why would you, want to make it difficult for voters? I do not imagine that the federal system is about to change simply because we ring them and say: ‘You should change your system because ours is better’. From the point of view of consistency alone, if you have as similar systems as possible, you will prevent a lot of that misunderstanding. Therefore, the voter who rocks up at the federal election with the voter’s friend in hand and goes through the system is able to exercise their democratic right and cast their vote, also comes along at the next Territory election and is able to use the voter’s friend again. That makes for so much common sense.
The heart of this is maximising a vote under all circumstances. If the opposition has a problem with this, they have a problem with the fundamental principle of democracy.
Mr BALDWIN: Mr Chairman, we do not have any problem with the principles of democracy. The Deputy Chief Minister, the member for Nhulunbuy, has just run an argument that we have been running in our debate; that is, that if you think that the act should be changed because it is confusing for people - as you put it, particularly in bush and remote seats - that they go from one election in the Northern Territory to another, the federal election, and they are different and we should make them the same, then you support our argument. Let us make them the same.
Let us look at the federal provision. The Commonwealth Electoral Act, section 234, Assistance to certain voters:
- (1) If any voter satisfied the presiding officer that his or her sight is so impaired or that the voter is so
physically incapacitated or illiterate that he or she is unable to vote without assistance, the presiding
officer shall permit a person appointed by the voter to enter an unoccupied compartment of the booth
with the voter and mark, fold and deposit the voter’s ballot paper.
It goes on for three for four more sections and does prescribe the criteria under which a voter’s friend can be used. Therefore, if you are following that line of debate, member for Nhulunbuy, then I wholeheartedly agree, because you are supporting our current position.
We said at the outset if you do not like our amendment - and that is to let only the presiding officer assist in the vote - then surely, you would set down the criteria because we all know - those who have been campaigns, all of us – that, to leave it in the hands of the presiding officers who do a fantastic job, they will open themselves up to some contest about this matter if you do not actually prescribe the criteria under which a voter could be assisted.
You have not yet described - any one of you on that side - the sorts or extent of things that would fit the criteria of ‘unable’. You have not described them. Describe them! Describe the sorts of things under which they could go to the electoral presiding officer and say: ‘Sir, I am unable to vote’. You are suggesting the presiding officers would say: ‘Why are you unable to vote?’. I want you to describe the sorts of things they might say that would satisfy the presiding officer that they are unable to vote and, therefore, eligible for assistance.
The other thing I want you to provide some detail on is if, like us, you put your faith in the presiding officers, why is it that we are going to, under this act, allow scrutineers to go in with the presiding officer or another officer, when they assist, but not the friend? Who do we trust the most: the presiding officer or the friend? I would trust the presiding officer any day. Why, then, say they can have scrutineers when they go into vote, yet the friend cannot? When they take a friend in, no scrutineer is allowed. What is the difference? You tell me. However, I want you to describe for me also those other criteria …
Ms MARTIN: Look, I will be brief because I believe we are going round and round on this issue. What the fundamental …
Mr Baldwin: No, we are not; you are not explaining yourself.
Ms MARTIN: It is a philosophical difference about empowering people to vote. Someone comes in to vote, they need some assistance, they bring a friend with them - maybe they have trouble with literacy, maybe they cannot read the voting paper, maybe there are all these kinds of things. However, we leave it open. We are not making it prescriptive. It is the voter’s choice then, whether they have their friend there, or a scrutineer or whatever. That is their choice. I cannot see why the members for Daly and Macdonnell and other members of the opposition are so opposed to legislation that is simply talking about assisting people to vote …
Mr Baldwin: No, it is in the current act. We built the current act that had it in there which prescribed.
Ms MARTIN: … to have access to vote If you are so insecure about your electorates that you somehow feel as though this is an attack on your voters, and your voters’ ability to vote for you, then that is your problem.
This is legislation that will work. This is legislation that has the proper safeguards in it, and this clause 87 has the proper safeguards in it. There seems to be an implication from what you are saying that, if a voter can choose who they have to assist them, and discuss this with the polling official, somehow or other something is going to be corrupted. The problem is with you, and the not with our proposal. I am convinced of our proposal. I am convinced that the proper processes will be in place; that we will not see rife corruption or abuse of the electoral process. That is the last comment I am going to make about clause 87.
Mr BALDWIN: I would expect that from the Chief Minister to try and wrap this up very quickly. However, I will just make the point that …
Ms Martin: It is 10 past 10, Tim.
Mr BALDWIN: Oh well, I am sorry for keeping you up, Chief Minister, but your job is to be in here making fair and reasonable legislation. If it is 10 past 10, well, I am really sorry.
Ms Martin: You are not putting fair and reasonable amendments in. Come on, call a division.
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Mr BALDWIN: I am sorry about the Chief Minister having to stay up past her bedtime, but it is important to note that, in the current legislation we operate under, voter assistance was allowed by the CLP, and voter assistance is still being allowed under the ALP’s legislation, and that is fair and reasonable. We do not have a problem about that. All we are trying to do is take the obligation off the presiding officer, to expose him or her to argument, by defining the criteria under which assistance will be given - something that the member for Nhulunbuy also agrees with, because it is in the federal act that he also agrees with. I know that is your final point Chief Minister, and I know we are not going to change your mind, and I do apologise for keeping you up late.
Amendments negatived.
Mr Stirling: Division, Mr Chairman. They will not even divide on their own amendment. Such commitment to your principles!
Mr Baldwin: This is the government calling division!
Mr Stirling: You will not even divide on your own amendments.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! Member for Macdonnell, amendment 73.2.
Mr ELFERINK: I am sorry, Mr Chairman, I cannot hear over the yelling and the interjections.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Amendment 73.2, or are we taking all those three as one?
Mr ELFERINK: When I got to my feet I moved amendments 73.1, 73.2 and 73.3 simply as a matter of convenience because they were all relating to the same issue.
Amendment 73.2 negatived.
Amendment 73.3 negatived.
Clause 87 agreed to.
Clauses 88 to 151, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 152:
Ms MARTIN: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 71.4.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms MARTIN: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 71.5
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I am not going to go over all the territory we were over before. Suffice to say that the CLP posts their objection on the same grounds for the amendments to the definitions under clause 152(3). This is simply a desperate government aware of its political situation and trying its hardest to find ways to salvage a sinking ship.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 152, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 153 agreed to.
Clause 154:
Ms MARTIN: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 71.6.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 154, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 155 to 157, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 158:
Ms MARTIN: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 71.7.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 158, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 159 to 160, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 161:
Ms MARTIN: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 71.8.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms MARTIN: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 71.9.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms MARTIN: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 71.10.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 161, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 162 to 272, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 273:
Ms MARTIN: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 71.11.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 273, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
Electoral (Consequential Amendments) Bill (Serial 196):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Bills reported; report adopted.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I wish to ask the honourable members to consider this simple fact: what has been established through the committee stages of these bills is that a candidate who is not a member of a political party will not have access to an electoral roll. This effectively means that the only way they can get information contained on that roll is to physically go into the Electoral Office and copy it out so that they can get addresses to enable them to pass information that they may consider important to members of the electorate, in an endeavour to win votes so that they may be come into this Chamber as the duly elected member.
That is the great travesty of this legislation; otherwise, it is good legislation. With regard to the assisted votes, I am not going to lose any sleep over it. However, on this one issue of making it impossible for so many groups and individuals out there to have access to electoral rolls, you are making it impossible for those people to communicate their opinions to the electorate at large. That is the challenge that the Chief Minister has given to this House today.
It is not unreasonable that an Independent be allowed to pass out their information. No matter how repugnant that information may appear to me, ultimately it is not me or this Chamber to decide what is repugnant, the ultimate test comes from the people of the Northern Territory itself.
To me, to diminish the chance for a candidate to get a fair slice of the electoral cake in an effort to be able to get their information out is electoral censorship. There is nothing private about an electoral roll. It is a public document, it is publicly available. You can go in and inspect it any time you like at the Electoral Office. The only thing that this legislation prevents in the public nature of the document is that you cannot take it away from the Electoral Office. Therefore, if you want the information on the electoral roll, you have to write it out; copy it out. That is the challenge for somebody who is not now a member of a group that can find 200 registered adherents.
This is a very difficult situation for Northern Territorians. If argument is going to be run, when we vote this one last time, that this is legislation supports the principles of fair and honest democracy, then we are being asked to stretch our imaginations a little too far. It is a sneaky way that the government has dealt with this; it is exactly everything that they promised not to be when they were in opposition and, rather than pursuing noble intents, they are now pursing nobble intents.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I wanted to put on the record a rather peculiar observation I have made tonight in the debate on these bill. That is that, in the almost 11 years that I spent in opposition were marked by two things: a small Caucus, between seven and nine members - and for most of the time it was seven members. That meant discipline and team work when you are taking on, in the last part of that government, 18 members of government. That discipline and team work meant that, when we wanted to put an amendment to a bill that we believed was important in the interest of the Northern Territory, we were in this Chamber. The whole 7 of us were committed to the amendment that we were putting. If we opposed the bill, we opposed the bill in strength - the full 7 of us - and we went to a division, and Hansard will bear that out every time.
Mr Baldwin: Rubbish! I can think of three instances. You are making it up as you go.
Mr STIRLING: If we were committed to an amendment, we had the guts to go to the wall in division. Time after time …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker!
Mr Baldwin: Sit down.
Madam SPEAKER: What is your point of order?
Mr STIRLING: … Hansard will recall 18:7 in the division in support of the members from our side …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order!
Mr STIRLING: … in opposition to a bill or to a government amendment being put. These turkeys, not withstanding …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, I have stood! What is your point of order, member for Macdonnell?
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the standing orders are very specific as to where a third reading debate may range. It is a very tight and limited debate. I would urge that the Treasurer restrict himself specifically to the terms of standing orders in relation to third reading debates.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding the robust nature of some of the arguments put in support of their position on the other side - most notably from the member for Macdonnell, less so from the member for Daly - they did not have the guts to go to a division on any one issue, and particularly when they put an amendment themselves …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! I return to the issue. By standing orders, the third reading debate is a very specific, tightly controlled debate. The Treasurer is not limiting himself to the parameters.
Mr STIRLING: It is about the bill – it is about debating the bill.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not find a point of order.
Mr STIRLING: I will be brief in finishing, just to put on the record, at no occasion throughout the whole debate or the committee stages, did they have the guts to go to division, either to support their own amendment or to defeat what the government was trying to do.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I raise an issue relating to party membership and party constitutions that relate to the Pauline Hanson One Nation court cases, convictions and the subsequent release of Ms Hanson and David Ettridge.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Macdonnell, the member for Nelson has the floor.
Mr WOOD: Antony Green, the ABC election commentator and observer has been looking at these things for years. In case you missed that – that is the party membership and party constitutions. He has taken a look at the Pauline Hanson legal cases, and has warned that it is time for legislators to go back and take a close look at the rules defining the membership of political parties.
Therefore, I went to this bill to find our definitions of the membership of a political party. There is only one that seems to address it in a vague kind of way and it is this: ‘Members are members under the party’s constitution’. That is it. There is no reference to how to determine who is a valid member. Then, if you look for a definition of a party’s constitution, or sections that tell us what must be in a party’s constitution, there is nothing.
I will read some of Antony Green’s article on the Pauline Hanson debacle to highlight what might be potential problems with this bill and its failure to define membership or to say anything further about a party’s constitution. I quote:
- In briefest summary, the court cases pursuing One Nation have concerned what is the legal definition of being a
member of a political party. Oddly for what would seem such a critical issue, none of the electoral laws in place
at the time that this saga began properly defined what a member was. The electoral laws had no minimum
requirements for application forms and membership registers. There was no setting out of membership rights
and obligations. The law simply stated that, if the party did not have an MP who was a member of the party, then
the party must have a specified number of people signed up as members.
He went on:
- Apart from the disclosure rules, it is fair to say that our electoral laws register parties rather than regulate them.
We have laws that govern the internal operation of companies, of unions, and even of many community organisations
that accept public money. Yet, to a large extent, the law treats the internal activities of political parties as private
acts between consenting adults, largely unhindered by legal oversight.
- In overturning the Hanson and Ettridge convictions, the Court of Appeal ruled that the prosecution in the criminal case
had been unable to negate the inference that the people on the list given to the Electoral Commission were members of
One Nation and, therefore, the conviction was unsound. However, the Court of Appeal went further in suggesting that
there were other issues in contract law that implied the people on the list were members of One Nation. This is at odds
with an earlier Sharples judgment but does not overturn that decision. These two conflicting legal judgments now stand
side by side in defining what is a member of a political party.
Politicians are very fond of saying that they make the laws, not the courts. In the Hanson case, it is the lack of law
provided by parliament that has seen the courts embarking on their efforts to define what party membership is.
The cases have now left two conflicting judgments defining membership for political parties. It is time legislators went
back and looked at the loose rules currently defining the membership of political parties.
Electoral laws registering parties in Queensland have now been substantially tightened. Party constitutions are now
public documents available on the Queensland Electoral Commission web site. The constitutions must meet
minimum requirements for internal democracy, and the Electoral Commissioner has an oversight role in party
preselection.
The bill we had before us today has not considered these matters, and I say to the government perhaps it is time to already to follow Queensland’s lead and start drafting some amendments to this bill which we will pass today, to properly define who are members and spell out what is to be in a party constitution, so that we avoid any potential problems that have occurred in Queensland.
Finally, I could not call a division, by the way; it was a bit hard where I was. However, I did enjoy the debate. I take on the government’s view point that, naturally, you can still have a party, but that party is limited in what it can do. It can be seen from the debate we had about who can have access to the roll, that both Independents, potential candidates and non-registered parties are discriminated against in the system. I believe while that continues to happen, we have a law that is unfair and, basically, puts the bias towards either the MLA or a registered party. We could do well without that bias if we are to have a fair electoral system.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, since the member for Nhulunbuy has now calmed down, I would like to recall once situation when I was in this House and they were in opposition, when he talked about commitment. I remember a …
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! Has this got anything at all to do with the bill – anything at all? A remote connection – I will accept a very distant link!
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Daly, I remind you to keep your remarks specific to the bill.
Mr BALDWIN: I am happy to do that, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. I am recalling the third reading contribution made by the member for Nhulunbuy when he talked about the commitment on this side. He provided some examples of when they were in opposition. I would just like to do the same; provide one example that I witnessed myself when the opposition, in a debate on a piece of legislation in committee, called a division. As you know, divisions have to be supported, and only one member stood for support. The rest of them sat there. That is how committed they were …
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: That is how committed you were …
Mr Stirling: We still called for division.
Mr BALDWIN: I might point out, they are just …
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have given a fair amount of latitude during this third reading stage. I expect members to just contain provocation so that due process can occur.
Mr BALDWIN: I point out that they were so committed that they had 13 members on that side - and what? - three of them spoke during the whole debate. The rest of them did not say a word. That is how committed they are to this electoral roll. I also put on the record that our leader did contribute to this debate - in fact, led the debate. They have short-term memories over there, but we will put that on the record so they remember.
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! If you want to be sin binned, keep it up!
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
TABLED PAPER
Northern Territory Alcohol Framework – Interim Report
Northern Territory Alcohol Framework – Interim Report
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to table an interim report of the Northern Territory alcohol framework. The framework is part of the government’s continuing commitment to addressing problems caused by alcohol.
In tabling this interim report, I wish to make it clear that I do so to ensure that the interim findings are widely disseminated and form the basis of public debate on this issue. The government makes no comment, at this stage, on the recommendations or the issues raised. We will do so once the final report is in and before Cabinet. This report will now be taken across the Territory and tested, revised and finalised against public opinion and views.
While alcohol delivers a range of social, health and economic benefits to the community is also has a range of negative consequences that demand attention. Some of the costs related to irresponsible use of alcohol include: 856 Territorians dying as a result of drinking alcohol between 1992 and 2001; alcohol-related deaths in the Territory are three times the national average; a very high rate of alcohol-related assaults – 42% of alcohol-related admissions to Northern Territory hospitals are due to assault; two thirds of road fatalities in the Northern Territory involve alcohol; and alcohol contributed to over 70% of police workload in urban centres of the Territory, this figure increasing to almost 90% in some remote areas.
These statistics are just a snapshot of some of the problems associated with alcohol in our community, but they highlight that effective alcohol policy and action are fundamentally important for future development of the Territory. This is why the government commissioned the development of a comprehensive whole-of-government framework on alcohol in September 2003.
The alcohol framework project is led by former minister Daryl Manzie, and the Deputy Director of Central Australian Congress Medical Service, Donna Ah Chee. In preparing the report, the framework team has taken advantage of a number of important past reports and responses to alcohol in the Northern Territory. These include the Living with Alcohol program, introduced with bipartisan support by the Perron government, and the recent work of the Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community. By November 2003, the select committee had travelled extensively, taking evidence from over 300 individuals representing 27 organisations, 12 remote communities and had received 99 submissions. Having access to this valuable source of community information has enabled the project to work efficiently in identifying key issues and options.
This interim report describes key goals, reporting requirements and mechanisms to coordinate government action, and its relationships with the liquor industry and the community. The report also discusses a number of specific matters such as licensing fees, Sunday trading and the role of the Licensing Commission.
One of the key issues identified in the report is the need to set an overall government direction on alcohol strategy, and ensure that there is coordinated planning and action across government agencies and in partnership with industry and community groups. The report proposes a range of mechanisms to enable community members to have greater input into decisions about alcohol that affect them, particularly decisions about licensing and the availability of alcohol in their community. The report discusses ways to promote a culture of responsible drinking in the Northern Territory through effective community education backed up by appropriate regulatory action. The report describes the need for continuous evaluation of measures taken to address alcohol-related harm, and highlights the need for practical research to assist future policy development.
The report also includes a substantial discussion of the liquor licensing system, and offers a number of options for consideration. These options are designed to increase the Licensing Commission’s accountability and transparency, to promote community participation, to coordinate licensing decisions with other harm minimisation strategies, and to formalise the role of the Licensing Commission in developing regional alcohol restrictions and responding to local alcohol management plans.
The report considers ways to promote compliance with liquor licensing laws, and whether any changes should be made to current procedures in relation to restricted areas and social clubs on remote Aboriginal communities. Finally, the report suggests that alcohol treatment services should be reviewed to ensure effective outcomes and targeting for the millions of dollars currently invested in this area.
I encourage members of the community, industry representatives, and government agencies to contribute to the further development of the Northern Territory alcohol framework by commenting on these and other issues raised in the interim report. Copies of the report can be obtained from the framework team which can be contacted through Northern Territory Treasury. Responses to the ranges of issues and options presented in the report are sought by 16 April 2004. Over the next two months, the framework team will travel to each regional centre to meet with as many people as possible. The final report will be completed and presented to me for consideration by the government in May 2004.
Alcohol is an important and controversial topic in the Northern Territory. It is likely that some of the ideas put forward in the report will also be controversial. Whatever the merits of the particular proposals, it is clear to the government that significant action must be taken to respond to the level of harm caused to our community by irresponsible alcohol use. All proposals that might achieve that goal should be considered.
I stress again that, in the report, the content is by no means final. As an interim report, the intention has been to present issues facing the Territory in a way that will facilitate public debate and discussion. It should provide an opportunity for all of us to comment on the ideas raised and to put forward any options that have not yet been canvassed. It is from a balanced and focussed assessment of such input that an effective framework should be identified over the coming months.
I commend the report to the House as the next step in our ongoing commitment to developing effective responses to the unacceptable levels of alcohol-related crime that exists in our community. I move that the Assembly take note of the paper, and seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Crime Prevention
Crime Prevention
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the Martin Labor government was elected with a firm commitment to tackle crime in our community, tackle the cause of crime, and to create safer communities. Tonight I present a report card on crime prevention and community safety initiatives that are happening across government, and in strong partnerships with our community.
Our six-point plan on crime was our election commitment, and we have delivered to Territorians through those six major platforms for protecting the Territory community, punishing offenders and preventing crime: serious crime means serious time; making you safe at home; getting help from police when you need it; putting victims first; getting tough on the causes of crime; and establishing a central crime prevention agency.
This government was also elected with a mandate to tackle illicit drugs and crime. Our three-point plan, Tough on Drugs, set out three key strategies for attacking illicit drugs and drug-related crime in our community: a law enforcement strategy of zero tolerance on drug production and distribution; compulsory treatment of addicts arrested on drug-related crime; and a properly resourced drug prevention strategy.
Central to these plans is our policy to deliver safe communities by being both tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. This was our commitment and our focus. It is the intent that drives our governments responses to crime and to antisocial behaviour.
We have ensured, through the introduction of new aggravated property offences and changes to the Sentencing Act, that we have laws for the effective prosecution of offenders. Through amendments to Territory legislation, we have sent a clear message that the community will not tolerate the invasion of our homes and business, nor the associated damage to property.
New offences of home and business invasion, introduced when we were first elected, reflect the seriousness with which this government and the Territory community view any intrusion onto our property. To back up these laws, the police have formed a permanent House Breaking and Home Invasion Squad for both Darwin and Alice Springs. The Special Crimes Unit cracks down on property crime by identifying and targeting the activities of repeat offenders who are responsible for the majority of unlawful entries.
We have seen the results: a significant and sustained fall in break-ins across the Territory. You will not find better proof that mandatory sentencing did not work. In the September quarter of 2001, just before we repealed mandatory sentencing for property crime, there were 1059 break-ins to houses across the Territory. By the September quarter of 2003, break-ins were down to 547. That is a fall of nearly 50% - a huge reduction. Later, I will outline our commitments to targeting re-offending and further driving down the level of crime in our community.
This government is also absolutely committed to seeing that criminals like drug dealers, who peddle their misery to our children, do not profit from the crimes they commit and the harm they cause to our community. The Criminal Property Forfeiture Act commenced on 1 June 2003. Since that time, 55 restraining orders have been issued. Predominantly, these orders relate to police seizures of drugs in the community. Warrants have been issued right across the Northern Territory, including Darwin, Alice Springs, Katherine, Nhulunbuy, Groote Eylandt, Maningrida and Daly River.
The total amount of money now restrained under this legislations - the legislation that the Labor government introduced to target drug dealers and manufacturers and other criminals - is $1.58m. Property valued at over $200 000 has already been forfeited under our scheme, ranging from cash to mobile phones and a vehicle.
This government was also elected with a commitment to help victims of crime. One way we are doing that is making sure there are fewer victims. However, for those who are unfortunate enough to be a victim of a crime, amendments to the Sentencing Act now require courts to have regard to the sentencing option the victim wants to see in place. Northern Territory government funding of $88 000 each year is made available to the Victims of Crime NT for assistance and support for those who have experienced a crime. A further $55 000 per year is provided to this group for targeted assistance to victims of break-ins. Trained volunteers attend crime scenes and provide emotional and financial support, including offering the victim assistance in securing their premises or cleaning up damage caused by the break-in.
During December 2003, Sue Lowry, the executive officer of Victims of Crime NT, travelled to Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs and Nhulunbuy to promote the scheme and meet with key agencies, including the Northern Territory business people who carry out the repairs. I would like to commend Sue for the tireless work she does with Victims of Crime NT, and also take this opportunity to congratulate her on her recent appointment as the new victim’s representative on the revamped Parole Board.
This government has committed considerable resources to the protection of the community and the prevention of crime, particularly with our $75m commitment to rebuilding our police force over the next four years. Police initiatives such as Taskforce Ranger have targeted recidivist criminals in the Darwin and Palmerston areas, particularly those responsible for unlawful entries and robberies. Operation Spitfire has targeted juveniles to prevent them becoming involved in crime over the school holidays and Christmas periods, while Operation Sharp Edge has detected and apprehended people carrying and harbouring illegal weapons before violent crimes are committed. Operation Spitfire has been particularly effective. We saw a significant reduction in crime and break-ins over the Christmas period compared to the same time periods prior to the commencement of this strategy.
Breaking the drug crime cycle is also at the centre of our efforts. Unlike the members opposite, this government was not prepared to pretend that illegal drug use was a trivial matter. This government was not blind to the links, recognised nationally and internationally, between illegal drug use and criminal activity, including break-ins. Indeed, a recent Australian Institute of Criminology study, including interviews with Territory offenders, looked at this very issue. The study found that the majority of offenders reported using illegal drugs, and multiple drug use was common. Significantly, 62% of offenders reported regular illegal drug use in the six months prior to their most recent arrest.
We started our attacks on the links between drugs and crime by bringing in new drug laws and enforcing them against drug dealers and manufacturers. Our drug house legislation has seen two premises – one in Darwin and one in Alice Springs – declared drug premises by the courts. Two other residences had a third notice placed on them, with offenders vacating the premises before the declaration was made. This government is clearly achieving its objectives through this legislation; that of targeting drug suppliers who are able to sustain a drug business through rented premises.
Last year, we moved on to the second part of the plan: to reduce demand by breaking the cycle of drug use and offending. Our courts were sick of seeing the same offenders with the same addiction problems before them time and time again. Our new Drug Courts allow magistrates to refer alleged offenders for assessment for drug treatment at the bail stage. Based on the model from Victoria, the program is showing great promise.
The best way to alleviate the impact of crime on our community is to prevent it occurring in the first place. We have already allocated significant resources to the protection of the community. We are continuing to promote individual accountability through the punishment of offenders but, in addition, we are also working tirelessly on the equally important third element: creating a safer community through crime prevention.
We are starting at the beginning. This government recognises that early experiences can have a significant impact on children and the paths they choose to take into adulthood. Those paths can be destructive or positive. Early intervention through education and social support at the first possible opportunity is vital to reduce the risk of children and young people achieving less than their full potential. In our Building Healthier Communities five-year framework, released last week, we are committed to giving our kids a good start in life and to strengthening our families and communities.
This government is providing more options for young people; not condemning them to a future of disadvantage and disconnection from our community. The Martin Labor government had provided $670 000 towards the employment of school attendance officers and, by the next financial year, there will be eight attendance officers employed to work with those schools most in need of assistance. The funding will also provide alternative education options for students who are disengaged from schooling. The attendance officer program will contribute to supporting young people to stay at school, to further their education, to better prepare them for the work force. We know that education and employment are major protective elements from a life of crime and dysfunction. The student enrolment, attendance and retention strategy, and our jobs plan, will ensure these areas remain a major focus for this government.
On another front, the Northern Territory police have convened a juvenile crime task force to consider the issue of juvenile offending and young people who are at risk, especially in the northern suburbs. In February 2003, an expanded youth at risk task force was established to make recommendations on some short and long-term strategies for high-risk families and young people. I, along with my ministerial colleagues, look forward to the ongoing development of our responses to young people at risk of criminal and antisocial behaviour.
This government has also funded Youth Beat, a Youth Night Patrol which began in Darwin in December 2002. Youth Beat is staffed by a full-time coordinator and four full-time youth workers, and operates five nights a week. The night patrol is available to respond to concerns regarding antisocial behaviour by youth, and the Casuarina Shopping Centre is one of the areas regularly visited by the patrol. Members of the community can ring the Youth Night Patrol on 89480793, if they have concerns about young people behaving inappropriately.
Another part of this government’s broad-ranging crime prevention program is Real Justice NT, a behaviour management tool for schools. Real Justice NT targets students who have displayed disruptive or harmful behaviour like bullying. It uses a conferencing approach involving the student concerned, his or her parents or guardians, other students who have been affected by the bullying or other behaviour, and their parents, to encourage them to take responsibility for their actions, and it is showing results. The project is being run in Alice Springs High School, Tennant Creek High School and Palmerston High School. It is also being run in Sanderson High School, and funding is being provided to that school for ongoing professional development.
The introduction of the pilot has been enthusiastically embraced and welcomed by the schools and the school principals. Participating schools are already reporting a difference in the way students and teachers interact. This is a very contemporary approach to dealing with behaviour management issues in schools, and one that is rapidly gaining acceptance in Australia and around the world. In partnership with the Department of Employment, Education and Training, the Office of Crime Prevention is assisting to develop an evaluation framework for the project. Every part of this government is playing their part in this important task. Never before has the Territory seen a coordinated and centralised approach to tackling crime and the causes of crime in our community. Never before has one organisation been focussed on the task of driving this coordinated and centralised approach across government.
This month marks the second anniversary of the formation of the Office of Crime Prevention. The establishment of the office was an initiative of this government - a key component of our election commitments to tackle crime and work towards a safer community. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the Office, its director, Terri Robson, the Director of Research and Statistcs, Stephen Jackson, and of all the dedicated staff of the office who I know have been working tirelessly over the last two years, and whose dedication to the task of creating safer communities for Territorians is simply outstanding.
The high priority given by this government to crime prevention and safer communities is reflected in the framework surrounding the office: a ministerial standing committee on crime prevention and a chief executive’s crime prevention committee. To ensure that coordination, commitment and drive across government happen at the highest level, these forums bring together ministers and chief executives from Health and Justice, Family and Community Services, Employment, Education and Training, Police and Community Development and, of course, the Chief Minister. The office has been tasked with three major functions: to develop and support effective crime prevention partnerships and activities across government and with the community; to independently compile, analyse and publish crime and justice statistics; and to provide evidence-based advice to the government and community on crime prevention initiatives.
The Office of Crime Prevention has been implementing this government’s commitment to publish independent crime statistics, something the opposition simply refused to do when it was in government. Without accurate, regularly published and independent Northern Territory crime and justice statistics, crime prevention activity was not coordinated and it did not target the problems that most needed attention and resources. Information to the public about the level of crime in the community, its nature and frequency, or about the effectiveness of policing or investigation approaches was minimal or non-existent. In short, the CLP refused to let the community know the true level of crime in the Northern Territory.
The availability of crime and justice statistics, updated on a regular basis, moves us away from the ill-informed debate of the past. The collection and publication of accurate statistics ensures that sound, reliable information is available to the government and to the community about crime and crime prevention. It allows government to effectively evaluate the success or failure of crime prevention strategies. It provides a measure, more effective than ‘which way is the wind blowing?’ approach adopted by the previous government.
Five Northern Territory quarterly crime and justice statistics reports have been released since the first was made available in September 2002. The reports cover offences recorded by the police, prisoners in correctional facilities, outcomes for drug offences and court outcomes for property offences across major regions in the Territory and for the Territory as a whole. The integrity of the methodology and the statistics, and the manner in which they are presented, have been endorsed by Ernst & Young, which has independently audited each publication. The reports are made widely available through the Office of Crime Prevention’s web site, and at participating community and college libraries. Briefings to the community and the media each time a report is released ensures that as many Territorians as possible are aware of the report’s availability and the information it contains. The next report for the period up to December 2003 is due out in March this year.
The regular publication of these statistics has shown us the remarkable downward trend in house break-ins across the Territory that I have already talked about. In fact, the reports also show, over the 12 months to September 2003, a downward trend not only for house break-ins but also for break-ins to commercial properties, motor vehicle theft, property damage and theft. A similar picture can be seen in relation to offences against the person, with assaults also following a downward trend over the past 12 months to September 2003, although statistics show assaults are in an area that will need the ongoing focus of our police and crime prevention agencies. Our ongoing monitoring of these figures, combined with our research base, and the important information received from the Territory community through our Crime Prevention Councils, drives our policy responses.
In December 2003, I announced a new sexual assault task force in response to government concerns over some recent spiked increases in the number of sexual crimes. The primary focus of the task force will be to reduce the level of such crimes across the Territory through the development of a targeted, whole-of-government sexual assault prevention plan. The plan will investigate current data, police and legal response to services for survivors and those particular issues facing the reporting, investigation and prevention of sexual assault in remote areas. The task force will be headed by the Office of Crime Prevention and include the Police, the Health Department and Chief Minister’s Office for Women’s Policy.
For the benefit of members opposite, I also point out that the task force will be looking at the implementation of the recommendations of the 1999 Law Reform Committee report on the investigation and prosecutions of sexual assault. Amongst the recommendations, to which the then Attorney-General made little response, are those proposing specialist training for prosecutors, legal and judicial officers working on sexual assault cases, and the provision of screens and other facilities for vulnerable witnesses in Territory courts.
In December, I also announced reforms to our legislation to protect vulnerable witnesses, including victims of sexual assaults. I am pleased that the member for Araluen thought this was such a good idea that she announced that she will be introducing her own Private Member’s Bill to do just that. I am sure we can come to some agreement on how to progress it through this House.
Crime prevention is not just government’s responsibility. It is about building strong partnerships against crime across the Territory. This focus on partnerships, harnessing local expertise, and using local knowledge to create local solutions, guides every activity of the Office of Crime Prevention, but is particularly evident in two vital and highly effective programs: the NT Crime Prevention Grants Scheme and the Network of Effective and Resourced Regional and Local Crime Prevention Councils.
$400 000 is made available each year to community organisations for community safety and crime prevention projects. $100 000 of that is used to support the regional crime prevention councils, with an administrative grant plus additional funds for crime prevention projects.
$180 000 is allocated to targeted grants for crime prevention projects identified by the community or government, which use an evidence-based approach and which might need to take place over a longer period of time. It is under this scheme that the restorative justice program I have already mentioned, Real Justice NT, is being extended from Sanderson High School to operate in three additional schools: Palmerston, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs High Schools. The program has the potential to reduce incidents of violence and, importantly, assist families to build healthy relationships. It will be these valuable outcomes that we will be watching closely as part of the program’s evaluation.
The remaining funds, $120 000 each year, are made available to community organisations to develop innovative and locally-based projects that contribute to community safety. Two rounds of funding have now been made under the scheme, and we are seeing some great outcomes from these projects. In 2003, Mt Liebig community received $15 000 to implement a trail bike program designed to divert kids from petrol sniffing, with access to the program prohibited to those who are sniffing. This has acted as an incentive not to sniff petrol and has improved young people’s understanding of the physical damage sniffing can cause. The presence of trained youth workers, in conjunction with extra police resources and strong community desire to tackle the problem, has been remarkably successful. The amount of petrol sniffers within the community has been reduced from 40 to six. Mt Liebig Council has decided to continue the program and is buying more trail bikes.
$15 000 was awarded to the Larrakia Nation to establish a pilot project for mobile teams of Larrakia hosts to encourage itinerants to behave in a culturally appropriate manner and to respect Larrakia culture. While this pilot is now complete, the good outcomes demonstrated by Larrakia Nation have seen the group secure ongoing funding through this government’s Community Harmony project.
Crime Prevention Grant Scheme funds were also made available to the very successful first meeting of Mala elders in May 2003, which saw elders from a number of Top End communities gather in Darwin to discuss strategies to encourage itinerants stranded in the Darwin area to return home.
Another great project is Shop Safe, an information package about retail safety awareness developed by the Shop Distributive and Allied Services Union, and now being distributed throughout the Territory. The package includes comprehensive advice on how to respond to violent crime within the workplace, what to do in the event of an armed robbery, height indicator stickers to assist in describing an offender, and description of offenders forms. Protecting small retail outlets and young retail employees is a particular focus of the project, which received over $20 000 under the Crime Prevention Grant Scheme. The project was launched by the Chief Minister at Casuarina Square late last year, with a large number of Territory businesses in attendance.
Community support for and interest in the grant scheme continues to grow, with the latest funding round attracting 59 applications for projects amounting to $1.7m. The 32 projects funded in this round show, once again, the innovation and enthusiasm that local people bring to dealing with the issues that concern them or affect their communities.
It was my great pleasure last week to announce the 2003-04 grant recipients at the home of one of these programs, the Alice Springs Youth Accommodation and Support Service. Deadly Treadlies is a bike rebuilding project that trains young people from Alice Springs in a variety of skills, from teamwork and planning, mechanical and retail skills, to personal and enterprise development - skills that will help these young people obtain jobs and make a strong contribution to their local community.
Onto the Grind is a project designed to bring about a reduction in youth-related property crime, substance misuse and antisocial behaviour. Based in the Palmerston CBD and, with a particular focus on the skate park, $10 000 will help the program deliver out-of-hours sport and recreation for young people.
The newly formed NPY Women’s Council Regional Crime Prevention Council will also receive funding this year, with over $20 000 allocated to the provision of support and advocacy for the victims of domestic violence at the Mutitjulu and Docker River Magistrates Court. This new Indigenous Crime Prevention Council is an exciting development, and I will turn to its activities in more detail in a moment.
I am also pleased to announce the addition of a quick response scheme to the current Crime Prevention Grant Scheme. From July 2004, $5000 will be available to support community groups which only need a small amount of money, at relatively short notice, to undertake innovative crime prevention activities. This program will allow government to immediately fund such activities, as and when they needed, and to build on community momentum rather than requiring organisations to wait for the start of an annual grants round.
Our regional and local crime prevention councils are further recognition by this government that partnerships - strong partnerships, real partnerships - are essential in fighting the cause of crime. No government agency, community organisation, or business, can do it alone. Regional crime prevention councils can best be described as building blocks in the framework we have created to tackle crime and the causes of crime in the Territory community. The crime prevention councils harness the determination of local people committed to making their communities safer with local solutions to local issues. The network of crime prevention councils now operating across the Territory also ensure this government remains in touch, at a regional and local level, with the issues of concern to Territorians.
In two years, the Office of Crime Prevention has helped to establish five regional crime prevention c councils in Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, Katherine, Darwin and Nhulunbuy. The councils have membership drawn from community organisations, interested individuals and government agencies. The achievement of these councils to date is evident through their ability to initiate and drive crime prevention projects in their local communities; the results of which will be seen right across the Territory.
The energy, initiative and innovation of these groups is outstanding, a testament to the ‘can do’ spirit of the Territorian. I would like to outline some of their activities. The Barkly Region Safer Communities Committee, with funding from the Crime Prevention Grant Scheme, has been working actively since 2002. With $30 000 received in 2002, it developed a community safety strategy for the region, which I will be officially launching early next month. Significantly, the committee, with support from the Office of Crime Prevention, successfully secured Commonwealth government funding of over $200 000 over two years, to employ a project officer to assist in implementing the strategy. I am looking forward to reporting to the House as the implementation work continues in the Barkly region.
The committee has also identified that graffiti and vandalism is a problem in their community. I was pleased to announce last week that the committee was successful in its application of $20 000 under the Crime Prevention Grant Scheme. This innovative project will see the whole community involved in creating a more attractive and safer environment around Tennant Creek.
I believe the Barkly Region Safer Communities Committee is embarking on the beginnings of what will be a success story, which will show what regional crime prevention councils can achieve. Government support is critical in partnerships against crime, but it is committed community members who are making the difference in Tennant Creek. I want to recognise the Chair, Kent Peak, and each member of the committee for their tireless efforts and commitment.
The Central Australian Crime Prevention Committee, based in Alice Springs and chaired by School Principal, Peter Vaughan, is also making strong headway in addressing crime related issues in their local community. While recognising the efforts of everyone involved in this committee, I would like particularly to acknowledge the work of Child and Youth Safety Subcommittee, chaired by Mr David Ross, in working to support the needs of young people in Alice Springs. The Alice Springs Child and Youth Safety Strategy will provide a focus for youth safety related initiatives in the region. It is an exciting initiative because of its potential to really make a difference for young people.
Coordinated and comprehensive action is required to address complex problems. Substance abuse, particularly behaviour like petrol sniffing, remains one of the complex issues facing this government. We have seen recently in Alice Springs, the community concern that can rightly be felt over the actions of petrol sniffers in a public housing complex. While small in number, the issues raised by these sniffers are immense, requiring and receiving the focussed attention of police, Territory Housing, Justice, Health and Community Services and, of course, the community sector. I would like to report that we believe that, out of the 18 sniffers at the Keith Lawrie flats, we are down to five who are still in circulation. So, we are going okay.
Again, I want to acknowledge the commitment of individuals who are determined to make a difference and who work tirelessly on local issues and, in particular, youth issues. Alice Springs enjoys a particularly cohesive and effective network of youth sector agencies, and it is to be commend that these agencies give of their time to further the work of the regional crime prevention council.
The Katherine Regional Harmony Group, established in February 2003, has also been working hard over the last year. Chaired by local alderman Anne Shepherd, the group has identified four priority issues: itinerants, substance abuse, youth and crime prevention, and has formed subcommittees around these areas. The crime prevention subcommittee of this group, supported by David Pryce and Matt Holumby of the Northern Territory Police, and Sharon Hillen from the Katherine Town Council, organised a forum for local businesses on 27 January, attended by over 30 local business operators. Presentations were made on the Palmerston Business Watch Program and on the clean-up assistance program for victims of crime, which has been recently expanded to Katherine. Local business people who attended the forum resolved to develop a business community crime prevention strategy, and to regularly distribute a newsletter to all local businesses so that the community is kept informed of current events and initiatives. The first such newsletter was circulated last week.
The Katherine Regional Harmony Group was extensively consulted regarding the extension of the itinerant strategy to Katherine region, with $600 000 committed to the strategy’s operation in that region. Regional crime prevention councils are being used as consultative bodies for the extension of the itinerant strategy in nearly all regions of the Territory. This is a fantastic example of government and community working together, and it is great to see the people of the Territory providing so much input into this major government initiative.
Crime prevention councils have also been established in Darwin and Nhulunbuy. Chaired by Mr Ken Mildred who is also the chair of the Territory Neighbourhood Watch Board, the Darwin Crime Prevention Council represents a productive and valuable partnership between the Office of Crime Prevention and Neighbourhood Watch. The council is focussing on a range of key issues including rehabilitation, reintegration of offenders to prevent re-offending, crime prevention through environmental design, media coverage of crime, and children and young people and crime. I am anticipating some high level work to emerge from the Darwin Regional Crime Prevention Council, and I look forward to that with interest.
The Nhulunbuy Regional Crime Prevention Council has taken the name Harmony Djamamirri Mala or Harmony Working Group. Established in May 2003, the membership includes community organisations, peak indigenous bodies, and government representatives, and is working collectively with the existing committees including the Miwatj law and justice subcommittee, to ensure collaboration across projects. Significant work has been done by this group to roll out the itinerant strategy in this region. Again, congratulations go to this group for the work they have undertaken to address local issues.
Whereas the regional councils have a geographical basis, the indigenous crime prevention councils have as their base clan or tribal groupings. The first group to take on this role was the Kurduju Committee, the peak committee representing the Warlpiri law and justice committees from the communities of Ali Curung, Lajamanu, Yuendumu and Willowra. The impressive work of this group, chaired by Aboriginal community police officer and community council chair, Gwen Brown, is known throughout Australia and well documented in this Chamber. I will not speak at length about Kurduju today, other than to say that it is an excellent model and to congratulate all involved in its success.
Building on this success, indigenous crime prevention councils have now been established or are being established in north-east Arnhem Land, Docker River and Mutitjulu in partnership with NPY Women’s Council, and in the Western Aranda region. I previously mentioned that Docker River, Mutitjulu and NPY council have received funding under the grants scheme for domestic violence, legal and support services. The Western Aranda Relekha Committee and Galiwinku communities were also successful, receiving money for the development of a community safety strategy, and to assist with the establishment of a night patrol.
These committees are really taking the initiative in developing culturally appropriate answers to law and justice issues, and they should be strongly commended for this. Some real momentum is being generated and I have no doubt that many other indigenous crime prevention councils will be formed over the next few years. I understand the Office of Crime Prevention has already received inquiries from two other regions.
I am generally excited about the potential of the regional and indigenous crime prevention councils. Through the commitment of this government and the hard work of the Office of Crime Prevention supporting energised and committed local communities, we are starting to see change. This government can take real great pride in kick-starting the development of the structures that are really making a difference in addressing crime and law and justice issues in our community.
Local crime prevention groups also form an important part of the network of people on the ground committed to working in their community to address crime. Such groups, together with Neighbourhood Watch committees, already exist in Darwin, Palmerston, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek. However, it is my vision that these groups become a feature in all regions because of the broad-ranging benefits that can be gained. I know that Neighbourhood Watch recently held a meeting in Katherine with a view to establishing a group there. I look forward to updates on their progress.
Residents in Karama, Wagaman, Palmerston, the Cox Peninsula and Finniss area, Darwin city and those living around Borella Park, have come together because they want their neighbourhood or community to be a safer place for everyone. The groups have emerged from community energy and activity; they have not been created by government. This is one of their strengths, but they do have this government’s support. The member for Johnston’s electorate officer provides voluntary administrative support for the Borella Park and Wagaman Residents Group and his electorate office is the venue for the Wagaman groups monthly meetings. The member for Karama is the chair of the Karama Crime Prevention Committee and also offers her office as a meeting venue.
I want to share with you some of the positive work being done by these groups. The Wagaman Residents Group’s focus is on problems resulting from laneways linking their suburb and the Casuarina shopping complex. Working collaboratively with the Darwin City Council, they have brought about changes to by-laws related to the management of laneways, resulting in trial overnight closure of three laneways off Amsterdam Circuit. A particularly noteworthy aspect of this trial, which has only recently concluded, is that residents lock the gates at night and unlock the gates in the morning. This is a wonderful example of community involvement in addressing crime-related issues.
I am pleased to advise that the trial was considered to be a success and the Darwin City Council has contracted a private security firm to lock and unlock the gates on a permanent basis. These groups, and their place in the community as a central point of information, are increasingly valued by a range of other organisations. Lend Lease, which owns and manages the Casuarina Shopping Complex, asked the Wagaman Residents Group for input into the design of a new pedestrian access on the Trower Road side of the centre.
This government’s work to create a safer community for all Territorians does not end here. The Office of Crime Prevention is already exploring a joint project with Darwin City Council to focus on community safety in public places in the Darwin municipality in partnership with the community. The project aims to increase community confidence in public spaces through the use of crime prevention principles in environmental design, and through communication strategies aimed at encouraging the people to use their public spaces. I am excited about the potential of this project to expand the local governments and communities across the Territory.
Personal and home safety packages will be developed and distributed across the Territory. The safety packages will contain information for Territorians about maximising their personal safety and that of their homes. It will also include: contact details for crime prevention organisations and reasonable crime prevention councils, support networks, legal services and information services; crime statistics and information about crime in each region; and issues specific to the region and to specific groups such as young people, senior Territorians and women.
The office is also scoping a burglary reduction project which, in partnership with the NT Police, aims to prevent repeat victimisation. Similar projects interstate and overseas have proved successful in reducing break-ins to homes.
Our focus on prevention, in particular on preventing re-offending, will also bring a new direction to Correctional Services over the next 12 months. ‘A lifetime of offending behaviour’ is how recent research has described the pattern of many of those who commit property offences and violent crime. Unless we work to break this offending cycle, we will not be working to effectively prevent crime and criminal behaviour in our community.
We have already put in place an Integrated Offender Management System, which provides management of offenders from their first contact with Correctional Services through to their eventual release and return to the community. This system will be strengthened by a raft of programs to address those factors that contribute to offending: problems such as literacy, numerary, lack of job skills and drug and alcohol abuse.
A review of Correctional Services to be completed in the second quarter of 2004 is likely to provide significant direction in this regard. It stands to reason that if we can reduce rates of re-offending, we are going to have an impact on the crime rate within our community and, importantly, reduce the number of victims. This significant progress of re-adjusting our correctional system is one to which I am personally committed, and one that I believe will contribute greatly to this government’s vision of a safer community for all Territorians.
Over the next year, we will be presenting a whole-of-government, whole-of-community crime prevention strategic framework. This framework will pull together all the work being done by government, community organisations, business and citizens groups, and help us together to generate and agree on the ways forward. Extensive community consultation will guide the strategy’s development. Not a shelf document, the framework represents our ongoing commitment to reducing offending and repeat offending, to attack the causes of crime, and to build a safer and more secure community.
I want to again commend all the staff at the Office of Crime Prevention for their hard work over the last two years. Not only have they been successful in establishing a professional knowledge base of crime and justice statistics; they have harnessed the community’s real interest in crime prevention and have developed, and continue to develop, effective partnerships to make the Territory a safer place.
I very much look forward to continuing to bring to the attention of members the results of this government’s crime prevention and community safety activities across the Territory.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I was pleased to see the minister describe his statement as a report card on crime prevention because it affords me the opportunity of giving this minister and this government a score.
Whilst I did plan to address many of the matters contained in the statement, I suspect that I will run out of time. The reason for that is that there is so much to attack this government about in this area. I can say with a great deal of confidence that I will be able to demonstrate why it is that this minister and this government earn a score of zero out of 10 for their efforts to date.
Having made that introduction, I note, not only with interest but with a deal of fascination, that the statement is, in essence, a cut and paste of 18 months worth of media releases. I would have thought that the minister and his staff would have done a little better but, alas, like their policies on law and order, they have fallen short.
I note that on page 1 of the minister’s statement, he refreshes our memory about Labor’s six-point plan on crime. He very kindly lists those six points. I probably will not deal with all of them, but I propose to deal with a couple and see where it takes us. The first, of course, is: serious crime means serious time. That is what the Labor government says. I think not.
There is plenty of information around telling us that it is simply not the case. This government does not believe in serious crime means serious time. We need only look at – and there are many examples of this – the murmurings of the minister himself. He has said publicly on a number of occasions that he would like to investigate letting people out of gaol - let the prisoners out. This minister does not think people should be in gaol. Indeed, I suggest it is a cause of great embarrassment to him that there are any prisoners in gaol, and that is no doubt why he wants to let them out.
There is a wide difference between the CLP and the ALP when it comes to law and order - that is what it is - the CLP actually does believe that serious crime means serious time. Despite the spin of the government and the rhetoric of the minister, this government does not believe it - and Territorians do not believe the minister either. However, there is another very good illustration of why it is that the government does not believe in serious crime means serious time. That is in the government’s own crime statistics. I refer to the latest ones; that is, the September figures released in December of last year. I refer members to pages 90 and 91 of this report. In particular, it refers to how many matters went to court, and the penalties handed out by the courts when it came to unlawful entry with intent - to choose but one example, and there are many.
Let us look at unlawful entry with intent, on page 90 of the government’s own figures. It says:
- 49% of offences … were associated with an actual term of imprisonment;
28% of offences … received orders other than those presumed in sentencing guidelines, implying a finding of
exceptional circumstances.
What that means is that they were not put in gaol:
- 15% of offences … were associated with a community work order;
7% of offences … were associated with home detention orders.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table extracts or copies of pages 90 and 91 of the September quarter crime statistics.
Leave granted.
Ms CARNEY: This minister should find the time to read his own material. What these figures show is that, in respect of unlawful entries with intent - a serious crime in the Northern Territory - only 49% of offences were associated with an actual term of imprisonment - 49%. Less than half of them went to gaol, that is what it means. This does not equate with the mantra peddled by this minister and other government members that serious crime means serious time. It is garbage, everyone knows it is garbage and, embarrassingly enough for government, it is even in their own figures.
I could go on - and I know some of my colleagues will spend some time on this - but I could go on and on about why it is that this government does not believe in serious crime means serious time. I am on only on page 1 of the statement, and only the first point of Labor’s much trumpeted six-point plan. Having shown, I would suggest, that it is garbage, that the Australian Labor Party, NT Branch believes in serious crime means serious time. I am not confident about the remaining five points.
The next point is: making you feel safe at home. It is hard to know where to start with this one. My assessment and, indeed, the assessment of many others, is that most Territorians do not feel safe in their own homes. Those who do so live behind security screens on their windows and on their doors. The government points to what it says are decreases in property crimes. In its latest addition of the crime stats, there are some encouraging trends - I will grant them that; there are some encouraging trends. However, Madam Speaker, you would be aware, as a member from Alice Springs, of one of many headlines in our local paper, the Centralian Advocate. This one is dated 6 February: ‘Lock your doors’. Front page on the Centralian Advocate.
The government says: ‘Things are wonderful under Labor. There is no crime, it is all going down. We promised you this would happen and, by God, it is happening’. Well, how wrong can the Centralian Advocate be? ‘Lock your doors’ is an astounding headline, even for the Centralian Advocate, I would suggest, Madam Speaker, and you have lived in Alice Springs a long time. That is a damning indictment of this government …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: Again, for the benefit of the more ignorant members of the government, I seek leave to table a copy of that newspaper headline.
Leave granted.
Ms CARNEY: Government says that it wants to make people feel safe at home. However, whether inside or outside their homes, the reality is Territorians are not safe. To the government’s collective and eternal shame, Labor has presided over a significant increase in violent crime in the Northern Territory. A significant increase in violent crime is, again, a damning indictment. It is in the government’s own figures - their own, very special blue books. Let us go through them.
The facts are these: there has been a significant increase in assaults across the Territory from September 2001 to September 2003. There has been a significant increase in sexual assaults from September 2001 to September 2003 across the Northern Territory. There are more offences against the person committed across the Territory, with an increase from September 2001 to September 2003. In relation to sexual assaults, the facts are these: sexual assaults have increased across the Territory every quarter - every quarter, with the exception of two. Sexual assaults in Darwin have increased by 38% compared to the last quarter. Sexual assaults in Alice Springs have increased by 17% compared to the last quarter, and a staggering 180% - that is three digits, 180% - compared to the same quarter the previous year. Sexual assaults are on the increase under a Labor government. Labor may well spin around the Northern Territory and say: ‘People’s homes are safer’, but, by God, the people in them are not.
In relation to assaults, the facts are these: assaults in Darwin have increased by 6% compared to the last quarter. Assaults in Alice Springs have increased by 2% from the last quarter. Assaults in Palmerston have increased by 12% from the same quarter last year. The list goes on, and on, and on.
We may well ask ourselves why it is that people are leaving the Northern Territory. We know we have the best weather in the world. Fortunately, the NT Branch of the Australian Labor Party has not been able to bugger that up. At least they are not leaving because of the weather, but there are a multitude of other reasons. Perhaps it is because the assault rate is going up. Perhaps it is because of the rate of sexual assault is going up. Or perhaps it is because this government simply has put to one side what many of us describe as general law and order issues.
The antisocial behaviour happening all around us, and the stuff we see everyday – nothing is dealt with. In fact, government has not even seen fit to keep any figures on that. Probably, it is a bit hard to measure, but they are ignoring all of the antisocial behaviour bits and pieces. Maybe that is why people are leaving town. I certainly suggest that the increase in violent crime is a factor. If government does not start considering that, there will not be enough people left to elect you …
Dr Toyne: This is the same speech you made in the Alice Springs sittings. You have not moved on; another year has gone by now.
Ms CARNEY: There will not be enough people to elect you, because they will all go. Some of us might think that is not such a bad thing. However, all of us - certainly on this side of the Chamber - want people to stay in the Northern Territory and, to do that, we need to provide a safe environment for them. Under the Australian Labor Party NT Branch it is not happening. Government’s own figures – look at it. It is a disgrace. It is an absolute disgrace.
No wonder the minister said on page 31 of his statement that he is looking at distributing personal home and safety packages across the Territory. Well, bring it on. Can I have one please? Send them all down to Alice Springs because we need them down there. In relation to that part of the statement, minister, I encourage you heartily to make great progress with that, because you are not making any progress when it comes to violent crime.
Arguably, the most laughable point of Labor’s six-point plan is putting victims first. If it was not so serious, you really would laugh. Putting victims first! There are a number of impolite ways to comment on this, but I will choose to be as polite as possible. It is absolute garbage - it is garbage! The evidence speaks for itself. I remind members of what this Attorney-General did a year or so ago with the crimes victims assistance legislation. He reduced the costs for lawyers to such an extent that it is not economical for lawyers to do the work. We told him what would happen and, true enough, it did. Victims are not pursing their applications for compensation because lawyers are not doing the work.
Lawyers around the Territory tell me that their crimes compensation work has dropped significantly. We warned the Attorney-General that that would happen. Indeed, I recall a fiery debate at the committee stage in particular. However, with the arrogance that is so quickly becoming the hallmark of this government, he would not listen. We told him and he did not listen: ‘No, you people do not know what you are talking about. Despite the fact that you have two lawyers on your side in private practice, you do not know what you are talking about’. The proof is in the pudding. Therefore, is this a government that puts victims first? I think not.
But there is more! I could go on all night and I am very sorry that I am going to run out of time. But there is more, and it is important that I refer to one aspect in particular. Members will recall that, in August 2003 I introduced a bill to amend the Sentencing Act so that the courts could not take Aboriginal customary law into account when sentencing. I submitted then and I submit now, that customary law protects violent men who perpetrate violence on the victims who are predominately Aboriginal women and children. I urged the Attorney-General to have the courage to stand up and draw a line in the sand and to say: ‘Enough is enough. We will not tolerate a situation where violent men hide behind the veil of customary law that shields them from stronger sentences’. But no, the Attorney-General would not have a bar of it; would not even contemplate it.
I would suggest that there is no better example of how this government and this minister have so dismally and pathetically failed the victims of these appalling crimes that are being committed every day and every night in Aboriginal communities around the Northern Territory. Government says that it wants to do something about this problem of Aboriginal violence in communities and, with what can only be described as feigned conviction, says repeatedly that it cares about victims and that it puts victims first. It is absolute nonsense. It is garbage; no one believes it. The minister stands condemned.
Regarding the report card: serious crime means serious time – no, not under Labor. Making you feel safe at home – well, if you had a home down south you may well feel safe, but if you have a home in the Northern Territory, you do not. Putting victims first - again the facts speak for themselves. I will not confuse the minister with the Latin maxim for that.
Another point to note about victims arises from comments on page 4 of the minister’s statement, where he asserts that courts now have regard to sentencing options that the victim wants to see in place. Again – and as usual – the minister does not know what he is talking about. The fact is that victim impact statements - and that is what he is talking about - were introduced by the CLP and courts have had regard to these for some years. In the victim impact statements, victims give their views on a range of things, including sentencing. I remind the Attorney-General that Victim Support Units within the DPP were set up by the CLP, a government that really did recognise the rights of victims and act accordingly, rather than simply paying lip service to them.
I am compelled to make mention of what the minister has called - not only in his statement but repeatedly outside the House - the government’s home and business invasion laws, of which government makes so much. He fails, once again, to do his homework and does not look at the figures. The facts are these: since October 2001 until September 2003 there have been - according to the blue book, government’s own figures - five offences of home invasion by adults that have gone before the courts. These you-beaut laws have not done much. Five adults have gone before the courts. I find it hard to believe that only on five occasions have homes been invaded in the Northern Territory. Clearly, that raises questions about the collection of the data but, more importantly, it demonstrates that, despite government spin and rhetoric, what they say is working actually is not.
On page 5 of the statement, the minister dealt with government committing resources to the protection of the community. Again, it is a sentence that simply does not reflect the truth. There is a statement about all sorts of money being provided to ensure the protection of the community. With all of this money, one would have thought that we would see some results. Alas, we do not. So, where is the money going? Again, the government scores a zero.
There are numerous examples around the Territory that bear testimony as to why it is that the government scores a big, fat zero in relation to its crime prevention strategies. One of the most obvious of which I am aware - and I know the minister is aware of - is the complete disintegration of law and order at the Keith Lawrie units in my electorate. There are numerous examples. I could be here, comfortably, until 6 am going on and on and on about the examples. However, let us just deal with one; a nice easy one.
I will shortly table, but I shall read a letter that I received from a constituent only a week or so ago. This letter was sent to the Minister for Housing, the member for Arnhem, so it is up on the 5th floor somewhere. The relevant extract is this:
- … The Aboriginal woman who was bashed senseless two houses from mine, by a vicious drunk. The middle aged
couple who were robbed and viciously assaulted by a young male and then sold their house quickly, at a loss, to
escape the horror of their trauma. The house across the road at 21 Bloomfield Street, which had all its front
windows smashed by a roving gang of teenagers who then proceeded back to the direction of these flats and
wandered therein. The horrid rape of a 17-year-old girl by two young men near the Bloomfield Street footbridge –
one was apprehended, the other still at large - both were residents of these flats. The Hermannsburg man who was
chased out of the flats by drunken thugs and then assaulted by them on the footpath outside my neighbour’s house,
spilling several wheelie bins’ contents onto the road and thereby creating a road hazard ...
That is just one part of this letter. It shows that government, again, scores a big fat zero when it comes to so-called crime prevention measures. It also shows the total disintegration of law and order in but one area - a little electorate of urban Alice Springs called Araluen. I seek leave to table that letter, Madam Speaker.
Leave granted.
Ms CARNEY: This issue has raised its head in fairly recent times. It has been around for a while, but things are obviously escalating. The minister, who was obviously told that perhaps he should go and have a look at it, actually did, Madam Speaker.
Dr Toyne: I spoke to people, unlike you, who refused to, because you think they are subhuman.
Ms CARNEY: Shortly, I will table a copy of the article from the Centralian Advocate, which is headed, ‘Toyne walks on wild side’. I immediately thought of the Lou Reed song, Walk on the Wild Side. There he was, the minister walking on the wild side - article dated 17 February. I will quote one very interesting part of it, as follows:
- … flanked by nervous advisers on his stroll, said it was like living back at Yuendumu.
Living back at Yuendumu …
Dr Toyne: There were a lot of Warlpiri people out there.
Ms CARNEY: What a joy it must have been for the minister to be back at Yuendumu. He may well have been very happy about that, but the fact of the matter is, the people – other people living nearby - do not share his enthusiasm. This minister really should get out more. No doubt, when he knocks off in a year or so from now, he will be able to have a good look. I have to comment on what a brave boy and what a brave little minister he was, walking around the units, flanked by his nervous advisers in the middle of the day. I seek leave to table that.
Leave granted.
Ms CARNEY: About the same time that this business at the Keith Lawrie units was really at boiling point, other residents were coming to me in droves, making a number of complaints about what they saw as increased criminal activity in the area. In fact, one man said that he had a group of people - it could have been different, but he thought it was the same one – four times in a week, siphoning petrol from his car. When he told me about this, I read out to him a copy of a press release that was on my desk from the minister for police. It was dated 2 February. I quote one part of that, which I read to the man who rang me up. I said, this is what government is saying:
- Police minister, Paul Henderson, today congratulated police in Alice Springs and Tennant Creek on their
high profile, proactive policing which has seen crime rates in the two communities fall over the past two years.
‘Police statistics are showing a marked improvement ...
It would be unparliamentary for me to repeat exactly what this chap said after I read that paragraph, so I will not. I will resist the temptation. It is fair to say he was seriously unimpressed. This is but one of many examples. If they were honest on that side of the House, they too could point to instances in their electorate that actually highlight the difference between all of the spin and the rhetoric, and what is actually happening. However, they will not because they are being told that everything is fine. I cannot help but wonder how many of them actually read the crime statistics.
It is not surprising that the minister made considerable references to the Office of Crime Prevention in his statement, as well as the crime statistics. The government’s spin is extraordinary. The government infers outside this place that the Office of Crime Prevention is independent. It is not. I remind members it is not; it is part of the Department of Justice, and the CEO is Richard Coates.
It is not at all surprising that Territorians generally, and the opposition in particular, have significant difficulty with these crime statistics because, on the 26 November 2001, when speaking in this Chamber about the crime stats, this minister said he and his government: ‘… will all stand or fall on how the pattern emerges in the future’.
Is it any wonder then that we are all sceptical about the figures? Is it at all surprising that we question the spin placed on the figures after a barrage of media releases published each time it is released? It is spin, spin, spin and they do not like it …
Dr Toyne interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: … and this bloke does not like it when anyone dares to question, or to put a contrary view on the interpretation of the figures that government puts on it.
They say: ‘They are all independently audited so it has got nothing to do with us’. Rubbish! I have seen the letter from Ernst & Young. The letter from Ernst & Young essentially says: ‘The buttons on our calculator are the same as the buttons on your calculator’. Ernst & Young were not employed to dig down and investigate the figures. The terms of their retainer - and I know the Attorney–General has the letter - was to check whether the calculations were right. They were not employed to look behind the figures. However, we are and we will.
I note again with interest that the government does not make - in fact, always tries to hide - the level of under-reporting. The ABS assesses that under-reporting as 25% of house break-ins and 69% of assault offences which are not reported to the police. In the latest bunch of press releases that accompanied the September crime stats that were released in December, there is a little line on the bottom that suddenly appeared. It says: ‘Oh, by the way, there is a little under-reporting’. It does not give the figures, but it is fair to say that, after hounding the government, they are embarrassed enough to say: ‘There might be a little under-reporting’.
We also have revisions of the figures that appear in these crime stats. If one looks closely at the figures from quarter to quarter, one sees the figures change before one’s very eyes. I do not say that the staff employed at the Office of Crime Prevention do anything wrong. All I say is that the spin put on the figures by government after each publication, change.
What government fails to do is highlight the changes after each publication. Most of the changes seem to suggest …
Dr Toyne: Madam Speaker, I think the member’s time has expired.
Madam SPEAKER: She has not finished yet.
Ms CARNEY: … that some of the figures go up. Therefore, it begs the question: why would government want to tell everyone that the figures have gone up? There are consistent revisions. A good example is this …
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I move that the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Ms CARNEY: In Issue 1 for December 2001, at page 6, for total offences against the person the figure was 1256. In Issue 5, September 2003, the same offences are revised to 1272. That is 18 months after the initial figure, and a clear increase is reported. Yet, government does not publish the revisions in any meaningful way. I would suggest that it is only the opposition who scrutinise the figures closely enough to look at them. This is significant, as figures are constantly changing. That is what it means and, yet, government does not tell Territorians about these changes.
Again, after a barrage of press releases in which Labor claimed various successes - some of which border on the unreal and fantastic, and I mean that in a fantasy sense as opposed to an encouraging, happy sense. After the barrage of press releases, months later - as many as 18 months later - the figures change. Does government tell anyone about those changes? No, no, no. It is interesting that, at page 1 of the September statistics - and it is always stated in each publication, that the intended audience of these figures – sorry, I will reword that. The people who will look at these reports are the people who are meant to gain information and insight from them. It says:
- This report contains statistics and commentary to inform the Northern Territory community and those
organisations interested in trends and patterns in key crime indicators.
If the aim is to inform Territorians, then why does not government make more of the revisions? I suggest that it is just spin. It is just spin: ‘If it is convenient, we will mention it and if it is not, we will not’. It cannot go unmentioned - nor should it - that the minister becomes almost hysterical - we know what he is like when he gets excited - when we talk about parts of the crime figures that he does not want us to talk about. We say a quarter on quarter comparison in some areas shows an increase. He becomes indignant and says: ‘No, no, no, you have to use a year by year comparison’. When we use a year by year comparison, he says: ‘No, no, no, you have to adopt a quarter by quarter comparison’. In other words, ‘Stick to our script and if you do not we will get stuck into you’.
It is fair to say they were close to a nice enough bunch of socialists before they won government. Increasingly, they are looking a bunch of fascists: ‘You do as we say and, if you do not, we will kick you; we will string you up’ …
Mr Kiely: I must object to being told I look like the CLP. That is a bit hard.
Ms CARNEY: The member for Sanderson bears the distinction of being recognised in this parliament as being the most stupid member here and he needs to zip his lip …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! I do not think we need to make personal remarks. Move on.
Ms CARNEY: When he does not, he copies other peoples work …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, could you get on with your speech.
Ms CARNEY: When he does not do that, he tells Top Enders they should open their windows when there is a power black out …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, on with your speech thank you.
Ms CARNEY: … so zip your lip!
Mr KIELY: Madam Speaker, point of order, however. You made a ruling the other day and you made it quite clear in this House about such comments as this. I am deeply offended by what is going on here. Let her stick to the relevance and I ask that she withdraws those comments.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, withdraw those comments, thank you, and finish your response.
Ms CARNEY: A point of clarification, Madam Speaker, which comments in particular?
Madam SPEAKER: The ones that have so offended the member for Sanderson. The personal remarks you were making about him and the comments you were …
Ms CARNEY: About the member for Sanderson being stupid, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, you are being rude.
Ms CARNEY: Well, I am not actually, Madam Speaker. Is he so offended at being called stupid?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, you are. Just withdraw it.
Ms CARNEY: Well, I apologise and withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Mr Kiely: We are going to bring this debate down to the level of a kindergarten, Madam Speaker.
Mr Elferink: You are prepared to slander somebody with the accusation of intoxication and now you are being so thin-skinned about this. You are beneath ...
Madam SPEAKER: Order, thank you. Come on, it is getting late. Let us get on with it.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, in the context of this debate, naturally I am reminded about the information obtained from the DPP last year. Documents prepared for budget estimates showed that, in the DPP in 2002-03, there was a 23% increase in the number of clients presenting to the Victims Support Units compared with the previous year. Those figures - and I have tabled the document here before - also show that the DPP blew its budget for the year 2003-03 because - and I quote from the document - ‘the workload of the office has increased by 113%’. The documents further show that in 2001-02 there were 429 new matters but, in 2002-03, that figure increased to 914 matters.
I said at the time - and I repeat now - that the DPP is independent from government. The DPP can not be spun and manipulated, and thank God for that, because they are the figures that this minister - this Attorney-General, the Territory’s first law officer - simply refuses to talk about. It shows that, if it is convenient government will use it and they will issue all of the press releases; if it is not ‘We do not want to talk about that, no one raise it please’. Therefore, the hypocrisy of government members and, in particular the minister, is astounding.
I could go on. Aboriginal imprisonment rate, for instance, is a good example of this. Under the CLP, the indigenous imprisonment rate was around 60%. Under the Australian Labor Party NT Branch, it is about 80% - a significant increase.
I take the liberty of reminding members of what the member for Arnhem had to say in the Chamber in October 2002 and, to use an expression oft used by the member for Arnhem, listen because you might learn something. I quote:
The high levels of incarceration of indigenous Territorians … is but one symptom of an almost complete denial of
law and justice here in the Northern Territory for Aboriginal people over a quarter century of CLP rule …
The rate of imprisonment for Aboriginal people has increased significantly under Labor in two years. The figures speak for themselves. How ashamed they must feel, and rightly so. The figures clearly demonstrate that the government’s policies have failed, and failed dismally and the crime amongst Aboriginal Territorians has increased. They are not - as has been suggested by the Attorney-General in a radio interview some months ago – all driving offences that he thinks. All the Aboriginal prisoners are in there for driving offences. Garbage! Not even you believe that, Attorney-General.
I now turn to another matter raised in the statement, wherein the minister mischievously talked about victims of crime and sexual assault cases. The minister disingenuously said at page 15 of the statement that he set up a task force last year in response to the increasing - I repeat: increasing - number of sexual assaults in the Northern Territory.
He said, and it is astonishing – I do not know who writes this stuff for you, but you might like to look elsewhere; perhaps down south because that is what you do and you should get someone else to write it - your task force will look at provisions of screens and other facilities for vulnerable witnesses in Territory courts. That is patently wrong. It was the CLP that introduced vulnerable witness legislation, and screens for vulnerable witnesses have been in place for some years. In this regard, the Territory’s first law officer does not know. I remind and counsel him, friend to friend, to have a look at section 21A of the Evidence Act, and there it is in black and white.
Again, he is at the bottom of the garden. He made churlish remarks about announcing the reforms in December about ‘our’ legislation to protect vulnerable witnesses including victims of sexual assaults. Excuse me? Whose legislation applies to vulnerable witnesses? It was not the Australian Labor Party; it was the CLP. This man says they were his reforms. How very extraordinary.
He also said that I thought it was such a good idea that I would introduce my own bill. That is a lie, and I can say so confidently because he cannot speculate as to my motivation and he is wrong in any event …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker. The honourable member well knows that she cannot accuse any member of this House of lying unless she does so by way of substantive motion, and I ask her to withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: That is true. You cannot say that. Withdraw.
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw it, Madam Speaker, and replace it with the word ‘fabrication’. The minister cannot speculate as to my motivation and he is wrong, wrong, wrong as usual. He has not read my media releases. He says things are in hand. It is garbage. It is further evidence of this government not putting victims first. This man should be ashamed of the absolute nonsense in this statement.
I could go on. I will run out of time, but I could happily sit here until 6 am because there is so much material on which to attack this minister and this government. When you come up with absolute codswallop like ‘Aren’t things wonderful under the Australian Labor Party in the Northern Territory?’, you should look around you. Listen to the people around you. Take another walk on the wild side somewhere else. Join the Grey Nomads – I know you are already grey and you are going away. Look outside, see what is around. You should be ashamed and you score a big, fat zero.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, this is one of those statement that I would hope is considered by members as being one of the most important we can debate. At the end of the day, the role of government is to provide - above all else, before education and health – a safe and civil society. Yet, I find myself on my feet directly after the shadow Attorney-General because it appears that members opposite seem to have lost interest in a safe, orderly society, or at least interest to the point at which they have any urge to speak about it this evening.
Before I start on my contribution, I wish to touch on a few of the things that the member for Araluen did, and that is in relation to this desire of the current minister to rewrite history for his own ends. This is not unusual for the honourable members opposite. I find myself somewhat frustrated by having to constantly correct the errors that the minister makes in relation to, specifically, what I do around the traps.
The minister told me in Tuesday’s Question Time that I have taken no interest in the people of Docker River. He said: ‘You hardly ever hear from the member for Macdonnell over there on what he suggests can be done on this’. If the minister had taken so much as a moment to check the Hansard from the previous week during adjournment debates, I was on my feet making quite a few suggestions on what could be done on this - this being the situation of Docker River.
The minister in his statement mentions Docker River and the good work being done by the NPY Women’s Council. I am a great believer that that institution can do good things. In fact, I believe that Jane Lloyd, who worked for that organisation, was such a good operator that, when she came to me to provide her with a reference so that she could take up a more active role in the crime prevention issues, I, with great relish and gusto, did so.
The other problems that occur in the Docker River area have been profound and serious indeed. The minister said: ‘Oh, some time in the last 12 months or so, there were some problems’. Well, it was not 12 months, it was immediately prior to Christmas, and it was not some major incident, it was a homicide and an arson, and those sorts of things. The community has come to the minister for police, and has said to him: ‘For pity’s sake, help us. Help us have a police station here. You are about to enter into a bilateral agreement with Western Australia, lobby to put the police station in the Northern Territory’. Too hard, did not happen. I have raised this repeatedly.
Mr Henderson: Like the police station you built there? Must be a mirage.
Mr ELFERINK: I have raised this issue repeatedly with the minister, and he simply ignored the issue and ignored the people of Docker River. Now the people of Docker River have come back with another proposal for putting police aides in place, having appropriate accommodation in place so that officers can overnight, and those sorts of things. Kicking and screaming, the minister has said - and I quote from yesterday’s answer: ‘We have promised some Aboriginal community police officer positions there, two of them’. That is good. I welcome that news from the minister. The question I have for the minister is: when? Can we have a date on that please?
I urge the minister to respond to that because, at the end of the day, the people of Docker River’s nearest police station is Yulara, which is 200 km away by dirt road. Even when the bilateral arrangement comes into force and there is a police station on the other side of the border, which is closer to Docker River, they are still going to be some distance away from that police station. I am frustrated - frustrated, frustrated - that we have had to drag the government kicking and screaming to a point where they are making a promise to finally put a couple of ACPOs into the area. Put a time line on it, make the commitment clear, and exactly what the commitment is, and tell the people of Docker River that they are about to get the protection that they have every right to, like so many other communities in the Northern Territory have a right to.
I wish to turn to the ministerial statement, and I will begin with some observations in relation to the crime statistics that have been published. Those crime statistics are generally inaccurate, with a general shortfall - they come in low, partly based on the readjustments that the shadow Attorney-General referred to, and partly to the fact that the PROMIS system - which is another issue that I have raised repeatedly in this Chamber - reports short of the mark. The example I cite, and I have cited before, is that in the O’Sullivan report, Mr O’Sullivan, in a footnote to the report, said – it is actually not a footnote, but a paragraph towards the end: ‘In Katherine, between 5% and 10% is the shortfall in reported incidents recorded on the PROMIS system’.
That is largely because the PROMIS system is difficult to use. The minister has acknowledged that, the police commissioner has acknowledged that, and the repair bill for the PROMIS system is $1.8m. Hopefully, that work will be done quickly, in spite of the fact that the ACT has abandoned the PROMIS system. In spite of that, this police force wants to move on with it - good. However, when I say, and when the shadow minister for police says: ‘You cannot have it both ways; not trust the statistics and say crime is going up’, it is entirely consistent to say that simply because there is sign the statistics are falling short of what is actually happening, based on those two variables: problems with the PROMIS system which means that there are incidents not being reported, and the variables outlined by the shadow Attorney-General.
What we can glean from that is that break-ins are being unreported, and crimes of violence are being under-recorded. I will make the concession that, on the face of it now that the inaccurate system has been in place for a while, there seems to be a drop in house break-ins and commercial break-ins. Good! I am delighted to hear that. However, let us be realistic about what is actually happening here. The police force is engaged in an operational technique called intelligence-led policing. The operations they are targeting with that intelligence-led policing leads them to discover that percentage of the population which is inclined to break into places. This is consistent with my experience when I was in the police force; that the 80:20 rules apply: 80% of my time was spent dealing with about 20% of the recidivist offenders out there.
I want to touch on the link that the government makes with drug abuse and crime in a moment. However, there was a clearly an over-representation from a minority of the population in certain areas. The CLP, with its much-maligned policy of mandatory sentencing, was derided as being this awful organisation that wanted to put people in gaol through a mandatory sentencing approach. Without revisiting all of those debates, that was repealed by the new government, and they introduced their sentencing guidelines. I am going to be straightforward about the sentencing guidelines. They are so limited in the way they operate - the minister himself said so – that the effect of those sentencing guidelines is that it is mandatory sentencing by another name but, because we have the semantic name change, the public are not railing about it, I am not particularly upset about it, and the courts seem to have been a little less inclined to be critical because they feel that they have some extra latitude, which is not a great deal at all.
Therefore, through a mixture of a sentencing regime which is quite firm, and targeting 20% of the population which do 80% of the break-ins, guess what the result is? A slice of the population which did a lot of the break-ins is now sitting in gaol. Well, that was the CLP’s policy. The fact of the matter is that that is the problem. When you apply intelligence-led policing, which is a good and effective policing method – and I congratulate the minister in allowing the Police Commissioner to use it because it is, in my opinion, effective - you end up with people in gaol. Especially when the sentencing regime operates to put people in gaol. Therefore, the mandatory sentencing processes like that work.
What is sad about it is that you then get increased gaol populations and an over-representation, sadly, of Aboriginal people. This government which, while in opposition used to bleat about custody of Aboriginal people and the rates were skew and everything was horrible, is actually applying policies in such a way that that over-representation is now being amplified. So much so, that you now get criticisms from people like Lionel Quartermaine, the Acting Chairman of ATSIC, saying that it is all very dreadful and horrible. Therefore, you are caught in this Catch 22 situation. That is really the explanation of what is going on here.
Then I turn, much more concerned, to the other aspect of reported and recorded crimes. I trust the figures well enough to say that they are under-reported because of failings in the PROMIS system and the recording system. The audit says - as the member for Araluen quite accurately pointed out, saying, ‘Yes, you have added this up correctly’, when we were presented with the same data that the same computer system spat out that you read – we read them in the same way and the numbers on the calculator work - the effect is that we have increasing rates of crimes of violence - increasing rates of crimes of violence which are being under-reported. Therefore, what we are reading in the crime statistics are actually occurring in much higher numbers.
This is an area of which I am somewhat concerned. When I go into the community, both in Alice Springs and in Darwin, the programs which are supposed to return people to country in an effort to get them back to their communities seem to be operational from what I can make out but, I now have on good advice from several sources that 5 minutes after those people arrive - that is not correct - a day after those people arrive they are again finding their way back to Darwin or Alice Springs, as the case may be, to engage in the behaviour for which the were encouraged to leave the major centres in the first place.
What happens when the get here? They are encouraged to do more things. In this financial year, there is a $5m expenditure on improving services for these people. Therefore, you have better services here in Darwin than you have, for arguments sake, in Galiwinku or Port Keats. If you get drunk you get looked after; you get taken back to the sobering-up shelter, which now runs 24 hours per day. You have Night Patrols that pick you up. You are feed and clothed and washed. None of this is done for you back in your home community.
Therefore, service improvement in the major centres actually has the effect then of being a potential attractant. What concerns me is that you then attract these people here and you compound it with what happens in the community generally anyhow; and you have lots of drunks on Friday and Saturday nights as you have done for time immemorial in major communities. Every so often, we will get a Naval vessel or a large influx of people for various other reasons into the community, and you have a lot of people drunk and on the streets and those sorts of things. What do we do to control that environment? The answer is very little. What I am concerned about is that the environments that are not attended to when you have low levels of social disorder are the ones that ultimately lead to increases in results in criminal behaviour; and there is very little done to nip those sorts of things in the bud at that level.
One of the areas of concern - and it was established under the CLP in the past but has not been fixed - is the Summary Offences Act which, in my opinion, was once a very effective tool for the purposes of maintaining good order on our streets. The Summary Offences Act, at one stage, provided for a system of either summons or arrest for people who engaged in offences which breached that act: riotous offences, indecent language, fighting, objectionable words, those sorts of things. That was then replaced with an on-the-spot fine. So now you can receive a $100 fine or whatever it is for any of those offences. However, that does not remove the person from the environment which allows that person then to continue on their way with a bit of bad blood now because they got a $100 fine for swearing.
I believe that it is time to review that process and have a look at the operation of the Summary Offences Act and find out if it could be re-examined as a tool for which we could maintain public order. I am a great believer that you can nip public offensive behaviour - urinating in the streets, smoking a bit of dope on the street corner, all those sorts of things - in the bud at a street level with a policy which empowers police to either threaten with summons or move directly to the process of arrest where they believe it warrants it – act as a circuit breaker in the community and bring those people to book and have their offences attended to by a magistrate.
In the old days, there used to be a thing called public drunkenness offences. That was many moons ago. That was replaced with section 128 of the Police Administration Act, which had a responsibility of, basically, taking public drunks and not charging them, but just keeping them in custody for six hours. However, that was never meant to be a tool to replace the operation of the Summary Offences Act.
By necessity or by activity of police over time, it has become a tool that has replaced the Summary Offences Act. What was once meant to simply lock up drunks for being drunks has now become that circuit breaker, which the Summary Offences Act used to be. Over time, the effectiveness of the Summary Offences Act has waned. It is time to review that legislation. It is time to review policy on how that legislation is applied and how it can re-invigorated to help police take control of the streets. I give a commitment now that any future CLP government with which I am involved will certainly be reviewing the operation of the Summary Offences Act to see if that can be used as a means by which the police can take better control.
There is an element of fantasy involved in this statement. The Attorney-General talked about the expanded Youth at Risk Task Forces and all those sorts of things. Well, the impact is resounding through the community. I picked up a newspaper last week and, in that newspaper, there was a young man telling Northern Territorians that in the northern suburbs there are gangs roaming the streets who are prepared to sort each other out and do horrible and dreadful things to each other.
I am convinced that gangs roaming the streets need more than a Youth at Risk Task Force; they need some basic, simple controls applied to them. Whether that is through the Summary Offences Act or some other mechanism, there is a risk of sounding a little warm and fuzzy. I am not saying do not implement the programs, but make sure that where there is a soft approach on one hand, there is a consequence on the other. If there is no consequence for anybody to behave in the way that these young people are, then I am afraid that your Youth at Risk programs will not have an effect because there is no consequence that flows from it.
I also want to touch on some other aspects. The great battle against drugs seems to be working particularly well. The great battle against drugs is working so well that it was reported in the paper last week that fully one-third of applicants for the LNG plant tested positive for drugs. Fully one-third of our work force, if you extrapolate that to the rest of the community, have access to those drugs that you guys are so passionately combating. Okay, so you have scored yourself a few hundred grand out of drug income. However, as a taxation, it still has not touched the sides. It is an effective tool, but do not think you guys are winning this war, no matter how you want to dress it up.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will start by saying that, obviously, I support this very thorough and detailed 32-page statement by my colleague, the Justice Minister. It really goes to show the efforts that we are putting into crime prevention here in the Northern Territory.
I will start with comments made by the member for Macdonnell, who talked about fantasy. The only fantasy in this debate this evening is the opposition’s total denial that crime trends in virtually all categories are trending down and, in some categories, quite significantly. The fantasy of their denial of this fact is absolutely astounding.
I believe that one of the issues on which we were very clearly elected regarding our platform that we put to the people at the last election was to reduce crime in the Northern Territory. Despite CLP governments over many years running the rhetoric that they were tough on crime, they were anything but. How could a government then, standing on its record, talk about being tough on crime when, between 1990 and 1994, not one police officer was recruited into the police force in the Northern Territory. Not one, an absolutely appalling abrogation of their responsibilities to the community of the Northern Territory. We could see our community getting more and more angry about the level of crime in the community, and we put forward a very clear policy statement: a six-point plan to reduce property crime, and a three-point plan to get tough on drug-related crime.
This statement here today shows how we have systematically implemented both of those policy commitments throughout government across the Northern Territory. Regarding the statistics that are so derided by those members opposite as being somehow manipulated by government or fraudulent - the reason they are saying that is that they are in denial. The fact is that we are making inroads, and crime is coming down.
I would remind members and Territorians that the statistics we are now providing to Territorians on a quarterly basis are the most comprehensive crime stats ever produced in the Northern Territory. They are independently audited and, no matter what allegations the opposition might want to throw at those statistics, it is a level of reporting to Territorians about what is happening in crime in our community that was certainly never even contemplated by the opposition when they were in government, because they did not want Territorians to know the facts in regards to crime rates in the Northern Territory. I certainly believe that the crime figures that we put out now enable Territorians to understand what is happening and, more importantly, through the significant crime prevention strategies that my colleague has outlined, really give us some baseline data about identifying which strategies are working, which strategies do not work, as a basis of outcomes against those figures.
The two speakers opposite so far - again, total silence and total denial, and it continues. They have not learnt from, certainly the last term in opposition, about the links between drug use and property crime. They were in denial on this issue when they were in government, in spite of us, as opposition at the time, in the two years leading up to the last election, prosecuting that link between drug use and property crime. The then Leader of the Opposition described in debate in this House that the links between drug use and property crime in the Northern Territory was minuscule.
Well, how wrong they were. We had two speakers tonight, in nearly an hour’s worth of debate, and not one mention was made of the very significant inroads that our police force has made on a blight on the Northern Territory, based on the legislation that my colleague, the Justice Minister, has introduced into this parliament. If we go the police annual report this financial year for those crime figures of offences against property in the Northern Territory - unlawful entry with intent, burglary, break and enter to a dwelling – there has been a decrease across the Northern Territory between the years 2001-02, and 2002-03 of 32%; and for buildings, a decrease of 16.5%. That is a huge change by anybody’s evaluations, as my colleague, the Justice Minister said. That is 7000 people who did not have their homes broken into, who where having their homes broken into when the CLP was in power, even with mandatory sentencing supposedly being the great legislative response to a property crime rate that was rapidly escalating out of control. Seven thousand less Territorians have had their homes burgled than when the CLP were in power.
For the opposition to ignore that is absolutely outstanding. I can say, as a local member who gets out and knocks on doors in his electorate - virtually every weekend I am out and spend two or three hours doorknocking - people have noticed it. People have really noticed that there is a decrease in property crime in the northern suburbs of Darwin. I certainly believe that a lot of that decrease is related to the police use of the legislative provisions we have given them to crack down on drug-related crime. As my colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy just stated, by the very fact that we have closed down a significant number of drug houses in the Northern Territory - drug houses that were allowed to open with absolute total licence by the previous government. Everybody in Darwin knew about the Foils at Moil and Speed Plus. Every taxi driver could tell you where to go to get drugs. Every parent’s nightmare was driving past those dwellings and hoping that their kids were never going to get caught up in purchasing drugs from those properties.
I remember debates in this House when the then member for Jingili, basically, said: ‘We know it is happening and there is nothing we can do about it’. Well, we introduced the drug house legislation and those places have been closed down. For that not to be recognised in this debate is absolutely extraordinary. I know that my colleague, the member for Johnston, has some very happy electors in and around that Moil area who say good riddance to the blight that was in their neighbourhood for many years.
The member for Macdonnell, again, is still in denial. I am absolutely amazed at his derisive comments, as an ex-police officer, about the police seizing a couple of hundred thousand dollars from drug dealers as a result of our criminal property forfeiture legislation. Again, we were the only state that did not have legislation that was workable. You have to ask why the CLP never cracked down on the people who were dealing drugs and profiting from getting our kids addicted to drugs. Since that legislation has been enacted, the police - as opposed to the derisory couple of hundred thousand dollars that the shadow police spokesmen talked about, and shame on him; I certainly will be making sure that people in the Drug Squad get to see his comments in debate tonight - the police have taken out 55 restraining orders on $1.58m worth of property believed to be the proceeds of crime or used in crime - an extraordinary success, given that that legislation has not been on the books for a great deal of time. I know, by talking to members of the Drug Squad, that they believe this legislation has been some of the most effective policy initiatives in their attempts to crack down on people who deal in drugs, and drive them out of business and ensure that they do not peddle their misery on the good citizens of the Northern Territory. They think that that legislation has been an absolutely fantastic boom to their armoury.
There is total denial still from the opposition in regards to the links between drugs and property crime. I wonder why they just will not get on board and acknowledge that they were wrong; get behind the government and our police - who are doing a great job - on this particular issue.
It is amazing two speakers from the opposition running totally contradictory lines in regard to the imprisonment rate in the Northern Territory. We had the member for Araluen saying that my colleague, the Justice Minister, was hell-bent on letting everybody out of prison in the Northern Territory, and the member for Macdonnell saying we - essentially to paraphrase him - had mandatory sentencing by another name and that the gaols were fuller than they should be. I just wish they would get their lines right.
However, the government does not back away from serious crime meaning serious time. If we actually look at the facts, the average sentence length for property offenders has jumped 49% in 2002 compared to the last year of the CLP government. There was a 13% increase in average sentence length for all sentences, and a 49% jump in the average sentence length for property offences.
In the 2000-01 year - the last full year of the CLP government - the average sentence length for prisoners was 296 days, increasing to 333 days in 2001-02; a 13% jump. In 2001, the average length for property offences, excluding robbery and fraud, was 166 days increasing to 247 days in 2001-02; a 49% jump. Therefore, for the member for Araluen, who is supposedly a lawyer and should be able to run a case that is based on facts, to say that somehow this government is not hell-bent on seeing people in gaol – if they commit the crime and if they are convicted of that crime - is patently wrong. The average length of sentence under a Labor government is an increase in the last year of the CLP. We can see the sentences are larger, the crime rate is coming down, and the only people that are in denial are the CLP opposition.
The comments on sexual assault and assault being out of control, again are false. Certainly, I am prepared as police minister to acknowledge we have not made the same inroads in the assault and sexual assault areas as the police have made in property crime. However, the latest statistics from September quarter 2003 state on page 3:
- Over the past 12 months the underlying average for assault decreased in the middle of the period and
statistically a significant downward trend was identified.
For sexual assault:
- It has remained stable at its current value of 28 since September 2001.
Those figures do jump around on a quarter by quarter basis and we are not making the inroads there that we are in property crime.
However, I do believe regarding crime prevention the strategies are being developed. We all know in the Northern Territory that the vast majority of assault and sexual assault in the Northern Territory are alcohol-fuelled and alcohol-related. My colleague, the Treasurer, introduced just before this debate the Interim Report on the Alcohol Framework. It is a policy issue that this jurisdiction, the Northern Territory, does need to grapple with, given the numbers of people who abuse alcohol in the Northern Territory and the impact that that abuse has, particularly on assault and sexual assault. We are certainly working through with our community a very difficult policy area - a policy area, again, that the CLP again neglected to do anything significantly about although, for a period through the Living with Alcohol strategies, they put some money and policy effort into that area. However, that dwindled away towards the end of their term. I believe when we get the policy settings right there with the community behind us, we will certainly see the rewards of that in some of those appalling assault statistics coming down.
I would like to commend my colleague, the Justice Minister, and the work that the Office of Crime Prevention do, working very closely with the police. The $75m additional resources into policing and an extra 200 police out on the streets by the end of 2006 will certainly see these crime rates come down even further. What will bring crime down in the Northern Territory is a partnership approach between our community, our police and with the government. Enacting legislation will see further inroads into these figures - decreases in these figures - and significantly more Territorians being able to live a virtually crime-free existence than they were when we came to power. The most startling statistic is that 7000 fewer Territorians have had their homes broken into over this period than when the CLP were in office. That is a significant achievement; there is more to do. I certainly commend my colleague, the Justice Minister, on his statement.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this evening I address the ministerial statement by the Minster for Justice and Attorney-General.
The six-point plan sounds good and it reads good, but the clear message to the community that you will not tolerate the unlawful invasion of homes or businesses, nor the associated damage to property, has not reached the ears of offenders in Katherine who are still committing these offences. Your wonderful statistics that show that break-ins have fallen by 50% again do not reflect what is happening in Katherine. Despite the fact that I have heard here tonight that the statistics are coming down, I can assure you that I live in Katherine and I know what is happening there. The truth is that they have not come down.
Dr Toyne: Katherine is going up. That is in the books. We are not denying that.
Mrs MILLER: Yes, Katherine still does have a problem.
I have the greatest respect for our hard-working police and what they are doing in Katherine trying to address the issues that we have. They have their hands full but, unfortunately, as with everywhere, there are not enough of them.
The Katherine police have recently announced a campaign to address the high incidence of bike theft in Katherine; three or four are stolen per week. This campaign is called, rather unusually, VOLGA. It is to raise the basic awareness of bike owners to preventative measures to, hopefully, curtail thefts of bikes in the future.
Neighbourhood Watch is currently being established in Katherine, and they will be addressing the community through Harmony Week in March. Neighbourhood Watch will be having a bike engraving session at the Rotary Park family day and all bike owners are encouraged to come along and take advantage of this offer. With the introduction of Neighbourhood Watch, the engraving of bikes, and the success of the VOLGA campaign awareness program, hopefully the theft of bikes will be stopped.
I have been very concerned about the use and effect of drugs in our community and am very pleased that drug houses are now publicly recognised in our community. It has highlighted how rampant it is, especially when there have been 10 premises in and around Katherine that have been issued with First Drug House notices since the act came into effect in 2002. I hope that the success of uncovering these drug houses continues to remove this blight from our communities.
I welcome the assistance and support offered to victims of crime through Victims of Crime NT, and thank Sue Lowry for visiting Katherine to promote the scheme, which involves using local businesses to repair the damage caused to private dwellings, without having the additional stress of having to pay the full amount of repairs to vandalised doors, locks and windows, the cost of which can amount to several hundred dollars. Vandalism and theft causes unbelievable stress, so this assistance for victims of crime goes some way to relieving the financial pressure on these victims.
Sexual assault crimes are happening too regularly in Katherine, with three occurring just recently . That is three too many. Sexual assault is abhorrent and I am very pleased to see the establishment of a sexual assault task force. Even the minister acknowledges that there are spiked increases in the number of sexual assaults, and he is talking Territory-wide. I implore the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General to attend to this area of his statement as a matter of urgency.
Graffiti and vandalism are also a problem in Katherine and, in particular, we are addressing a problem in a suburban court that has a walkway coming through from Katherine High School into the court. This walkway has been a headache for a couple of years now, with the residents on both sides being on the receiving end of stone throwing onto their roofs, broken windows, verbal abuse and graffiti on fences on the walkway. The Katherine Town Council installed gates at each end of the walkway which are locked each night and opened each morning by council staff. However, unfortunately, that has only aggravated the culprits fervour. Now they have taken to graffiti on the back fences as well as throwing obstacles over the back fence. It has reached the stage where one of the couples affected by these acts of vandalism have had enough and have seriously considered selling their home and moving somewhere else to live. They are sick of the assault on their privacy and into their house, which I fully appreciate.
As a result of this, and trying to work out how we could overcome this problem, I approached Barbara Ambjerg Pedersen at Mimi Arts to discuss a community project which involves indigenous artwork being printed onto the fences in the walkway and the back fence of the two properties in the walkway that are being damaged. It has been interesting to note that, where indigenous artwork is publicly displayed on external areas in a community, there has been respect shown to that artwork, and it escapes vandalism and graffiti – or so we found in Katherine.
Barbara Ambjerg Pedersen was very interested in my idea, and together we are working towards a community grant to assist with this project. We have spoken to two indigenous artists, Reuben Tukumba and Jamie Ah Fatt, who are very eager to take part in this project, and have suggested that they will concentrate on a theme about respect for other people and property, and have considered that this will be the first community project to address other problem areas in the Katherine community. Hopefully, that will be so.
The minister has mentioned the Katherine region Harmony Group and, yes, I know they have been working very hard over the past year since it was established. I was closely associated with that group when I was an alderman on the Katherine Town Council, and appreciate the difficulties that face the Harmony Group. Unfortunately, the general perception in the community is that the Harmony Group is in effective and not doing anything.
I was one of the attendees at the forum for local business on 27 January, which was extremely well attended and demonstrated the keen interest and willingness to address the crime issues that are effecting the business area of Katherine. The frustration expressed by people at that meeting was expressed loudly and clearly and with a considerable amount of cynicism. They are sick and tired of talk-fests while the situation is getting worse for them. At least one long-term business owner has expressed that he is giving Katherine until 2006 to get its act together or else he is leaving town. He is a very good businessman but he is totally frustrated with the ongoing crime and vandalism, and even more frustrated with programs that are not producing results.
The minister for Justice and Attorney–General finished off his statement by saying that the government will bring forward a whole-of-government/a whole-of-community crime prevention strategic framework. I look forward with great anticipation to viewing this framework that I trust, in all sincerity, will not become a shelf document.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, last night I called for a response from a couple of ministers; one to do with the bat problem at Mataranka, another just as serious an issue concerning the commercial fishermen and the ruling by the appeals court. Hopefully, the minister …
Mr Vatskalis interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: … will get some information forthcoming, which is good. I am happy to support you in fixing the problem, I should let you know right from the start. However, it is getting a little drawn out and it needs to be hurried up.
Tonight, I would like to talk about animal welfare and, in particular, the latest demise of the RSPCA and their financial situation, which some would suspect has rendered it incapable of fulfilling its role under the NT Animal Welfare Act. I would like to know from the minister responsible, the Minister for Community Services, what procedures he has put in place. I understand the minister has met with them and there is an obligation by government to ensure that animal welfare is taken care of in the Northern Territory. I will be looking for a response by that minister in regard to what procedures have been put in place by government to ensure that animal welfare is being taken care of in the Northern Territory. Obviously, there is a funding problem and that needs to be addressed. In the meantime, the government has its own Animal Welfare Unit and I would like to know what the minister’s response is in regard to the resources that that unit has, and what they do to carry out the Northern Territory government’s obligations in regards to the Animal Welfare Act.
The situation with the RSPCA is obviously one of great concern. They do a great job; they work on minimal funding. They obviously rely very heavily on assistance that is totally volunteer, apart from a couple of positions that have been dropped to get over their financial problems of recent times. Hopefully, the government is across the situation and will be providing some funding to enable them to continue their job.
Animal welfare has been in the news of late. I notice that the minister himself has been involved, in an indirect way, in a particular case in Katherine where a young horse was left starving for two weeks in a Territory backyard; that backyard being owned by the minister himself, which I find very ironic at a time that we are talking about the RSPCA and the problems they have. Of course, the minister, in this particular instance, has said that he was not aware of it. He is quoted in the NT News as saying he has written to the Animal Welfare Authority director David Coles, who is his own CEO, to report the horse’s condition. In the paper there was a photo of the horse, which looks very skinny to me. Mr Coles said that the authority would investigate the allegations of this horse starving. When it can happen in the minister’s own backyard, some responsibility has to be taken by the minister in regard to the situation, even though he obviously has tenants on the premises.
However, it just points to the fact that the RSPCA who, as I have said have done a great job over many years, have financial difficulties that do need to be addressed. If they were perhaps properly funded throughout the Northern Territory and the regions, they could certainly be very vigilant about this sort of occurrence happening in regards to animals starving and being cruelly treated.
The other thing I would like to talk about in regard to animal welfare is to ask: what is the latest on the Warren Anderson case? The minister made great noise about the animals at Tipperary in the private zoo. He was talking about bringing some action against Warren Anderson under the Animal Welfare Act, to do with the state of the animals at Tipperary and the fact that the government saw that they had to feed these animals. I am just wondering where that is at. The minister might inform the House whether he has preferred charges. I seem to recall that there was some publication of the fact that Warren Anderson was going to bring a suit against the government. I would be very interested to find out where that stands.
I know the minister has had letters written to him regarding the issue of animal welfare. There have been letters in the paper, the Chief Minister has received letters from a lady who lives in Batchelor who concerns herself, quite rightly, over matters of animal welfare. This particular lady - and I do not particularly want to mention her name - does a great job in keeping government attuned to what is going on in the area of animal welfare, and has written to both the minister responsible, the Chief Minister I believe, and the CEO of the department, and has published letters in the newspaper regarding the dismal state of animal welfare in general in the Northern Territory and the lack of - I guess the word is escaping me right now - but the lack of responsibility that has been taken by the Northern Territory government in regard to animal welfare. She stated in one of her letters to a newspaper:
- If the Labor government refuses to take responsibility for the enforcement of these humane laws, at the next election
I urge the members of the community who feel strongly about the protection of animals to vote accordingly and put
this cruel, uncaring Labor government out in the cold to suffer where they belong.
What she is asking of ministers, government, and departmental officers is to strengthen the compliance of the act to clarify where the responsibility lies, particularly in regards to the demise of the RSPCA at this current time. Where do people go? Where do they go if they cannot ring the RSPCA? In particular, in regional areas where do they go? The Animal Welfare Unit within the department has a phone number, but they do not seem to have the resources or the officers who can take care of all of the issues regarding animal welfare, including even the minister’s own backyard where a horse was left to starve in that yard as reported by the NT News.
It is a serious situation when we are not properly taking care of the animals that are discarded for whatever reason, and they are treated inhumanely. The minister could bring something forward, even in an adjournment, to assure people like this particular lady who has written to them and published in the newspaper, that the government do have and are being given the resources to handle all the inquiries that are made with regard to animal welfare and, certainly, what the government is going to do in respect to the RSPCA and how they operate in the Northern Territory in the future.
There is an issue here that needs to be addressed. I am sure many people feel the same way. We need to assure and reassure people of the Northern Territory that the NT animal welfare laws will be enforced, if not by an agency such as the RSPCA, certainly by the department who has carriage of the act and all of the enforcement laws under the act. People need to be reassured that they can go somewhere like the Animal Welfare Unit within the department and make a complaint that will be carried through to investigation and, if necessary, certain actions taken that can be taken under the act. Currently, there is a feeling that it is a bit of a joke, quite frankly. The minister would do very well to come into this House and report on the actions that he is taking in regard to, not only the general animal welfare situation, but also the RSPCA.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight in the adjournment debate I talk about some happenings my electorate, in particular at Sanderson High School this morning. I had the pleasure, along with the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, to attend the Student Representatives Council elections, declarations and polls, which was conducted in the great stadium.
The students conducted their own polls and elected the following members of their Student Representatives Council: in Year 9, Tatiana De Castro, Brilee Jaques, Shelley Keast, Ben Keitaanpaa and Christopher Lalor; Year 10, Peta Boots, Kevin Kadirgamar, Sophia Hoving, Ira Racines and Aimee Slocombe were the representatives on the SRC. In the senior school the individuals elected were Brock Hall, Shane Boots, Ceah David, Ashlee McInnes, and Danielle Pukeroa.
It was great when these names were being called out as the successful candidates for the positions. There was great support for the students in attendance, which augers well for these people in the work that they have to do. The role of a representative on SRC is not to be taken lightly and I am sure that these students will not take it lightly. There is a lot of role-modelling there, and they have to represent the views of their fellow students and work with them. It is truly one of the foundation steps for learning how democracy works in our community.
I am positive that these students will represent their fellow students very well. I give my undertaking to help them wherever I can. They are always welcome to come to my office to talk to me on any matters about representing their community. I am pretty sure that they are aware of the honour that they have been given and they will conduct their office this year with great dignity, and they will also bring great pleasure to their parents through these new responsibilities that they have taken on. I wish them luck in their role on the SRC.
Also at Sanderson High School today, I had a fabulous time because there was an award given by Danny Honan the Manager of Telstra Countrywide, to Jessica Mauboy. Danny gave this award to Jessica on behalf of NT Telstra because Jessica had actually picked up a great Telstra award in Tamworth. For those who might not have been following the news about Jessica, she is a student at Sanderson High School. I first ran into Jessica when she was in primary school in Wulagi a few years ago. I remember quite well that, when they went over for the orientation day, student Jessica got up and sang to the Sanderson students. She has just gone from strength to strength. Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, you will probably remember as well the great event we had for the ASSPA Awards last year when, in the company of you, me, the minister, the principals, deputy principals and other school council members from Sanderson, Jessica sang. I believe you were talking to the minister at the time, and he noted that Jessica was a young girl with great talent. He was made aware of her eligibility and desire to go to Tamworth to appear at that festival. However, Jessica - like many other families in Sanderson - has quite a number of brothers and sisters and it was difficult to find that amount of money within the family. The minister moved heaven and earth to see what he could do to assist her.
On behalf of all of the school community, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for Employment, Education and Training for his compassion and intervention which has brought so much joy, not only to Jessica but also to her family. Her father Ferdi was there today, but I am not too sure whether her mother was there. I did not see her mother, Theresa, but she was probably there. They are two great people. The interesting thing is that the minister released his multiculturalism statement the other day and I got up and spoke about the rich multiculturalism here in Darwin. Jessica’s parentage is that her father Ferdy is Indonesian and her mother is Aboriginal. Jessica notes that, while she did not grow up in a traditional indigenous environment, that she is exploring her heritage now and will actually study a local Aboriginal dialect at school in Sanderson. That speaks volumes for the school, for the family, for Jessica. I wish her well; the minister wishes her well. I am sure that the member for Karama also wishes her well. I look forward to passing those messages on to her. I can say to her that her local member, the community of Darwin, the community of the Northern Territory and her peers are very proud of her.
On Friday 20th, I also had another great pleasure to open the new branch office for Wizard Home Loans, which is located in Stuart Park on the Stuart Highway. This office was the 200th office for Wizard to be opening. They are a relatively new company. They have only been around since 1998, but they are taking on the banks, starting to lead the field in the home loans market. The interesting thing about this office was that the principal, Dick Grant, came across from Cairns to open up this office. So, we welcome a new person to our community. It is great that he has made the commitment. He is the branch principal, but Wizard have a business model where they have lending mangers who actually get out and about and talk to potential customers. The lending managers there are Paul Jones and Janine Ashmore. I wish them well.
Also in Darwin to open the office was the CEO of Wizard Mr Angelo Malitsis. He is a wonderful chap. He spoke with passion about the company and where he sees it heading. He is a CEO who likes to take all his branches with him. He rolled out the vision for where it was; he gave a history of where Wizard were coming from. It is a fabulous company. I wish them well in the Territory. He was up here and was going to catch the game that night. How fortuitous that the office should open on the same day that the Wizard Cup was being held. He was off the following day to Canberra where he had to open another office. To coincide with the 200th branch celebrations in Darwin, Wizard were also opening offices up in Joondalup in Western Australia, Christie’s Beach in South Australia and in Beenleigh. I know that area quite well. Beenleigh is right in the middle of a huge development at Upper Coomera. Houses are going up everywhere through the Gold Coast. I am sure that that branch is going to do fantastic business. There is also Rockdale in New South Wales and Hopper’s Crossing in Victoria. I have family who live in Hopper’s Crossing. That is another place that is just booming a long. Like Hopper’s Crossing and Beenleigh, I am sure that Darwin - which I feel is on the cusp of a great building boom - is going to go well, particularly with the new suburbs mooted at Lee Point. That is something. Palmerston is still on the boil with all established homes and units that are going up. There is plenty of room in the marketplace for Wizard. I am sure that they are going to be competitive. More competition has to be a better thing for the consumers of Darwin. Once again, we welcome them to our community and I look forward to them being around for the long haul. As they say, they understand that people buying homes make the biggest financial commitments of their lives and, with their professional experience and leadership, they will talk to them about the options and will get them the best deal. Therefore, I wish them luck. I wish Dick Grant luck. Good on Angelo Malitsis for leading his company in such a great manner.
I would also like to just pass on a vote of thanks to Kate Epworth and give her a pat on the back. Kate is the events organiser - I guess would be her title - for Wizard. She did a wonderful job of organising the AFL event. They sponsor a beaut tournament, the Wizard Cup. People in the Territory got right behind it and, as I said to the CEO, when we were talking to people about going to the football, they were saying: We are going off to the Wizard Cup’ That speaks volumes for such a great business decision. Therefore, all in all, welcome to Wizard.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I want to raise, as I have done on probably two or three occasions before in this House, the matter of Gillen residents and various rectification works that they require as a result of the demolition of Gillen House. I am very pleased - and I mean that genuinely - that the new Minister for Lands and Planning is in the House. I would expect that he would have been briefed on this issue in the transfer from the portfolios from previous minister. If he has not been, then I am very happy to offer him a briefing.
Minister, this matter has been going on for almost two years. In this speech tonight, I will not go through all of the details. However, in essence, when Gillen House in Alice Springs was demolished for the Gillen seniors village, there were incredible difficulties and problems caused as a result of the compaction technique used prior to the building of the units. I will not trouble you with the details because I have mentioned the details on a couple of previous occasions. The long and the short of it is that a number of residents in Gillen - which is in the electorate of Araluen so these people are my constituents – has a great deal of damage caused to their homes.
Some of those people did not seek legal representation and liaised directly with the department and, as I understand it, rectification works on their homes were undertaken. There was an array of problems created in the homes. It ranged from cracked walls, some of the footings in some of the houses were damaged I understand, some pictures fell off in other homes, and there was immense disruption to a number of residents. In any event, some residents have had their problems fixed, and they are grateful that those matters have been resolved by the department. However, there is a group of 10 residents who sought legal advice and have been dealing with their lawyers for the better part of two years.
On 16 October last year, I made a speech in this House about the progress that the lawyers were making with the department. I refer the minister to the speech I made on that night. In that speech, I referred to a speech I made in June the previous year; that is, June 2002. The previous minister and I had a number of exchanges in the adjournment speech process. The bottom line was this: the previous minister acknowledged the problems that were created to these people’s houses and he said, and I quote: ‘I give an undertaking to the senior citizens that any damage that was done as a result of this construction work’ would be remedied. It is important for me to point out to you, minister, that a number of these residents are, in fact, senior citizens.
The minister said:
- My department will compensate these people should the independent surveyor decide that the damage to their
homes was done as a result of the vibrating roller. The vibrating roller is not going to continue.
It was the roller that was used in the compaction techniques which caused the problems. The former minister assured me in this Chamber that those residents would be compensated if the independent surveyor who was retained at the time came back said government caused the problem.
Well, minister, the contractors who undertook the work did, in fact, cause the problem - a number of problems indeed - to the homes of these 10 residents. In light of the assurances - and I took them to be rock solid. They were rock solid assurances that the minister gave that he would compensate these people and he would fix the damage. It has been a dreadful situation for the residents and it has been made even more dreadful by the fact that they have not been compensated and their homes have not been fixed. I have been in constant contact with the lawyers representing these people from the law firm Collier and Deane. The initial solicitor who had conduct of the matter was Nardine Collier. Mr Sam Salmon now has conduct of the matter.
Recently, as a result of frustrations the residents felt and, indeed, Mr Salmon felt, the residents and I and Mr Salmon got together in my office. The frustrations were that it has been about two years and nothing has happened. The last time I made a speech in this House about this matter - that is on 16 October 2003 - I referred to the various delays that the solicitors had experienced from the department. They were pretty close to outrageous, frankly. The department was simply, as I am instructed by the solicitor, not responding or, when they did, it was a very delayed response.
In any event, at the meeting recently some progress had been made, but not all. I have in my possession - and I have permission to read from it - a copy of a letter from Messrs Collier and Deane to the solicitors representing government, Clayton Utz, dated 30 January 2004. I do not think I need to table the letter because the minister should have it. In that letter, which is almost three pages, a settlement of sorts is agreed. However, there were a couple of matters that remain unresolved. Those matters are a claim for compensation for each resident to the value of $1000. I quote the following from this letter from Sam Salmon:
- I might add that at the recent meeting some residents stated that $1000 payment was far below what they consider
should be offered for the stress and inconvenience they not only incurred at the time the work was performed,
but have continued to incur since that time, due to what on any objective analysis can be described as your
client’s uncooperative stance.
He went on to talk about the other point of contention and that is settlement of this matter for the sum $4000 for legal costs to the law firm. I quote what Mr Salmon wrote in that regard:
The residents are surprised at DIPE’s refusal to pay more than $4000 in legal fees. The fees incurred to date
are considerable considering the number of residents and the length of time it has taken to get to this stage.
We have attempted to keep our costs to a minimum. In a spirit of goodwill we suggest that your client …
… pay all our costs. The residents ought not to be out of pocket as a result of your client’s negligence.
The writer’s assessment is that an expression of goodwill by government is overdue and payment of all
costs is a desirable outcome.
- I would appreciate a response to this letter within 14 days.
I remind the minister that that letter was dated 30 January 2004.
In essence, what do we have? An ongoing saga: a problem that was created at a government work site for the Gillen’s seniors village; various reports – a surveyors report in particular - that says yes, as a result of this compaction technique damage was caused and residents had problems. The former minister in this House said: ‘I will fix it, I will fix it, I will fix it’. The solicitors have experienced ongoing delays with the department, some of which are just not acceptable on any objective analysis.
Although the solicitors for both sides have managed to lock a few things off in terms of the issues that have arisen, two issues remain - two issues. One is the payment of $1000 to each resident for the stress and inconvenience, otherwise described as nuisance, as a result of the government’s negligence. I would hate to see, minister, the department dig its heels in, because it is just not fair. It just is not. I do not know this new minister very well, but from what I have seen of him in the parliament and from what I have heard, I believe he is a man of conscience and that he believes in a fair go and justice, and he has a sense of what is right and what is not.
It is just not right for these residents to have been inconvenienced to the extent that they have for two years. Speaking as a solicitor, $1000 for each resident is nothing. It is worth paying it because, if this went to court, my assessment and, indeed, the assessment of their solicitor - who I might add is not me - is that they would receive significantly more.
Therefore, the purpose of me getting to my feet tonight is that I urge the minister to get on top of this, get it out of the way, instruct his department to instruct the lawyers or, indeed, the minister can instruct the lawyers Clayton Utz direct, and say: ‘Pay them the money’, because they deserve it. These people had a meeting in my office at 6 pm one night. They should not have even had to have been there. Had matters been resolved two years prior, they would not have been. Yet, two years after the event they are still suffering - and they are suffering. Not all of the residents are senior citizens, but many of them are, and it is just not fair.
The second matter that remains outstanding is the law firm, Collier and Deane’s claim for $4000 for legal costs. Minister, I say with my hand on my heart, $4000 for two year’s worth of legal work in any other law firm would amount to the disbursements; it would be the photocopying, postage and faxes. Believe me, minister, I speak from experience. I have two files on this matter and I have only brought one with me from Alice Springs. I can show the minister: here, this is just part of it.
I know that the lawyer’s file is significantly thicker. Of course, when you are dealing with 10 clients, you can imagine the paperwork that is generated. When you have negotiations and a potential claim - and early on the lawyers threatened an injunction to stop the work proceeding because these people were frankly driven mad by the noise that was created by the compaction technique, and I was there, I experienced it. It was terrible. The bottom line, minister, is that $4000 is cheap. It is cheap at twice the price.
This is an opportunity. Whenever you get someone new coming in they can look at a file with fresh eyes. The previous minister, despite his assurances, did not solve the problem. He did not close the file. This is an opportunity for the new minister to show how good he is and to say: ‘Okay we will do it’. The department has not responded within the 14 days of the letter of 30 January. That is not good enough. These people should not experience further delays. I am happy to talk with the minister privately and, in fact, I probably will. I will do whatever arm twisting is necessary on behalf of these constituents. They are good people and they do not deserve to be done over by government.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016