2004-10-05
Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have message No 25 from His Honour the Administrator notifying assent to bills passed in August 2004.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I advise the Assembly that the CLP parliamentary Whip is Mr John Elferink, member for Macdonnell.
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that responses to petitions Nos 61, 62 and 63 have been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of the responses will be included in the Parliamentary Record.
Dr TOYNE (Health): Madam Speaker, today I provide an update for members on the status of the Intensive Care/High Dependency Unit at Alice Springs Hospital, part of our commitment to building healthy communities. Before I commence, I would like to highlight the excellence service provided by the staff during the recent outbreak of Roper River Virus and pneumonia. I applaud the staff at Alice Springs, and across the Territory, for their dedication and hard work during this challenging situation.
Over the last week, Alice Springs Hospital has set up a temporary 20-bed ward in the Day Procedure Unit and has maintained full emergency surgery capabilities. I understand that the elective surgery patients may have been inconvenienced by cancellations, and I thank them for their understanding. I can reassure them that the hospital is working to return to normal service as quickly as possible.
I recently announced that, in the 2004-05 budget, $11m was provided over four years for additional staff and equipment in the Intensive Care/High Dependency Unit of Alice Springs Hospital. Alice Springs Hospital will receive an additional $2m this financial year, and $3m annually for the next three years, to bring the level of service able to provided to the highest standard possible.
The additional funding will allow for the recruitment of an extra 33 full-time equivalent staff in the hospital. This is provided for an additional 20.5 full-time equivalent nursing positions, bringing the total nursing staff for the Intensive Care/High Dependency Unit to 44.6 FTE. Nursing staff recruitment has been fast-tracked and the current staffing levels are 31 FTE - an additional seven FTE so far this financial year. Additional nursing staff are being engaged as skilled staff become available.
Additional funding is also allocated for the recruitment of senior specialist medical staff, allied health and other specialist staff. We have committed to increasing the staff for Intensive Care/High Dependency Unit to five full-time equivalent medical staff for 2004-05. The consultant intensivist position is currently covered by locums who have been sourced across the country. The recruitment process for the intensivist is well advanced, and interviews have been held and discussions are in progress with the applicant to establish if the person is suitable to run the service. Negotiations are continuing for the recruitment of anaesthetists. We are working hard to recruit these specialist’s positions within the terms of the recently negotiated EBA.
There is a high demand for these specialists in hospitals throughout Australia and, indeed, throughout the world. Against this background, we are doing all a responsible government should do: we have committed to the funding so our hospitals can work to get the right staff on board. As part of our strategy to get the right staff on board, I have granted approval for two senior members of my department to travel to Britain to recruit junior medical officers to the Northern Territory hospital network. We will continue to pursue these specialists and junior medical officers and promote Alice Springs Hospital as a personally and professionally rewarding and exciting hospital to work in.
This additional funding allocation will also allow for an additional two FTE allied health workers comprising 0.5 dieticians, 0.5 pharmacists and one FTE physiotherapist, as well as a FTE equipment officer to support the expansion of the Intensive Care/High Dependency Unit.
The Intensive Care/High Dependency Units will be receiving equipment to allow the staff to be able to provide the highest standard of care possible. Equipment ordering is completed and almost all equipment is now on site. The additional funding allocated will mean an increase of five new funded beds to make a total of four Intensive Care Unit and four High Dependency Unit beds. The hospital is on track to have these beds fully operational by the beginning of November 2004. In fact, with the additional nursing staff that have been engaged and the locum intensivist, we have already, on occasions, operated ICU/HDU to full capacity. These specific budget initiatives aim to improve the level of service by providing a level 2 ICU/High Dependency Unit. It is envisaged that this enhanced unit will attract highly specialised staff. I look forward to the time when we announce the names of our senior clinical staff to provide the leadership to this new and much higher level of service within our hospital.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report this morning. Like many Territorians, I have been concerned for some time about the situation with intensive care at Alice Springs Hospital and also, as you know, the fact that only a week or so ago, elective surgery had to be cancelled at the hospital. I am also concerned about staff and the morale at the hospital. I wish the staff, on behalf of the opposition, all the very best during these trying times.
It is disappointing to note that the bed state for Alice Springs Hospital currently sits at 135 beds when, in fact, it is not long ago that it was 160 beds. We have to wonder why there has been a significant decrease in the number of beds available for the admission of the patients. My concern is that the lack of staff is causing problems. Currently, there are about 50 patients who have been admitted on and off with the rota virus when, in fact, the hospital in the past has been able to cope with 100 admissions of rota virus cases. What is going on?
My concern is that the budget of the Alice Springs Hospital is currently down by $1.1 m and that the new CEO has been given the brief to come in on budget or else. The minister speaks very widely with regards to full-time equivalent staffing. When I met with the CEO of the department 18 months or so ago to discuss staffing levels in the department, I was advised that we do not talk about FTEs any more; we just talk about money and patients into budgets. The reasons that they do that is because, instead of actually employing individual people for positions, they employ agency people to fill in the gaps. It will be very interesting to find out in the future whether we really do get extra staff, or whether, in fact, all we are getting is extra agency staff and locums.
This morning I had a phone call from a nurse who raised the issued that apparently at Alice Springs Hospital the feeling is that the ICU may close in the not-too-distant future because of the lack of anaesthetic staff, the lack of an intensivist, and the fact that patients who require that type of service may have to be moved somewhere else.
Minister, it is good to hear your report and I hope we do not hear in the future that ICU is closed.
Dr Lim: You are cheating Alice Springs. That is what you are doing; 160 beds to 130.
Dr TOYNE: Madam Speaker, if I can be heard above the hypocrite over there who did not have any ICU unit in the Alice Springs Hospital in the time that he was in government …
Mr Dunham: Hypocrite! You are a hypocrite. You are shutting beds.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Drysdale!
Dr TOYNE: To deal with the bed numbers …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member opposite used the word hypocrite. I believe that has been ruled as unparliamentary …
Dr Lim: He was the first one who used it.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The member for Macdonnell has the floor.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, speaking to the point of order …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: May I say both members should withdraw that word. Let us not get personal and use unseemly language first up. Member for Drysdale, withdraw.
Mr DUNHAM: I am quite happy to withdraw the word ‘hypocrite’, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister.
Dr TOYNE: I am more than happy to withdraw, Madam Speaker. To deal with the matter of bed numbers throughout the system, I have reported previously in this House 52 extra beds, under our government, over the numbers that we inherited from yours, from 567 hospital beds in 2001 up to 619 - 52 extra beds under our government. Do not talk to me about lack of bed numbers around our hospitals. We are doing it properly and we will continue to work to build our hospitals’ capacities.
Ms CARTER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister knows that the 12 beds for the hospice have not been built. He should include them in that number …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, there is no point of order; you know that.
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I report on an Australian Bureau of Statistics’ report released on 15 September 2004 that indicated that mineral exploration expenditure in the Northern Territory fell from $49m in 2002-03 to $42.4m in 2003-04. Specifically, I will respond to claims by the NT Minerals Council that the decline is attributable to land access issues. I will also respond to claims by the Chief Executive of the Minerals Council that the fall was because global mining companies were no longer finding the Northern Territory an attractive option for exploration investment.
Exploration is the foundation for future mining activity, and is essential if the industry is to continue to develop and generate employment and revenue opportunities. Globally, there is intense competition to attract exploration expenditure. The Northern Territory’s share of Australian mineral exploration expenditure has varied over the years between 6.1% and 10.1%. In fact, the level of overall mineral exploration in the Northern Territory follows a similar pattern to the rest of Australia.
Exploration activity increased rapidly for gold in 1987-88, base metals in 1989-90, and diamonds in 199697, but exploration has declined steadily since 1995-96 before stabilising around 1999-2000. The fact is that mineral exploration expenditure in the Northern Territory fell steadily from $93.8m in 1995-96 to $47.6m in 2000-01. Nationally, there has been a similar trend. Exploration across Australia fell from $960m in 1995-96 to $640m in 2001-02. This Australia-wide fall in exploration expenditure resulted in numerous inquiries at both Commonwealth and state levels, with virtually every jurisdiction embarking on exploration incentive packages of one sort or another.
Commonwealth inquiries have resulted in the National Mineral Exploration Action Agenda, whose recommendations cover such thing as pre-competitive data acquisition, land access and taxation, and other fiscal measures.
In the Northern Territory, we have had successive incentive packages, including this government’s Building the Territory’s Resource Base. The package was announced in May 2003, and subsequently commenced on 1 July 2003. It provides for an additional $15.2m over four years to support development in the mining industry.
These latest ABS figures are disappointing and fly in the face of increasing number of exploration licence grants and the significant outputs that have been generated through our package, such as STRIKE, an online geological mapping system. Importantly, the available statistics and data do not support the view that either land access or the attractiveness of the Northern Territory are major contributing factors to the decline of exploration expenditure.
We took 470 granted exploration licences in the 2002-03 financial year and we had exploration expenditure of $49m. We took 734 granted exploration licences in the 2003-04 financial year and we had $42.4m in expenditure; so a 56% rise in exploration licences numbers with a 13% expenditure decline.
In 2003-04, a mining industry survey conducted by Canada’s respected Fraser Institute rated the Northern Territory eighth overall for its investment attractiveness out of 53 global jurisdictions. Against that background, my department is currently conducting a thorough examination of its database to compare committed exploration expenditure against actual exploration expenditure. We are determined to identify the real reasons behind the decline, and will continue to work with industry through regular joint forums to enhance the attractiveness of the Territory.
Finally, it is worth noting that one of the issues that industry has been calling for at a national level is more incentives through the taxation system, such as the flow-through share scheme. I am delighted to note that a Latham Labor government will implement a flow-through share scheme in order to address the decline in exploration investment.
Earlier this year, federal Labor recognised the impact of the 50% reduction in national exploration expenditure over the past decade and announced that it would implement a flow-through share scheme specifically targeted at small independent exploration companies that will encourage investment in regional economies and jobs, not just for Territorians, but for all Australians.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the minister has chosen to borrow from the Treasurer’s book of blaming ABS if its statistics do not accord with what you want. The ABS statistics in this area are telling government something to which it is refusing to listen: land access is a major issue in the Territory because of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. It is a federal act that only applies here and, if the minister is not hearing that from the mining industry, he is not talking to them. If he thinks that the mining industry is out there exploring, I suggest he pick up the Yellow Pages of a couple of years ago and start ringing them because they are not here any more; they have left. There are only a couple of explorers left in this place; most of the exploration is on existing tenements.
If he is very pleased with the prospect of a Labor government, I will quote from The Australian newspaper of 16 April this year:
You have two problems with an incoming Labor government. The first is that it is quite happy to say here the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act should stand only in this jurisdiction. Let us run a national campaign; let us see if Queenslanders and Western Australians are keen to have an Aboriginal land rights act put in their place. It is easy to do; all you have to do is amend ‘Northern Territory’ - take it out and call it an ‘Australian’ land rights act.
We have had it since 1976. It has had a major impact on exploration. It appears in countless Treasury documents as having that impediment. For the minister to stand here and plead that it has nothing to do with land access; he is not talking to the industry. I suggest he starts to talk to the industry, look at the ABS figures, look at the fact that it has been relegated to some minor branch in a department that even the Chief Minister, when she was on radio, could not recall the name of, and look to the fact that this produces something like 22% of our GDP. It is an important industry. It is in decline because, as he pointed out, exploration is in decline. I suggest the minister start taking this matter seriously.
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his comments. I remind him that the amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act have been sitting with the federal government for a long time, and they have been brought into parliament ...
Mr Dunham: Through the Senate because of your party.
Mr VATSKALIS: I wonder if the member for Solomon has done anything to push it through, but I have not heard anything.
As for the exploration activities, let me tell you that it is not a phenomenon for the Northern Territory. Western Australia actually has the biggest area of exploration expenditure. In the past few years, exploration has dropped from $640m to $300m. Things have changed; mining companies are now playing in a global area, not in areas like the Territory or even Australia. Now there is exploration from small companies, not the big companies like Rio Tinto and BHP, who used to spend a lot of money exploring. We are going to encourage these small and medium companies to explore the Territory, and we are currently reviewing the Mining Act to further encourage and enhance exploration in the Northern Territory.
Dr BURNS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, it has been a commitment of this government from day one to acquire a conservation corridor along Rapid Creek. The health and protection of the creek is an important issue for the Darwin community. I wish to inform the House of the great progress we have made in achieving that conservation corridor.
Under the previous government, locals believed the pressure of proposed medium density subdivision of the large rural-type blocks along the Jingili side was a real threat to the future of the creek. The rest of the creek flows through the airport and the Water Gardens and is not subject to the same pressures.
After a number of well-attended and vocal public meetings, the previous government commissioned and endorsed what became known as the Rapid Creek Planning Concepts and Land Use Objectives. A central element of this plan was the establishment of a conservation corridor 50 m wide on each side of the mid point of the creek, in the area between McMillans Road and the Water Gardens. As part of the land use objectives for Rapid Creek, the previous government rezoned the land fronting Freshwater Road from rural living to specific use, with the corridor strip rezoned to open space conservation. This amendment allowed for subdivision of the residential lots on condition that the conservation corridor to the rear of the lots was transferred to Darwin City Council. Indeed, the member for Daly signed off on the town plan to this intent on 23 February 2000, clearly showing this 50 m conservation corridor being in public hands; that is, in Darwin City Council hands.
Unfortunately, at the time, the Development Consent Authority took the decision, which was supported by the previous government, to allow some O3 (open space) zoned land to be retained by the owners rather than transferring it to public ownership. It was a disgraceful show of contempt for the importance of Rapid Creek and for the priorities of the community.
This government intends giving full effect to the intention of conserving that 50 m public corridor along Rapid Creek. My predecessor in this role made the excellent decision to acquire the O3 zone land to establish the corridor.
There are six blocks of land involved, and we commenced negotiations with all six owners to acquire the land by agreement. This has been a lengthy process. A number of issues such as water supply, disturbance, fencing and removal of fill were resolved with each landowner. The amount of monetary compensation was, naturally, a major part in these negotiations. As agreement was reached with individual owners, the O3 zone portion of their land was excised and the title transferred to the government …
Mr Dunham: How much was paid? $43 a square metre, was it?
Dr BURNS: For the record, all six owners were offered the same value per square metre for the acquired land, which was well above the Valuer-General’s valuation. Five have accepted. I would like to place on record my appreciation of the cooperative and reasonable attitude adopted by most of the landowners. On the whole, they supported the need to protect the creek.
The government has now purchased five of the six parcels of land making up the corridor. Despite every effort on my part to reach agreement, there is one outstanding acquisition not yet complete. I have bent over backwards, including meeting a significant number of this one landowner’s demands …
Members interjecting.
Mr Dunham: The ABC told him. You did not even tell him; the ABC told him.
Dr BURNS: Listen up, you might learn something. … including relocation of boundary fencing, provision of extra internal fencing, decrease in the area acquired, relocation of sand back into the horse yards from the acquired portion, and drainage rectification. Acquisition by agreement has, unfortunately, not proved possible in this case. It was only after I received a letter from this particular landowner saying that he would not accept the conditions - the money was the outstanding one - I have commenced action to compulsorily acquire this remaining 509 m2 of land. However, negotiations with this particular one landowner can still continue while the compulsory acquisition process takes place. This piece of land will be the last piece of the puzzle - the final piece necessary to achieve the conservation corridor along Rapid Creek.
Relocation and construction of fencing is already under way along the corridor, and the corridor is taking shape. Management of the corridor will initially rest with government, but will be handed over to the Darwin City Council in the longer term. It will become a treasure in the northern suburbs; a wonderful open space resource for the people to enjoy while also protecting the health and vitality of Rapid Creek.
This is a government that delivers on its promises.
I challenge him to bring in here and table the details of all of the payments he has made to those land-holders, and give us a description of per-metre price for all of them. He reckons he has paid the same money, but I challenge that. I want him to lay on the table how much he paid to the Paspaleys and all the rest of them; and why Col Cordingly is saying no to your offer; and why now you have to use your powers as a minister to compulsorily acquire. There is something wrong here, minister, and you know it. You have stuffed the whole thing up. He is the one who has stuffed this up and, at the end of the day, you have six land-holders who are not happy.
I am surprised that some of those land-holders have not taken him on, apart from Col Cordingley. I congratulate Col for sticking up for his rights as a land-holder. This minister has done nothing to appease his issues, and is now using his powers to rip off his land that could have remained as O3 protected land in his ownership. There is nothing wrong with private owners owning O3 land – cannot be built on, has to be preserved as a corridor. However, he has decided to go and rip off the land-holders and they ain’t happy! I challenge him to bring in those figures. You want me to believe you; you want Col Cordingley to believe you - table all of the figures and how much it has cost the Territory taxpayer to achieve what you used as an election platform that you did not need to. Bring the figures in.
Dr BURNS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, we are not allowed to use the word ‘hypocrite’ but let us just have a look at the record of the member for Daly, who signed off on the town plan. Here it is, his signature, on 23 February 2000, ‘T Baldwin’. You can see here the open space conservation all the way down there. T Baldwin signed off on this saying that all the O3 land …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Listen up! … all the O3 land would be in the hands of the Darwin City Council; handed Col Cordingly his hatched little map here. What a con man!
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! For a start, he cannot call me a con man. The other thing is …
Madam SPEAKER: I do not think he did.
Mr BALDWIN: … he is misrepresenting me as the minister, because I never said it would be owned by the Darwin City Council; it would remain as the private owners’ land. He is misrepresenting me and if he wants to do it he can do it by substantive motion.
Madam SPEAKER: You have made your point.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I seek permission to table this set of documents here …
Madam SPEAKER: You do not need permission, minister, you can just table.
Mr Baldwin: I have the document.
Madam SPEAKER: Let us settle down.
Mr Dunham: Are you going to withdraw the comment?
Mr Baldwin: ‘Con man’. What about ‘con man’?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Through the two ministerial reports so far, the member for Drysdale has consistently interrupted. It is hard to hear them.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask if the minister will withdraw the phrase ‘con man’.
Dr BURNS: I will withdraw, Madam Speaker. Maybe ‘spiv’ is the word.
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He has to withdraw that. The minister, if he wants to make these allegations, knows that he can do it by substantive motion. If he is too gutless to do that, then go outside and say it. I ask for him to withdraw it.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, would you withdraw?
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Without further comment. Can we all settle down a bit?
Mr AH KIT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, there has been a serious breakdown of local government in Jabiru. On 10 September 2004, the Jabiru Town Development Authority removed the powers and functions from the elected members of the Jabiru Town Council and decided to continue an investigation into allegations of harassment, breaches of codes of conduct …
Mr Dunham: You want to look at Royal Darwin Hospital next, Jack. Start there next.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, order!
Mr AH KIT: … breaches of codes of conduct and, according to the local government inspectors, serious problems with the elected membership of the council.
The Jabiru Town Development Authority operates pursuant to the Jabiru Town Development Act. Under the act, the authority has the function of delivery of local government to the town of Jabiru. The authority delivers this function by its delegation of powers and functions to the Jabiru Town Council. The authority has received a series of complaints and allegations about the operation of the council, the activities of the chief executive officer and the actions of individual councillors, both prior to council elections in May 2004 and since the election.
Following a walk-out of council members from a meeting and a call by the chair for intervention to resolve issues of concern, the authority launched an investigation. It called on the assistance of the local government inspectors to carry out this investigation. An urgent interim report was provided to the authority indicating that, whilst the council administration was operating effectively, there were serious concerns about a number of matters. The inspectors reported that evidence suggests that there have been decisions made where a conflict of interest was present, also that harassment of staff by some councillors had occurred, and that the conflict in the council appeared to be fuelled by an agenda on the part of some councillors to remove the CEO.
The authority moved immediately to ensure that local government services are continued, and to remove the threat of any continuation of the harassment of staff. Over 100 people attended a public meeting which was held in Jabiru on Wednesday, 15 September, following the removal of powers and functions of the council. The chairman and other members of the authority made themselves available for extensive questioning. The aim of the public meeting was to advise the Jabiru community of the results of the urgent investigation, to make sure that everyone knew exactly what had gone on and what the process was, and to make sure people were aware where this is at and where to go from here. Reports suggest that, whilst there were a number of people who had concerns about the actions of the authority, the overwhelming majority of participants in the meeting supported the actions of the authority.
The full investigation of all matters required to be investigated by local government inspectors is proceeding. This investigation will not be rushed. The interim report was provided following 50 interviews. There may very well be many more people who wish to put their views. A detailed examination of minutes of meetings, financial statements and operating procedures will also be carried out. In the course of the inquiry, contracts let will be examined, as will the process followed by the council in letting contracts. The serious allegations of harassment and abuse of staff will require detailed investigation, along with matters related to the role of the CEO. Further decisions by the authority will await the full report by the inspectors.
Madam Speaker, the authority has made it clear that, at that time, it believed the new election should be held. Under the act as it stands, a new election cannot be ordered. Advice from the department has been sought on the options available on this issue. Part of the reason that the authority took the action it did was to effectively give the council and the town a breather, to ensure that services and administration were continued so that residents of the town were not disadvantaged, and the community of Jabiru has an opportunity to make a decision about its future.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Six to seven months, Madam Speaker, is how long the people at Jabiru have to wait before they have elected representation again. The minister says the people of Jabiru need a breather from the democratic process. This is the stuff of African politics, not Australian politics. As far as the CLP is concerned, the minister should be expediting this investigation.
When I was briefed on this issue nearly a month ago, there was only a handful of statements that needed to be obtained. I cannot see how an investigation of this nature needs to take six months.
The minister must intervene and find a way - and if he needs to bring in bills on urgency, then we will look at that – and must make available to the people of Jabiru an elected local government authority.
This is indicative of the general policy position this government has taken in relation to local government throughout the whole of the Northern Territory, and it is becoming increasingly invasive and penetrative into the operation of local government. I have had CEOs from small community government …
Ms Martin: You abolished it at Yulara!
Mr Dunham: There would not be a Yulara if you were in government!
Mr Stirling: Timmy’s first decision as minister.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I have had representations from CEOs at several small government organisations and they are telling me that they are being assessed by the department, so they are more answerable to the minister than they are to their own elected bodies. I have concerns about that.
This government still has not advised many communities as to what their budgets are this year. We are fully into the first quarter of this year and they still do not know how much they are going to spend. I have some deep concerns about the way this government is approaching local government issues, and this minister saying: ‘We merely need to take a breather from the democratic processes’ is a matter of some concern for the CLP.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I hear Yulara ringing in my ears. You supported my objections to Yulara being closed down, minister, and you have done something similar. These people from whom you have taken powers away were democratically elected.
If you were to apply this principle to Darwin City Council or Alice Springs Town Council, I imagine there would be a huge uproar. Because there were concerns does not necessarily mean you close down a council. The people duly elected their council by a democratic means and they should be allowed to retain it. This is stepping in to stage manage an issue that should be resolved by the council.
What I find difficult to understand is that the councillors lost their power, but was any action taken against the Town Clerk, who was the centre of many of the concerns of the councillors? This whole thing needs a proper investigation. The council should still operate as a council and, if the government wants to look at the concerns they have; allow the council to continue and run the review at the same time.
The people voted for their councillors; the council was set up according to democratic principles. To take that right away is big government trying to tell little government what to do.
Madam SPEAKER: Sorry, minister, time has expired for ministerial reports.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the routine of business of the Assembly being postponed until after consideration of the routine of business matter of public importance proposed by me pursuant to Standing Order 94. The reason I move this motion is that, I believe, with five days to go before the federal election and only three sitting days of this parliament, there is no more important issue of interest to Territorians to debate in this House than the prospect of a change in the federal government, which could occur as early as next Saturday - which could result in not only a federal Labor government, but also each state and territory of this federation being ruled by the Labor Party. The implications of that are worrying for Territorians.
These are issues that, I believe, particularly need to be debated in this House and given priority this morning. The reason I believe this motion is a worthwhile motion to move is because today is the General Business Day of this Assembly. It is the one day where the opposition and the Independents have the opportunity to bring forward their own business in this Assembly, and to order that business in the priority that they would like.
I have talked to the Independent member for Nelson, who has agreed that the priority of this MPI could take precedence, and he would agree to that taking precedence over his motion which stands as the first motion to be debated today on the Notice Paper. In that context, I see no reason why the government would not accede to this motion being given the priority that I ask.
It is our business day; it is the day that we order the business that we want to see as the priority for debate. I see no reason why the government would not accede to that particular motion. In my conversations with the Leader of Government Business, he has said that the government indicates that it will not support this motion …
Mr Stirling: Yes.
Mr BURKE: … and the Treasurer just says ‘yes’. Well, if that is the case, you know you have the numbers in this House, and no one can stop you from that. However, I want to put on the record now that this is nothing but a spineless government. This government does not have the balls to stand up for Territorians and debate issues …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Unparliamentary language.
Madam SPEAKER: I believe the comment was made against the government as a group, not an individual. Member for Brennan, you know that was unparliamentary.
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: It is a colloquial term and could apply equally to anyone, unless anyone on the other side of the House feels particularly diminished in that particular way.
This is the MPI, and this is the motion that Territorians need to understand. Firstly, the fact that there are public statements by the Labor leader, Mr Latham, which clearly shows that he believes the methodology that is used by the Grants Commission …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member should confine his remarks to the motion, which is to reorder the business paper, and not to debate the content of the MPI.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, there is a point of order. You are debating whether we should suspend standing orders to bring on the MPI, and you should keep your remarks to that without going in to the MPI debate that you wish to bring on.
Mr BURKE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I ask the Treasurer and the Chief Minister in particular, who have sat in COAG meetings at the Commonwealth level, who know the campaign that is continually being run against the Northern Territory, and the funding arrangements the Northern Territory government currently receives …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Again, the member is digressing from the motion before the Chair, which is to reorder the notice paper.
Ms MARTIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! My point of order …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan, I just advised you to keep your remarks to your motion, which is to change the order of business. I believe you have done it very well to date, but do not get into the debate; that is a separate issue.
Mr BURKE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am, firstly, trying to argue why the motion should get the priority that I ask for and, secondly, giving the reasons as to why it should get the priority that I ask for; that is, because there are three sitting days of this Assembly before the federal election. We have a situation where, if the government has its way, this MPI, given the current business that is on the paper today, will not be called on until the late hours of this evening.
Any government that would want to see that happen has to answer this question: why? You have the numbers in this House; if you are confident in a Labor Latham government being the best thing for the Northern Territory, stand up and debate it. Stand up and debate it at times when Territorians can listen to you. Stand up and debate it when they are not in bed asleep and they will not hear what was said. That is what you want to do; you want to make sure that this MPI does not come on until Territorians are not listening to this broadcast. If that is the case, this is a spineless government …
Mr Stirling: It is a full House.
Mr BURKE: The Treasurer should be the first one to stand up and back what I am saying. The Treasurer should and does know. This is the Treasurer who stood in this House and talked about the fact that we need more money for the Northern Territory. He talked about the modelling and funding arrangements at the moment are not being fair to Territorians …
Mr Stirling: Your lot knocked off $48m! You were pretty quiet about that last year. $250m over five years and you ran quiet; you never said a word!
Mr BURKE: You are, Treasurer, the Ramsey McDonald of Territory politics …
Mr Dunham: You got more than you anticipated.
Members interjecting.
Mr Stirling: Where were you last year when they knocked off $48m?
Mr Baldwin: Oh, go and take your pills! Outrageous behaviour!
Madam SPEAKER: Treasurer! Enough! I need to give a warning to all of you. If you are going to start behaving in this manner, shouting and screaming at each other, then you will not be in the Chamber to debate anything. Be warned.
Mr BURKE: I ask the question: why would not a government that is confident that Australians and Territorians will be led to a bright and better future by this Labor Latham government, be prepared to stand up and debate the words and actions of their own leader - the words and actions of the leader they want Australians and Territorians to put as our Prime Minister? Stand up and debate why this is the Labor leader who says it is absurd to suggest that the Grants Commission, as it does every year - the community needs in Hobart …
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I again ask the member to confine his remarks to the motion which is in regard to the position of this MPI on the Notice Paper. He is digressing and I urge him to confine his comments to the content.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan, you have been advised. Keep your remarks to your motion. I know it is difficult but that is the motion that you put ...
Mr BURKE: The motion, Madam Speaker, is to suspend standing orders today where the business of the day of this House is ordered in priority according to the opposition and the Independent. It should be given that simple logical arrangement; that is, that the opposition and the Independent have agreed that this MPI should come on as the first matter of priority this morning. That is what the motion calls for, and the reasons I say it is so important is that Territorians have a right to know what a Latham Labor federal government will mean for Territorians. Territorians also have a right to know where their Chief Minister and Treasurer stand on these matters. How can a Chief Minister and a Treasurer, who can sit in COAG and argue for more money for the Northern Territory, stand and cop the garbage that is coming out of Mr Latham that says that the Grants Commission process is stupid; that the current amount of money that goes to the Northern Territory is too much; that suburbs in Blacktown, Campbelltown and Sydney deserve more? How can he? This is the …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Again, the member is continuing to ignore your ruling to confine his remarks. It is almost in contempt of the Chair.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, what is clear is that we have a spineless government in the Northern Territory. What is clear from what you have said today is that I have more respect for Premier Lennon in Tasmania. At least he has the gumption to stand up and talk about what is good for Tasmanians. At least he is good enough to go on to PM last night when that fool Latham runs out a policy on logging forests in Tasmania and says: ‘This is not good for Tasmanians. I might support him in other things, but I do not support him on this’. Where is the Territory government …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I do not know what the forestry industry in Tasmania has to do with the motion before the Chair …
Members interjecting.
Mr Burke: It shows he has balls; that is what it shows! It shows he is a Premier who has some balls!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan! Just cease for a moment! You have been advised three times to keep your remarks to that. If the MPI comes on later this evening, then you will have an opportunity to put your thoughts and reasons why you think it is a matter of public importance. However, at the moment, I am being very lenient with you. You know the rules …
Mr Burke: And I accept that, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: … and you probably nearly are able to say what you want to say without transgressing into the argument of the debate.
Mr BURKE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I assume that this House allows me to speak to my motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, to your motion.
Mr BURKE: That is all I am attempting to do. I am attempting to say to Territorians that, if this government does not support this motion today, they stand condemned. If this government wants an MPI brought on after midnight this evening because it suits their political purposes - well, you are no good for Territorians. Worse than that, what sort of fools do you think Territorians are? What sort of fools does Mark Latham think Territorians are? What sort of government do Territorians have if they are going to cop this sort of garbage; that you do not have the gumption on a General Business Day, where you have control of this House every day of the sitting year - on the one day when the opposition and Independents can move motions that they believe are a priority of this House - you will not even allow it. Worse than that, you do not even have the strength of conviction to stand up and argue for your own Labor leader.
That is what Territorians should understand out there: that this government is hoping that Mark Latham becomes Prime Minister of the country, but does not have the gumption to stand up and argue for him or against him. They would rather wait until the early hours of the morning so that no Territorians are listening.
If that is the case, they stand condemned. I ask this parliament to support my motion to bring on the MPI forthwith.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, what hysterics and histrionics from the member for Brennan. If this motion and this MPI that the opposition is seeking to bring on forthwith was so important in the context of the current election campaign, why is the Leader of the Opposition not running this motion? Why is it left to the Liberal member for Brennan to run the primary issue of importance? Why is it left to the Liberal member for Brennan, not the Leader of the Opposition? If the opposition really thought …
Ms Martin: Or the deputy leader.
Mr HENDERSON: Or the deputy leader. If they thought that, of all of the some 15 items of business on the Notice Paper today, this was the most important, you would think that the Leader of the Opposition would be running the argument. We know that the member for Brennan has leadership aspirations today and will not and cannot trust the Leader of the Opposition to run what is, supposedly, the single most important issue for the opposition on General Business Day. The fact that the Leader of the Opposition is not running this, does not show the government that this is anything other than a political stunt.
The member for Brennan said Territorians have a right to listen to this debate. Well, this debate is not being broadcast; Question Time is broadcast. We will debate this issue later this evening when it comes on as routine of business. Matters of public importance are a vehicle for the parliament to consider issues of public importance of which notice has not been given to members to prepare to consider the content of debate on the preceding day. It is deliberately a vehicle to allow members to consider matters of public importance and to participate and prepare for the debate.
The fact is that the reason that the standing orders and the routine of business have been ordered - and have so been ordered since 16 October 2001 - is so that his House can have informed debate. The first we saw of this motion was at 8 o’clock this morning. There is such a myriad of inaccuracies and blatant politics that we, in having a constructive debate on this, will prepare for a constructive debate when this comes on, to rebut each and every one of the allegations that are raised in that particular matter of public importance. It will be debated; it is not being gagged. Territorians will have an opportunity to read the Hansard. Those who are interested in this will be able to read the Hansard of the debate tomorrow morning. Tomorrow morning they will be able to log on to the Internet and read the content of the debate, which will be a considered and informed debate by this House.
This is a General Business Day for all members of this House, not just for the opposition and the Independents - for all members of this parliament. The very fact that, for the sake of political grandstanding, trapezing in here with an MPI that is barely worth the paper that it is written on, in terms of the inaccuracies that are contained …
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: … in that content …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! My colleague was unable to talk about the content of it and, in the same way, the current speaker should refrain from reflecting on it unless he wants to debate it. Then we will talk about the content.
Madam SPEAKER: The same rule applies. You cannot enter into a debate on the MPI. We are talking purely about the suspension of standing orders.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We will debate the MPI. We will debate it today. Territorians who will not get to hear the broadcast of the debate either today or tonight will be able to see the content of the debate on the Internet tomorrow morning, in plenty of time for consideration in the lead-up to polling day on Saturday.
This is nothing but a political stunt from the opposition, an opposition that is so weak and divided they cannot even trust the Leader of the Opposition to run this debate; it has to be left to the member for Brennan. Madam Speaker, we do not support this motion, and I move that the motion be put.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that standing orders be suspended.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 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 Wood Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion negatived.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that:-
One hopes that those who take on political life do so for the benefit of the Territory: creating wealth by creating opportunities and looking at ways to grow the economy. If the Territory is to grow then we need to look at every opportunity. Agriculture is one of those opportunities. For many years, agriculture has been part of our economy. It has had many ups and downs, from Humpty Doo rice to Tipperary sorghum.
However, much of that was due to lack of knowledge. We are now increasing our knowledge through trial and error, experimentation, science and hard work. For instance, we now have a successful live cattle industry, supported by significant hay production - we are breeding better cattle and we are producing better hay crops.
What we are doing is only part of great opportunities in the north, especially with the opening of Ord River Stage 2. Unfortunately, we have a government whose vision for an agricultural economy goes about as far as Bagot Road. The issue I raise today is an attempt to move past Bagot Road, past 17 traffic lights - 18 if you include the one in Katherine - and look at the bigger picture.
I have been concerned about our agriculture policy from day one, when the Chief Minister made the profound statement that ‘no cotton will be grown in the Northern Territory’. This was a statement based on a perception that it was not popular to grow cotton in the Territory. Little or no science was used in the argument, just populism. For me, that sent out alarm bells. Why was one crop selected by the Chief Minister against all other crops as a crop we should not allow to be grown in the Territory? If the Chief Minister believed cotton was an inappropriate crop to grow in the Territory, why were other crops not banned as well? If irrigated peanuts, vegetables, mangoes and vines, which required similar quantities of water, were sprayed as often or even more, and used just as much fertiliser, why did the Chief Minister not say they should not be banned as well?
The reason, as I said before, is populism, certainly not science. However, are we not supposed to be leaders? Should we not make decisions based on current knowledge and science? If we do not have that knowledge, or we know nothing of the science, should we not acquire that knowledge and investigate the science before we make a decision? Don’t we owe that to Territorians?
This motion is not so much about cotton, it is about finding knowledge from sources that will give us that knowledge - investigating the science from sources that will show us that science. So far, the government has made a profound statement based on knowledge gathered from the back of a cornflakes packet: ‘I saw it on TV so it must be right. Someone wrote a letter in the newspaper - the extreme greens, called the EGs. We could lose votes at the next election if we mention the C word’.
This motion asks the government to get off its collective backside and have a look at what is happening in the real world. I am simply asking that this government take a trip, through its Environment and Sustainable Development Committee, and look at the science in growing cotton in 2004 - not 1984; the problems of growing cotton in 2004; and the positives and negatives of growing cotton. I only say cotton because the government banned cotton; it did not ban any other crops. If it had banned tomatoes, I would have said tomatoes. If this government had any sense, it would be looking at cropping in the Northern Territory instead of just looking at cotton.
Cotton is not the issue. The issue is how you grow a crop. We could talk about crop X. If we want to grow crop X, then it should be grown using these guidelines: it should be grown on soil with a certain maximum slope, unless certain protective methods are employed; grown at least X distance from a water way; only Y amount of land to be cleared without retaining an area of natural vegetation; we should work out things in relation to soil types; integrated pest management (IPM) should be part of the development; no irrigation water to be discharged from the block; only Y hectares in total can be grown in one particular area; the crop must be used in rotation with another crop; and the crop should not be a weed risk such as has happened with gamba grass. The government could set the broad parameters, and anyone wanting to grow would have to fit within those parameters.
By saying we are banning cotton and it is okay to grow other crops, the government is showing its lack of knowledge. What will damage our environment is not the type of crop; it is the way it is grown. Tomatoes can be grown on a broad acre scale. They need lots of water and fertiliser; they need spraying; land needs clearing, levelling and ploughing. However, will we ban tomatoes in the Territory? No, because tomatoes are not as politically sensitive as cotton - or should I say, they start with ‘t’ not ‘c’.
I do not want crops grown in the Territory that might threaten our environment. I do not want the Daly, the Ord or any other river stuffed up. However, neither do I believe that means we do not grow anything. I believe I have a long record of speaking up about our environment, but I have not said we should not have development. I opposed the dam on the Elizabeth River and said that we should build Weddell away from the sea. I supported the LNG plant because it needed access to deep water; however, at the same time I said that we should preserve Middle Arm Peninsula as a national park and recommended that industry be located north of Howard Springs. The environment and development can live together, but we have to be clever. That is what sustainable development is all about. After all, why call a committee a Committee of Sustainable Development? It is the same claim that this government uses when it looks for excuses to industrialise the centre of our harbour, and that I use when I say: ‘Yes we need industrial sites, but here is the better site’.
However, clever this government ain’t, because it has fallen into the trap of condemning cotton without worrying about other crops. It has not looked at cotton and said: ‘These are the concerns we have; if you can overcome these concerns we may look at it’. It has not looked at the science and the real issue; that is, cropping. I have tried to combine in this motion an opportunity for the government to look at these two issues at the one time; that is, cotton and cropping.
When I went to the cotton research station in Narrabri earlier this year, the one thing I was told was that very few politicians have ever visited there - certainly far less than all those so-called expert politicians who make comments about cotton. I did what any good politician should do and went and had a look for myself. When I mentioned this in parliament, all I got from our minister was that I was a convert to cotton. The minister should recall that one of the very first questions I asked in parliament concerned off-farm effects from the Katherine cotton trials. I had concerns about cotton, and still have some concerns. The minister covered his lack of knowledge by trying to divert attention from his poor understanding of the issues back on to me.
However, here is the chance for the minister to have a better understanding of the issues by supporting this motion to get the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee to have a look on the ground. The committee should be looking at these big issues instead of pretending it is doing something by filling in time with cane toads and then doing bugger-all about them. Remember the cane toad fence at Cobourg Peninsula?
Mr Baldwin: What fence?
Mr WOOD: That is right. In fact, when it hands down its final report on an EPA, it has finished what it was required to do. What better time to take up a new task? The committee should not only be looking at cotton in New South Wales and Queensland, but also at the cotton trials in Katherine, and taking along concerned residents as well. After all, the trials apparently have only one more year to go, and this year’s trial is coming to fruition now with harvesting very soon. The committee might even make an effort to read an overview on the cotton trials which it helped to fund. The overview was prepared by Colin Martin and Stephen Yeates from the Australian Cotton CRC in Darwin and released in March this year to the Chief Minister. I quote from the synopsis on page 1:
Leave granted.
Mr WOOD: Has the government read this document? Does it support its own research?
The committee might even have a look at the results of last year’s crop trials in Katherine, Kununurra and Port Smith south of Broome. On average, these GM crops produced over 10 times more than the yields of conventional crops, with only two sprays required for other insects. You would have required 11 sprays over the conventional crops to produce the same yield.
Could I be so bold to ask if any members of the government had been to Katherine Research Station this year and actually looked and discussed the concerns they have about problems with those conducting the experiments? Please put up your hand. Thank you, minister. One. Would members know that the cotton grown in Katherine is grown about 7 km from the Katherine River, uses pivotal subsurface irrigation, and no more water than mangoes, peanuts, and maize and nearly a third less than bananas? It uses conservation tilling; seed planting techniques using a Wet Season crop such as Sabi grass which prevents practically all erosion; is monitored for any release of nutrients into the subsoil; uses Lablab as a trap crop as part of integrated pest management; only uses environmentally friendly insecticides, Fipronil and Frontline, which are only used twice during the life of the crop.
The committee should also being going to the Ord to look at the trials in Kununurra and see what other crops are being grown there because this debate is, as I said before, as much about cropping as cotton. We might even ask why the Minister for Agriculture in Western Australia has supported the growing of GM cotton in the Ord Stage 2, even though his state has banned the growing of GM food crops. We might also ask why our minister wants to grow sugar on the Ord when it uses 16 to 22 ML per hectare of water compared to 7.5 ML per hectare for cotton; and why cotton in the Katherine Research Station using subsurface irrigation uses 4.5 ML to 5.5 ML per hectare. If the minister is so concerned about cotton, why has he gone out and barracked for sugarcane?
Minister, I hope you take note that, this week, your department is losing an officer who has kept the cotton trials in Katherine and is now leaving. Do you know where he is going? He is going to Bundaberg to show sugarcane farmers how to diversify and grow alternative crops because of the state of the sugar industry. I rest my case.
We need to investigate, learn and report back to this parliament. Territorians are looking for leadership and that sometimes means taking risks. Until we do that, the Territory is going to be a basket base where good science and good enterprise is regarded as dangerous and not to be trusted. Australia is running out of water. The world will continue to need food and other commodities such as textiles. We should be in the forefront making sure we have in place the safeguards and controls when the pressures will be on the Territory to be part of that supply chain. We are not going to pump water to our southern farmers; they are going to come here. When that happens we need to know what we are talking about, not making up stories that we heard on television or someone told us at a branch meeting of the Balmain basket weavers.
I put this motion forward so that decisions we make in this parliament are on a sound basis of science and logic and knowledge. Governments need to have policies that will create the wealth that future Territorians need if they are to be employed and prosper. Agriculture will need to be part of that prosperity, but only if we see past our nose, past Bagot Road, and into the real world.
I hope the government will support this motion as a sign of its maturity. I hope this government believes in inventiveness, best practice and being a leader in Australian primary production. Yes, we need to look after our environment and support other industries such as tourism, but we also need to have a diverse economy which assists in providing a steady economy that can survive the peaks and troughs that we are accustomed to. Agriculture is part of that diverse economy and it should be supported by government.
I, therefore, hope that this government will show some leadership, shows that it supports sustainable agricultural industry, and supports this motion that just asks for our Environment and Sustainable Development Committee to, at the very least, investigate the issues regarding cotton and cropping in Australia, the Northern Territory and Western Australia.
____________________________
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the former Speaker of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, Mr Terry McCarthy. On behalf of members, I extend to you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, first of all I would like to say that the government will be opposing this motion. I express surprise at the member for Nelson - the green and mean passionate fighter from Humpty Doo - all of a sudden turning pro-cotton and supporting the cotton industry.
Mr Wood: No, I have not said that. That is not the motion, minister.
Mr VATSKALIS: I will come to the motion because, in the motion, the member for Nelson said that he wants the sustainable development committee to examine the cotton industry in Australia, the cotton trials in Katherine, and irrigated cropping in the Top End including the Ord River irrigation district. However, in his speech he only referred to cotton - cotton, cotton, cotton - how cotton is good for the Territory; how cotton can give unique opportunities for the Territory; and how cotton uses the same volume of water as other crops that we are currently growing in the Territory.
That is exactly the point: it uses the same volume of water like other crops that we currently grow in the Territory in the Daly region. What he really advocates will put more pressure on water resources by promoting the broad acreage of cotton in sensitive areas like the Daly region.
He also said the government decision was based on perception to ban cotton in the Territory. I recall, in the not-so-distant election in Katherine, our candidate said she would not support cotton growing in the Territory. I recall well, because I was there, that the member for Katherine said neither would she support cotton growing in the Territory. It is not only the government, it seems that some members of the opposition, if not all, do not support growing cotton in the Territory.
I will come to the issues you raised, the first of which was the Daly region. As you are aware, we have the Daly Region Community Reference Group, which is assisting in the formulation of an ecological sustainable development framework. The group includes farmers, Aboriginal people, recreation fishermen, a broad spectrum of the community, and they are discussing the issue of the Daly River, an icon river for the Territory.
Mr Wood: And they were not allowed to talk about cotton.
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am trying to listen to the debate, and there are constant interjections. He has had his chance, he has had his say, he has had his theatrics. May we hear the minister, please?
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. However, member for Nelson, do contain yourself.
Mr Wood: May I speak to the point of order, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: No, you cannot. Just sit down!
Mr Wood: Well, that fixed that.
Mr VATSKALIS: We now have the Daly Region Community Reference Group that consists of a broad spectrum of the community and they are debating the whole issue of the Daly region. As the member for Daly knows very well, strong concerns have been expressed about the future of the Daly River, an icon for the Territory. He knows very well that a lot of concern has been expressed that people do not want the Daly to turn into another Murray.
There is already pressure on water resources in Australia. They are already calls by federal ministers: ‘Go north, young man; there is plenty of water up there’. There are even plans about channelling our water through the middle of Australia and down south to irrigate farms, something which is technically impossible at this stage.
The member for Nelson wants the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee to go, in a parallel way with the Daly Region Community Reference Group, and examine the same thing, which is rather a waste of time and money. It is already in place. We are expecting the reference group to present the government with their outcomes, which we are prepared to discuss with the community.
The member wants to debate the cotton trials in Katherine. The cotton trials in Katherine have not been completed yet. They are still under way and will finish at the end of June 2006, with the next crop to be planted in the Dry Season of 2005. We will not start analysing and evaluating the cotton trials in Katherine when the cotton trials have not be concluded. The cotton trials in Katherine, despite the fact that they are utilising cotton to do the research, the result will apply to many irrigated crops apart from cotton.
You saw the report, which was really good. I am glad you pointed it out. At page 3 under ‘Summary of Northern Territory Cotton Research and Prospects’, it says:
The problem is that the Western Australian government is still awaiting a consultant’s report on the business case options for the Ord Scheme Stage 2, so the report has jumped the gun. They made conclusions when the Western Australian government is still waiting for the report to tell them what is good to grow in Ord Stage 2.
I had a meeting with the Minister for Agriculture in Western Australia. He was supporting cotton for Ord Stage 2 but, at the same time, he advised me that the sugar mill in Kununurra is going to close down if they do not expand planting sugar cane in Kununurra. He mentioned sugar cane and the problems with the sugar industry in Australia. This is in direct contrast to a recent conference in Queensland when the ethanol industry from Brazil urged Queensland farmers to switch from sugar production to ethanol production because, at the moment, we cannot supply enough ethanol to the world for either chemicals or even for fuel for vehicles. In Brazil, where the industry was in dire straits like ours a few years ago, it has now joined forces with the automobile industry, and they have produced engines that can use diesel or ethanol, which can use 10% or 20% per cent ethanol in their fuel, or they can use 100% ethanol as fuel. Therefore, there is still a bright future for sugar and we should not discount other crops growing in the Ord area, or even in areas of the Northern Territory.
I suggest we wait for a consultant’s report on the business case for the Ord area before we reach any conclusion about how the cotton is the only suitable or only broadacre plant crop that will provide business opportunities for the Territory.
As you are aware, member for Nelson, the government’s priority remains the pursuit of environmentally-sustainable development. Our focus, at this stage, is the development of a sustainable framework for the Daly region. We do not believe that having a wide-ranging inquiry into Australia’s cotton industry would serve any purpose. Let us focus on what we have now. Let us do what we want to do now. We have focussed on sustainable development and the Daly region. Let us get our information together so, in the future, the Territory will be known as a place where there are still rivers with running water, and as a place that produces high quality food that we try and promote all over the world. One of the things we have is probably a perception in many people around the world who do not want food material that can be possibly contaminated by genetically modified material.
One of the things we are trying to do now is promote Territory food - be it seafood, meat, horticultural products - all over the world, as clean and high-quality food material. The last thing you want is to confuse consumers anywhere in the world that this material may have come from an area where they grow genetically modified cotton.
I believe we should wait for some of the outcomes. We should wait for the outcomes of the Katherine trials. We should wait for the consultant’s report about the Ord, and we should wait for the Daly Region Community Reference Group. If, in the future, you think this is not good enough, then you can come back and argue strongly for a referral to the Environmental and Sustainable Development Committee. However, I do not think this will be the case, member for Nelson. I reiterate that the government will be opposing this motion.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, what a woeful reply to a very important motion. This motion is all about the honesty and integrity of the Labor government in the Northern Territory. All this motion is doing is asking for a panel of people, made up from both sides of this parliament, to have a good, rational look at the arguments of cotton. We have the very instrument to do it, called the environment committee, yet the government is afraid of something. They are afraid that, perhaps, the committee might bring back a report to this parliament that says that cotton is a viable crop that has a place in the Northern Territory. That is what they are frightened of.
They said in this House, and out in public and said: ‘We have been growing cotton in the Northern Territory’. Well, you have not. What you have said is: ‘Yes, we have banned it’. However, when I questioned you, minister, in estimates earlier this year, and asked you: ‘Is there a ban in law?’, you admitted: ‘No, there is not’. You have not banned cotton, so you are hypocritical. You are hypocritical to the fact that you go out there and tell everybody that it is illegal to grow it in the Northern Territory, yet there is no law in the Territory that prevents anybody from growing cotton. If you are going to put your money where your mouth is, let us see the legislation brought in here. Let you, and you, Chief Minister, have the guts to put your money where your mouth is, because you have not. You have spun a yarn out there. What the member for Nelson has done today is put a motion to look at this in a reasonable light and manner, and you are too scared to let that happen because you are running a furphy. You are a running a spin on cotton to the general public.
Mr Henderson: Well, you go out there and say you support cotton. Go on, out you go.
Mr BALDWIN: The CLP supports the trialling of cotton, and I personally believe there is a place in the Northern Territory for a cotton crop. What we have to do is be mindful of where it goes and how it is grown. That is what the trials are all about. The CLP does not support the growing of cotton in the Katherine/Daly Basin.
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: So, there! We have always said that. However, there is the potential for a cotton crop in the Northern Territory if it is done properly. There is nothing wrong …
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: For the minister to come in here, and in estimates, and say it is not viable – and that is what he said. He was quoted in estimates as saying it is not a viable crop. His Labor colleague in Western Australia says it is a viable crop and there is a place for it in the Ord River. Their own report to the Chief Minister and government from one of their own officers says a viable cotton industry of 7000 hectares is achievable in the Northern Territory. It also says:
Minister, where do you stand? Is it viable, or are you the one who decrees whether it is viable for the industry? Your own officers are telling you it is viable.
It has to be done right and that is what this motion is all about. Let the environment committee go - and on the committee, the Chief Minister in her promise to Territorians, said committees under her government would be able to self-reference. That is what you said. Why can’t we self-reference? Because you will not allow it. If you were going to stand up and say that you are open and accountable, Chief Minister …
Ms Martin: I find it offensive that you would point to me across the House. Didn’t your mother tell you not to point?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BALDWIN: If you were open and accountable you would let the environment committee self-reference to look at cotton as well as a number of other issues - and there are some big issues. But no, no, she has reneged on that promise, so we will not get there.
You have heard that the new generation of cotton can yield up to 10 times more than conventional cotton crops; the sprays are down to two from 11; and the water use is the same as mangoes and other plantations - half the use of banana plantations. My electorate also covers the East Baines …
Mr Henderson interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: … but you would not know that because you never get past Berrimah. The East Baines may be a possible place for cotton to grow. Do you know why? Because it has the water, it is at the end of a catchment, and it has heavy, black soils which cotton likes. You might not know that because you never go past Berrimah, but I do and that is in my electorate as well.
The trials on cotton are very important. If they were really sincere about banning cotton in the Northern Territory, why do you think they would let the trials continue? The trials continue for another year. Unfortunately, we are losing a great officer who has done so much work in the past, and all of that work will probably go with him. However, if they were really sincere about a ban, why do they let the trials go on? They are pulling the wool over Territorians’ eyes, because …
Mr Wood: The cotton wool?
Mr BALDWIN: Cotton wool. As the member for Nelson has said, it is just a ploy. It is populist politics and they are gutless to make hard decisions.
Sure, cotton is an emotional subject: (1) because of genetics, and (2) because of past growing regimes. I can understand that, and I certainly sympathise with it. As a farmer, I have been involved in all sorts of cropping. Sprays such as insecticides and pesticides and so on, are agents that have to be taken very seriously. These new generations of cotton have ameliorated the need for substantial spraying; have used new irrigation techniques to use less water - more than half of what it takes to grow sugar which, interestingly enough, the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries totally supports. If someone wants to move into the western Victoria River area and grow sugar, he would be supportive. Yes? Okay?
Mr Wood: Three times as much water. I have the figures here.
Mr BALDWIN: Nearly three times. I am saying at least twice as much water. Your whole argument was based on water use, because you then turned to the Daly Reference Group and said they are considering this. Well, I tell you, I am a bit suss about that; I do not think they are considering cotton at all. What you are going to get as a report is going to leave you in a pretty onerous position, I would imagine, as far as what you have to do about water.
If you think water use is a problem in the Katherine-Daly catchment - and I believe we should all be concerned about it - what about the rest of the Territory? What about the rest of the Territory where there is abundant water and soil type that is suitable for major crops such as sugar and cotton?
This is a ruse for your ban; a ruse because you think it is very popular to ban cotton and you have not even introduced a law that prevents anyone. Minister, I ask you to come over here and show me the label on your shirt. Is that a cotton shirt that you are wearing, by chance? Does it have some cotton in it? What do you have against cotton? Why would you not allow it to be grown under the right regime? I say to you again: Katherine/Daly is probably the wrong region for it. I do not think, from what I know of it, that it has the right soil type. There is water pressure, there is no doubt it. However, there are certainly other areas - and your own department will tell you and give you the advice - in the Northern Territory where the impact could be minimal and would be suitable.
You are not listening to them. We have the expert leaving the Northern Territory because you want to play popular politics. It is just outrageous. This motion is asking for some of your people, some of our people, some of the Independents, to have a look at it in a rational way, and you are objecting to that. You call yourself open and accountable, all of you, and you will not allow self-reference by that group so the member is forced to bring in a motion asking you …
Ms Martin: Pop out and tell everyone how supportive of cotton growing you are.
Mr BALDWIN: You do what you like, Chief Minister; you are not going to hurt me. You play your popular politics. I will go out there and tell them about your broken promises. That is what I will do. I will get out there and tell them about the Chief Minister’s broken promises to Territorians. Why cannot the committee, for instance, self-reference as the Chief Minister promised before the election? She is back-flipping on that promise, as with a number of other promises. Why is it that they have banned cotton without passing a law? There is nothing; they are, in fact, deceiving Territorians.
Mr Stirling: We do not have to ban you, Tim.
Mr BALDWIN: Are you going to pull me up on that? They are being deceitful to Territorians by telling them: ‘We have banned cotton’. They have not banned cotton. There is nothing to prevent a commercial crop being started tomorrow. What would you do? You, the minister for business? Let us take the minister…
Mr Henderson: Let us see the media release. The Leader of the Opposition put out a media release tonight: ‘We support cotton’.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, absolutely. I support cotton if it is done in the right way, under the right regime, and I do not think the Katherine/Daly Basin is the right place for it. Quote me word for word. I am happy that the Leader of Government Business puts that out. I will check the quote in the Hansard. I will endorse it for him. I will speak to it in the media because I will also tell them how deceitful this government is to Territorians about telling Territorians that they have banned cotton.
A commercial grower could come here tomorrow, say to the business minister, ‘I have $100m worth of crop annually that I want to plant here tomorrow with 200 jobs surrounding it’, and he is going to stand up and say: ‘Sorry, we have banned cotton’. If the plantation owner goes ahead, what is he going to do? What is he going to do? You stand up and tell me and Territorians what you are going to do. Is he going to walk in there and stand in front of the plough? Is he going to be the greenie standing in front of jobs for Territorians because somebody wants to do it right?
This is the government that will stop them growing the same way - and you want to talk about the Daly River Reference Group! There was an undertaking, Chief Minister, that you would have the moratorium on clearing and subdivision lifted by October. It is now October. What are you going to do? You tell Territorians what you are going to do about development. I know what you are going to say: ‘We are waiting for the report from the reference group’. So, we have to wait for the report. When they get the report, it is going to be full of inconclusive recommendations. It is a bit like the education review. They will then say: ‘We are now considering all of this’. They have bought together all these people who have arrived at a number of recommendations that they will have to make decisions on, but I bet you the moratorium stays in place sometime into next year - probably about election time, I reckon. They will not act because they are too gutless to make decisions. It is a bit like the cotton: we ban it, but really it is not banned.
Ms Carney: It is a bit like petrol sniffing.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, a bit like petrol sniffing: ‘We want to help them, but we do not want to make it illegal. We do not want to pass laws in this place’.
Ms Carney: No.
Mr BALDWIN: No, because they are gutless like that. That is the problem here.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly, I have tolerated your use of the word ‘gutless’, but you have overdone it.
Mr BALDWIN: I respect your decision, Madam Speaker. It is interesting that they have not stood up and countered it, but …
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I know, but it is offensive
Mr BALDWIN: Madam Speaker, as I said at the outset, this motion is clearly about the honesty and integrity of the Labor government in the Northern Territory. It is simply asking for the deceit of the government to be put to one side while a bipartisan committee of members of this parliament look at the issue of cotton in a rational way.
The report might say that there is no place for cotton in the Northern Territory and laws should be passed in this parliament to prevent .two-gene cotton, conventional cotton, all cotton. Wouldn’t that be surprising thing? The government would find out that they had done the right thing after - what? - after talking to Territorians. That is what this motion seeks to do; it is asking for the committee to talk to Territorians and experts, look at the scientific evidence, have a look at the site trials both here and in Western Australia, have a look down south, if necessary, where cotton has been grown conventionally and otherwise for a long time, and make some recommendations to this parliament on the future merits or otherwise of commercial cotton in the Northern Territory.
But, no, government has said already they will not support this. I can only assume it is because they are running scared of being shown up in front of Territorians …
Ms Martin: Of whom?
Mr BALDWIN: In front of Territorians; that is who, because they have deceived them and they know that they will be caught out. I hope that someone over there has some sense about them and will contribute in a way that will recognise the scientific facts - some of which have been articulated by the member for Nelson, and are in the report by their own government officers - and question the need for a total ban on cotton.
I questioned the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries in estimates and asked whether this is a ban just until the trial has finished, and he was very reluctant to answer. In fact, what he replied was that this is a ban - a ban is a ban forever. Even if they are shown it to be wrong about the scientific evidence of future commercial cotton crops, they are still going to have a ban. It is sinful and deceitful. I have put our position on the line; members should support the motion.
I reiterate, for the member for Wanguri, so he does not get it wrong, that the CLP believes that there is a place in the Northern Territory, if grown under the right arrangements and regime, for cotton growing, but does not believe …
Dr Burns: Did you say in the Daly?
Mr BALDWIN: Listen! I have to repeat myself many times, Madam Speaker, for those who are hard of hearing - many times - that we do not believe that the appropriate place is in the Katherine-Daly Basin. I cannot be clearer than that. We started the trials, Labor is finishing the trials, they have not axed them, and the trials will be the telling thing. Already, the reports have shown, by their own words - this is government’s own words - that there is viability for a commercial crop in the Northern Territory.
So, over to you. Show me your press release; I will happily endorse it if you use my words …
Mr Henderson: No, I said you put out a press release.
Mr BALDWIN: Happy to.
Mr Henderson: The Leader of the Opposition put out a press release.
Mr BALDWIN: Happy for him to put it out.
Mr Henderson: The CLP supports cotton?
Mr BALDWIN: I am happy to speak to it.
Mr Henderson: Get the Opposition Leader to put out a press release.
Mr BALDWIN: Any forum you like, because I want you to tell people that if somebody comes here with a $100m business enterprise with 200 jobs around it, you are not going to allow it to go ahead, because you are banning cotton. Also, you will not even let a parliamentary committee of your members look at the viability of that crop because you and your government are deceitful.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, well, I have heard it all! We have a government that claims it is open and transparent, and will not allow its own Environment and Sustainable Development Committee to just inquire into the issue - nothing more, nothing less. This debate has been distorted by sheer politics - and shameful politics. What I cannot stand is people saying to me: ‘Oh, the community does not like it’. Fair enough! However, if the community was given all the information, what would they think then? The community is not given all the information.
I do not stand here and support cotton that would ruin the Daly or any river. I do not support any crop. If you could grow cotton that would not affect the Daly, the Ord, the Victoria, or whatever river, would you not say that is a good idea? What if it was tomatoes? What if it was maize? Why the separation?
The issue is about damage to the environment by cropping. You banned cotton; I want to know the reasons why you banned it. The reasons have been stated by the Chief Minister and the member for Wanguri today when they said: ‘You go out and tell the people that’. It is populism. I do not mind that, that is fair enough; if that is your answer, good. However, is it not the role of us, as politicians here, to go out and find the information and to tell people this is the issue? For sure, cotton has a bad name - no doubt about it. It stuffed up rivers in the Daly …
Ms Martin: It is a shocker.
Mr WOOD: Yes, right, but that was 20 years ago. If any of you politicians went to the Narrabri Research Station and had a look at the new methods of growing cotton, which none of you have - and by the way, AFANT has a representative. I do not know whether he represents AFANT, but John Harrison is on the Cotton Advisory Board in Narrabri. He also has a concern as a fishing representative. I am not supporting cotton that would stuff up our rivers. You are trying to put those words in my mouth. I am supporting an agricultural industry that is sustainable, and that means it will not cause an effect for our future generations.
I went to the Katherine Research Station, and found cotton growing, under trickle irrigation, using half as much water as on the Ord or the Narrabri, having very little erosion. Read the report, have a look for yourself, because they grow Sabi grass. After the cotton crop has been put in, they retain that as a mulch and they plant directly into that mulch without cultivating. Therefore, there is very little erosion in that particular crop.
We have techniques that have been developed on the Katherine River. We are using Lablab as a trap crop, which is a requirement, and that attracts the Helicoverpa, which is the caterpillar, into that area. We are looking at rotation with peanuts, so we are not looking at growing a crop every single year, because that is bad farming practice. We are looking at the movement of nutrients into the soil, and they do that by looking at the movement of the chemical called chloride. We are looking at best practice. If it was not cotton it could be tomatoes. If it was not tomatoes it could be capsicums or sugarcane. All I am saying is that this government should allow a committee to go down and have a look, and that we should report back to the people that this is how cotton is growing - this is the downside, this is the upside - nothing more, nothing less.
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Karama, you are on that side of Bagot Road, and that is one of the problems we have here.
Ms Lawrie: Yes, I am very proudly the member for Karama, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Yes, you had a big yawn there, but it was heard from here. Pity we cannot have a point of order on yawns, Madam Speaker.
Mr Kiely: Or on boring speeches.
Mr WOOD: Yes, well, again, from that side of the Bagot Road lights there is no problem. That is part of the problem we have. We do not have sufficient people in this parliament to put forward a case for a good agriculture economy in this Territory, and that is sad. That is all I am trying to do: help the agriculture economy of the Territory grow - not in just any old way, but sustainably. That is what this is about.
I have to take up a few issues that the minister raised. He spoke about the Daly River Reference Group. The Daly River Reference Group is not allowed to talk about cotton. It was not even allowed to talk about it then; they were not mature enough to take on those issues. Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant. However, surely if we are going to talk about the Daly River, all things are on the table. But no, cotton was not part of that, dams were not part of that; we could not discuss them. I do not mean I agree with them; do not take me wrong there, minister. I know you will say: ‘Oh, he supports dams, he supports cotton’. However, they were not on the table for debate in the Daly River and that is a shame.
Mr Henderson: Because we do not want to dam the Daly River.
Mr WOOD: Let the people …
Mr Burke: You do not know what you want.
Mr WOOD: The member for Wanguri must be the kindergarten teacher. He cannot let the little children discuss these issues as mature adults. Everything should have been on the table in the Daly River Reference Group. If they came back and said, ‘No cotton, no dams’, well that is what they said. You put the words in their mouth before they could even look at it.
The minister talked about GM. Genetic engineering or genetic modification is a huge industry. To lump genetic modification of food crops in with cotton shows the minister is ignorant about what genetic engineering in cotton is about. You do not …
Dr Bonson: What about people - genetic engineering of people? How can you …
Mr WOOD: Member for Millner, let me finish.
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Member for Millner, I am not saying that all genetic engineering is supported. Genetic engineering is such a broad term for so many things …
Mr Bonson: That is right.
Mr WOOD: That is right. I am not saying I support all forms of genetic engineering. However, we are talking about a particular issue here; that is, the genetic engineering of cotton. What does that mean? What is the genetic engineering of cotton? It relates to the use of a protein called Bacillus thuringiensis - which you can buy from Bunnings in a packet called Dipel which you spray on your tomatoes - being attached to a gene in the cotton plant which kills that same caterpillar. It is not about changing the cotton plant; the cotton plant is exactly the same cotton plant. It is by adding - using technology - a protein to that plant that kills the caterpillar. That is why they do not have to spray the plant. I am not talking about having salmon genes connected to tomatoes.
Dr Burns: Well, you still have to spray. Do not say that.
Mr WOOD: Excuse me, member for Johnson! The member obviously has not read the report, and did not quite listen to me. They spray twice for a different insect altogether. They were not sprayed for that particular insect …
Dr Burns: Except in resistance.
Mr WOOD: Well, I am not sure. However, what I am hearing here is probably a lack of knowledge, a lack of science, which I am hoping this committee will be able to find, to tell the parliament exactly what the issues related to cotton are.
However, we are not going to get anywhere because this is about populism. It is not about treating our constituents as mature adults who can at least make up their minds when all the information is given to them. If we come back with a report and the people still say: ‘No, no good’, or the committee comes back and says: ‘Look, this is not going to happen in the Northern Territory because of this and this’ - fair enough. However, we are not even going down that first stage. We are making a decision, sorted out in the Cabinet room, based on ‘people would not want to hear about that’. I do not think people have been given all the information. If they have been given all the information and they then decide, that is a different matter.
This debate has gone to trying to shift the issue before us to saying: ‘The member for Nelson supports cotton; he does not mind if the rivers all get stuffed up’ etcetera. That is not the case. This is simply asking for an inquiry. I have put a case using the particular crop they have banned – cotton - based on my own perception of what is happening in a very changing industry in a very changing world, and changing technology.
We cannot be stagnant and say: ‘This is what happened 20 years ago, therefore, we make our decisions based on that’. We make our decisions based on what is happening today - good science, good technology, good understanding - and put all that information out to the public.
This government, obviously, does not want to do it. It finds, it believes - and you have heard the comments today - that the best thing is to say to people: ‘We are not going to grow cotton’, because they know that will automatically give them some votes. I say that might be great politics, but it shows no leadership. It shows this parliament, in some cases, is a waste of space if it cannot go out and do the work that it is supposed to.
We should lead, we should inform, and then we should make decisions. This whole concept of no cotton has been based on none of that. It is pure populism and, sadly, that is where our agricultural policies in the Northern Territory are heading: stagnant, nowhere.
Motion negatived.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move:
Talk about from one big issue to a very tiny issue! This is regarding the explanatory notes. I know this is only a relatively minor issue, but I brought it forward because the more we can do in parliament to help people understand what legislation is going through – or if they are reading legislation that has been passed in years gone by - and we can put in place certain things that will help the public understand what was said, then it is better.
I have mentioned before that I would like to see more use of electronic equipment in this House. For instance, two screens which face people who come into the gallery so they can know what is going on at a certain times. I am not sure where that is at, at this stage but, again, that is about trying to help the public have a good understanding of what the processes in parliament are.
I am asking that the explanatory notes, basically, would be a precise note, when a bill is introduced to parliament, which indicates exactly what the name of the bill is, when it commences, if anything has been repealed or substituted; and some fairly succinct comments about what is in and what is out. Later today, we continue debate on the Interpretation Amendment Bill, and perhaps I could use that as an example. If that bill was to pass, then an explanatory note would be issued which could say, for instance, clause 1 would give you the short title to state the name of the act, which is the Interpretation Amendment Act 2004. Clause 2, ‘Commencement’, states the date when the act comes into effect. Clause 3 ‘Repeal and Substitution …’. In this bill, section 55’, ‘Headings, schedules, examples and notes’ is repealed. The note would tell you that it also replaces it with a new section 55, and tells you exactly what is in there. Then there is clause 4, which provides new sections 62C and 62D. Immediately, people know what you have introduced, the name of the act, when it will start, what has been taken out of the act, what has been substituted, and if there are any new clauses.
It is a very simple motion. As I said, it will help the public and ourselves, as parliamentarians, to be able to quickly reference what a bill is all about, without having to go through second readings which sometimes are not exactly precise and, you might say have a fair bit of political padding in them. This will enable people to quickly assess what is in that bill, and would make for better legislation and more open and transparent government.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I indicate to the House that the government will be supporting this motion in our commitment to open and transparent government. I take …
Mr Dunham: Go, Gerry!
Mr Wood: One out of six.
Mr Dunham: You nearly choked saying that, didn’t you?
Mr HENDERSON: No, this is not a tiny issue and relatively minor. The Attorney-General said so far in this period of government, the government has passed 87 bills through this House. Those bills have been wide-ranging in their effects and impact on the Northern Territory …
Dr Burns: Moving the Territory ahead.
Mr HENDERSON: Moving the Territory ahead - exactly, member for Johnston. Eighty-seven bills is a lot of legislation for this parliament to process. Anything that further informs the community of the Northern Territory about the effect and impact of that legislation in an easy-to-consider way is a move that the government supports.
I commend the member for Nelson for bringing this motion to the House. As the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee, we will consider this as quickly as we possibly can. We support the motion and agree that it is a fairly significant reform. I do not think it is a tiny issue and relatively minor at all, Madam Speaker, and I commend the member for Nelson for presenting this motion.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I was not going to speak until I was aware that the government was going to support this. For the Leader of Government Business to say that this is part of their commitment to open, honest, and accountable government - he has to be joking.
We are talking about explanatory notes that go with bills. Open, honest, and accountable government deals with how these people deal with the people of the Northern Territory, and what they tell them and do not tell them. Based on the last debate in relation to the cotton motion, it was clear …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The motion before this parliament is referring a matter to the Standing Orders Committee about explanatory memoranda. The member for Macdonnell is now raving on into other areas. I urge you to consider that he speaks to the motion before the Chair.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, the minister talked about his policy of openness, honesty and transparency. Now he is trying to shut me down. He raised the issue; a debate suggests that I have a right of rebuttal.
Madam SPEAKER: What I am suggesting is that you speak to the motion, and let us get on with it.
Mr ELFERINK: The government talks about its openness, honesty and transparency and, so far, they have failed Territorians miserably in the way that they have conducted themselves, especially when you look at the policy paper they issued prior to the last election.
I have said it before in this House and I will say it again: they have a contract with the people of the Northern Territory and that contract was the promise that they made for the price of Territorians’ votes. They are in breach of contract. However, in terms of this …
Ms Martin: This is the bush lawyer with two-thirds of a degree, is it?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Martin: Are you standing again, by the way? Rumours abound everywhere.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister!
Ms Martin: Sorry, Madam Speaker.
Mr Dunham: Speaking of relevance, what does that have to do with it?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, thank you! The member for Macdonnell has the floor.
Mr ELFERINK: Regarding the motion itself, explanatory notes are going to be useful tools for members of this House and Territorians to understand the content of bills. It is a good suggestion; the government agrees that it is a good suggestion. However, to dress it up in the fashion that the Leader of Government Business suggests, leaves me thinking that if that is his idea of dressage, then he is wearing the emperor’s new clothes.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank members of both sides for their support. I agree with the member for Wanguri that it is not a small motion but, in relation to what we were debating before this, it is relatively small.
It is important, and I note that the member for Wanguri said that this is about open and transparent government. I hope that it is consistent because in the previous debate, it was not consistent. I support the idea of this motion going to the Standing Orders Committee, because we must have open and transparent government and make legislation more accessible to the community so it understands what we are doing in this place. I know that, sometimes, they do wonder about it.
I thank both sides of parliament for supporting this. I hope that the Standing Orders Committee will support it, and that we will see it as part of normal processes in parliament in the future.
Motion agreed to.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended to move the following motion of censure:
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 68 refers to anticipation of subject. We now have before us an MPI with exactly the same framework. Either we have an MPI which the Opposition Leader is bringing on tonight for debate, or is he going to bring it on as a censure? Should we take this off the Notice Paper?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: It is a good point, member for Sanderson. However, we have a censure motion being presented and government has not indicated if they are going to accept it or not. Do you want to finish reading us your motion? It is very long.
Mr MILLS: Yes, Madam Speaker.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, the government will accept this motion. It is to be expected, I suppose, at this stage of the electoral cycle. I foreshadow now we will be seeking to amend the motion.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move:
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! For clarification, has the Leader of the Opposition arranged for the motion to be circulated?
Madam SPEAKER: I believe the motion is being circulated.
Mr MILLS: When you scratch the surface you will find a systematic pattern amongst Labor leaders - past and present, and both federally and at the state and territory level - of economic mismanagement and policies that will, ultimately, put upward pressure on interest rates. That is what poses a real threat to the Northern Territory, and what they are trying their very best to hide. As silent as Latham is on his true agenda, this government and the Chief Minister are silent in their opposition.
Labor luminaries often talk of their light on the hill but, when it comes to Mark Latham’s real agenda and policies, the only place he has put his light is firmly under a bushel. His industrial relations policy has been missing in action. Who knows what the details of his deal with Bob Brown actually are. Now a few rays of light from the real position on funding the Territory are beginning to emerge. Approaching this campaign, the Labor spin machine new the real Mark Latham and they knew the real Latham Labor policies. Accordingly, the real Labor agenda had been pushed well and truly to the back of Mark Latham’s campaign. When we get a glimpse of it, it is very easy to see why. However, where is our Chief Minister? Where is Clare Martin? Where is her voice in standing up for the Territory? This government is complicit in its deceit of voters and selling out of Territorians by saying nothing.
Federal Labor is trying to sneak into power without a whimper, and with an array of policies that will do irreparable harm to the Northern Territory. However, local Labor is nowhere to be seen. Whether it is Mark Latham or his man on the ground in the Territory, the Labor candidate for Solomon, it is a tale of two completely different Labors. There is the polished campaigns launched with Labor spin, brochures and guarantees written on cardboard - and then there is the real Labor agenda which, occasionally, makes its way to the surface.
Nowhere else was this clearer than when Mark Latham made his maiden speech to parliament. Mark Latham’s politics are those of envy and his policies are those of division. The real Mark Latham is about ‘us and them’. This was made clear when he made his true thoughts on the smaller states and the territories, such as the Northern Territory. In his statement, Mark Latham said:
This is the other side of Mark Latham that they would not have us see until after he is Prime Minister. There is the Latham Labor that gives its guarantee on economic performance. There is also the Latham Labor that comes to the Territory in full campaign mode, seeking to snare the most marginal seat in the country - a seat he knows is crucial to his electoral fortune. Then there is the Latham who, in power, would remove funding from the Northern Territory.
Any Chief Minister worth their salt would have met Mr Latham at the airport and told him: ‘No, thank you’. Any government truly committed to the Territory would let Mark Latham know that his commitment to cut our funding is certainly not welcome and needs to be addressed. He is the leader who would remove funding from the Territory and other small jurisdictions because he thinks it will win votes in western Sydney. Our government is taking this threat lying down.
Just as Latham would take money from one school and given it to another and drive a wedge between private and public, Catholic and independent, he would seek to drive a wedge between regional Australia and the east coast. He will take funding from schools and hospitals in the Northern Territory because it will help him to develop a Robin Hood image in New South Wales. Worst of all, he will take funding from the people of the Northern Territory because he owes it to his Labor mates, Bob Carr and Steve Bracks. There is no secret in the fact that these two would like to see funding to the smaller states cut. If not for the moral fibre and the fortitude of the current federal government, they may well have had their way. Mark Latham owes this pair and he will do anything to pay them back. This would be a great way for him to start. Well, the message from the CLP to Mark Latham is to pay your own debts. We are waiting for our Chief Minister to send a similar message.
This morning, we heard from an esteemed former Chief Minister and proud Territorian who knew how to take the fight to Canberra and to the Bob Carrs and Steve Bracks of this world. After the current spate of policy larceny by members opposite, the Chief Minister and Treasurer would do well to copy from the CLP some of the negotiating skills of our past Chief Ministers. The member for Brennan who took the unprecedented step of taking a full page advertisement in today’s NT News, like the other distinguished leaders before him, understands what it takes to stand up to a bully, and did so regularly for the Territory.
The Grants Commission is an independent body that is responsible for making recommendations as to the allocation of funding between the states and territories. It does this with the central principal of horizontal fiscal equalisation. Put simply, this means that all Australians should have the same access to the same services. In essence, it is a fair go for all. It is the Australian way; principles which, from the endless rhetoric that we hear from the Labor Party, you would think Mark Latham would be very supportive of. Principles that are based on the high cost of delivering services in the Territory and our lower capacity to raise revenue, gives Territorians access to comparable services such as health care, education, law and order, as the rest of Australia. However, as I have said, this is not the way of Mark Latham. Typical of the politics of envy and division, he is either with you or against you. Clearly, in Mark Latham’s eyes, he is not a supporter of the Territory. If Mark Latham is elected Prime Minister on 9 October, Territorians can rightly expect that funding from the federal government will be reduced - funding that allows the Territory government, regardless of its political persuasion, to provide services to all Territorians. This is in line with Mark Latham’s philosophy of ‘us versus them’.
This government stands condemned for their lack of backbone in standing up for Territorians and our funding. That is why the Martin Labor government is being censured today. Sadly, this is a government that has the resources and the will to hound Territory businesses, but it will not stand up to southerners. Ask Warren Anderson; ask Integrated Technical Services; ask Dick’s Plumbing. If only they could have put this energy into fighting to ensure a guarantee that a future Latham Labor government would not reduce Territory funding, which is so needed for our schools and our hospitals. This attack on the Territory’s funding is just one cell though. in the onslaught that Territorians can expect from a Latham Labor government. Yet again, not a peep from the Martin Labor government.
Under a Labor government, we will see many of the industrial relations reforms that have been ushered in under the Howard government, and on which Australia’s current unprecedented economic prosperity have been underpinned, disappear as we return to a system dominated by the unions and characterised by centralised wage fixing - economic prosperity, might I add, that is exceeding forecasts in every state and territory, except the Northern Territory, where the policies of the current government have delivered a stagnant economy and population growth rate. Labor’s industrial changes will send Australia back in time to an era of industrial chaos and low productivity.
Let us look at some of the changes and what they will mean for the Territory. Labor, if elected, will impose the first federal payroll tax since the 1970s to fund workers entitlements in the event of an employer becoming insolvent. This will impact on every employer and will be a disincentive to recruit new staff. The CLP recognises the need to reform payroll tax and create an environment where business can create employment and prosperity. This is even a principle that members on the other side of the House subscribe too, albeit with a tokenistic effort in the most recent Territory budget, which, I might add, resulted in a higher tax take than previously. Will they have the courage to stand up to Mark Latham and tell him that his tax is not welcome in the Territory?
Mark Latham made it clear that he will abolish Australian workplace agreements which allow small businesses to negotiate flexible working agreements with their employees. Australian workplace agreements underpin the employer/employee relationship of many of our key sectors in the Territory. The resources, minerals and energy sectors are well known for their use of flexible agreements. The hospitality industry in the Northern Territory has one of the highest uptakes of Australian workplace agreements in the country. Retail uses them to great effect. These agreements promote flexible work practices and give staff the ability to negotiate agreements that are outside the current and inflexible award system, to better suit their personal and family commitments. No Australian workplace agreement is approved in this country without having passed the so-called ‘no disadvantage test’. Chief Minister, will you be there to explain to local businesses why they cannot use these agreements any more? Will you tell them that you would not help them, or will you try and pass the blame, as usual?
What does Mark Latham’s local candidate for the seat of Solomon think of Australian workplace agreements? At a forum organised by the Minerals Council last Friday, the Labor candidate for Solomon called these agreements which have driven productivity in the Territory ‘insidious’. I have news for both Latham and Davidson; that is, the Northern Territory and Australia, in fact, is no longer in the 1960s. Whilst the days of radical protest against military exercises and uranium export may not quite have ended for Mr Davidson at the same time as flared trousers and Woodstock did, the days of old-fashioned workplaces have. The majority of the work force is no longer employed on a 9-to-5 basis.
One of the biggest drivers of our future economic success is, without a doubt, the tourism industry. I can assure Mark Latham and his underlings on the other side of the House that it is not a 9-to-5 business. The people who invest in this industry and the staff who work in this industry need and want flexible work practices.
As equally disturbing to the tourism industry and, no doubt, the retail sector as well, is Labor’s concerted and union-approved attack on casual employment. A Latham Labor government will give casual employees the right to demand to be made permanent. It will make it harder for small businesses to employ people at the times they need them, and it will increase costs by making casuals eligible for redundancy payments and leave entitlements.
These are the policies that Mark Latham would not have us see until after the election. These are the policies that the Labor spin doctors would rather the public knew nothing about before casting their vote on 9 October. This is equally evident in Mark Latham’s unholy alliance with the Greens. I urge Territorian voters this Saturday to ask themselves not just what the policies of Mark Latham are, but what the policies of Bob Brown are. What policies of the Greens will we see implemented by a Latham Labor government in payment for his deal with Bob Brown? An increase in the rate of company tax, for one.
We are expected to believe that interest rates will not rise under Labor. Interest rates were over 10% under Mark Latham’s mentor, Gough Whitlam; they peaked at 17% under Bob Hawke; and they reached 12% under Paul Keating. There has been much debate over the question of whether interest rates will go up under Labor. Does the Reserve Bank put up rates because a particular party is in power? The answer is that it puts up rates to counteract the policies of the particular party that is in power. There is no doubt that the policies of the federal Labor Party will put upward pressure on interest rates. A return to centralised wage fixing and a union-controlled industrial system will, without a doubt, lead to a wage price inflationary spiral, and the Reserve Bank will have no other course of action than to increase interest rates to counteract this. We have seen it before under previous federal Labor governments and, heaven forbid, we could see it again under a Latham Labor government.
I repeat and stress again that federal Labor is no friend of the Territory. As we saw Paul Keating sitting in the front row of Mark Latham’s recent campaign launch, what Territorian could forget the former Prime Minister’s description of our home? It was Paul Keating’s famous view that the best place to view Darwin was from at least 30 000 feet up, on a plane heading for Paris. Is this the type of contempt for the Territory that Mark Latham has shown when he committed to reducing funding for the Territory? Is this the contempt for the Territory that leads him to pursue policies that will decimate the current employment arrangements in our tourism, hospitality, retail, mining, energy and resource sectors?
Let us not forget where this funding is coming from, and the hypocrisy of Labor on this issue. Labor opposed the GST, yet it is happy to reap the benefits of it. Again, there is a Labor that they would like us to see, and the Labor that lurks beneath the surface. In opposition, Mark Latham opposed the GST and said that he would abolish it. In government, it is a different story. In opposition, Clare Martin, our Chief Minister, predicted that the GST would bring nothing but pain to the Territory, yet in government she has reaped almost $600m in GST revenue when the CLP left office. Now that the funding is under threat, will she stand up to Mark Latham and demand the Territory continues to get its fair share? Will she seek a clarification of the comments of Mark Latham? No - silence. I would have to say that there are two chances of this happening - slim and slimmer - judging by the way that this Chief Minister has failed to confront Mark Latham on his $50 tourism tax - silence. The Minister for Tourism, the Chief Minister - silent.
It is a return to the old Labor way of expensive promises and, invariably, new taxes to pay for them, such as the $50 tourism tax. Labor is true to form; very good at spending and very poor at earning. This new $50 tourism tax will hit the Territory tourism industry right between the eyes, and our Tourism Minister is silent. Where are the ads that state: ‘There will be no Canberra Labor tourism tax in the Territory’? Where is the statement? Where is the stand for the Territory?
Madam Speaker, mismanagement, deception and failure to stand for the Territory against policies that are against our best interests is why we are here: a continued failure by this Chief Minister to do her job and present the interests of everyone in the Territory and put all Territorians above short-term political gain. These are the reasons why the Martin Labor government is being censured today. These are the reasons why Territorians should think very carefully about electing a Latham Labor government this Saturday. These are the reasons why Territorians should think very carefully about re-electing any Territory government that remains silent in the face of such threats to the Northern Territory.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, when a censure is moved you have to take it seriously because we respect the conventions of this parliament. However, honestly and truly, to listen to the – it was a combination of a hate file of former Labor leaders and a personal attack on former Prime Ministers who have done extraordinary things for Australia. It was petty personal politics that was part of this censure, and the other was fantasy. That is what I find extraordinary.
The Opposition Leader came into this House and said: ‘This is what Labor is saying at this election’, and can produce no documentation to support it. The only documentation that the Opposition Leader has - and this is direct quotes, two of them - during his censure: ‘Funding will be reduced to the Territory under Labor’. That is a quote from you speech. You can probably find it earlier in the speech. ‘Funding will be reduced to the Territory under Labor, under Mark Latham’. Later, we had: ‘Labor, Mark Latham, committed to reducing funding to the Territory’. Where is your evidence? The best you can offer is a quote from Mark Latham from 10 years ago. Where is the document?
In this 20 minutes of rhetoric from the Opposition Leader, which was based on no facts, he said: ‘Glossy brochures have been shoved into your letterboxes and ads on television’. Where are the ads on television which say Labor is going to reduce funding to the Territory? Where? Let us look at what evidence this man is producing. It is only in his own mind - only in his own mind. The best he can do is produce a quote from Mark Latham’s maiden speech, which talked about relativities, and then he has then taken the enormous leap – he has quoted accurately, I assume, about relativities. You have a man who comes from western Sydney, brand new into politics, standing up for the electorate of Werriwa, which does not have a high socioeconomic profile, who said: ‘I want to stand up for my electorate’ because he is a man who is a fighter.
What you have done is extrapolate a whole censure – this is how hypocritical, illogical and false you are - based on something that does not turn into ‘A Labor government in Canberra will reduce funding to the Territory’. How do you make that connection? You failed to make the connection in 20 minutes. How can I take you seriously? How can Territorians take you seriously when you simply fabricate things and lie to this House? That is what this man is doing …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I guess you know what my point of order is: The Chief Minister should withdraw that reference.
Ms Martin: It is a censure.
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, the censure is against you, not against the Leader of the Opposition.
Madam SPEAKER: Let us make sure that no one calls anyone liars, then. Just withdraw.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, he misleads this House. I take back the ‘lie’, sorry, but he misleads this House.
Mr Dunham: You cannot say that either.
Ms MARTIN: Yes, I can.
Mr Baldwin: No, you can’t.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker. Misleading the House is something that must be substantiated by a substantive motion, as the Chief Minister well knows.
Madam SPEAKER: It is a censure motion and we usually do have quite outrageous accusations against both sides.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: I know what you are saying, but the Chief Minister is responding and, if she wishes to use that term, in this circumstance, it is satisfactory.
Mr Elferink: In that case, Madam Speaker, I have to say that the Chief Minister should not lie.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell!
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, I do not care what the member for Macdonnell says, honestly. It does not bother me at all. He is irrelevant to this debate.
Mr Baldwin: You are, too.
Ms MARTIN: Well, I am not; I am being censured.
Madam SPEAKER: I would like the member for Macdonnell to come and see me. Continue, Chief Minister.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member for Daly says I am irrelevant to this debate when I am actually the one being censured. I assume I am not irrelevant to the debate.
I make the very valid point that you have premised a whole censure - a whole condemnation of federal Labor and Labor leader, Mark Latham - on fantasy. That is all that you are doing. You have taken a quote, as I said, that does not say anything about ‘… and when I get into government I will do X’. It does not say that. Let us get real here. What somebody says 10 years ago, where is it translated into this election campaign? Whereabouts is it?
How can it be taken seriously? When we have the Opposition Leader posturing and verballing federal Labor, how can you take it seriously? He is making it up. The worst thing about making it up in here is that this is also the man who, come the next Territory election - whenever that happens before October next year, as the legislation spells out - is asking Territorians to take him seriously. He is asking Territorians to trust what he says. Yet, in this House, you cannot trust anything he says. This could be whether it is dogs and cats or Labor and Mark Latham, but he does not tell the truth in here, and he has not told the truth in this censure.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker. Conventions are that if a person is being censured, certain things can be said about them. It is not adequate under our standing orders for the Chief Minister to respond by using like comment. Unless standing orders or the practice of this House have changed, I suggest that she desist from that and she withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: I presume you are saying that it is all right for members of the opposition to accuse the government of lying in a censure, but the government cannot respond? Is that what you are saying, member for Drysdale?
Mr DUNHAM: As I understand standing orders, Madam Speaker, you can only say it by way of a substantive motion, which has been accepted in this House. It is a motion that has been accepted, so we are now able to use language which is not otherwise able to be used.
Madam SPEAKER: No, it is not parliamentary. I have ruled on numerous occasions that ‘lying’ is not parliamentary in this place. You cannot always hide behind a censure to use it, which is what you are basically saying. So I am saying …
Dr Lim: We are not hiding behind a censure; we are just using …
Madam SPEAKER: It does not matter whether it is a censure or not, you should not be using unparliamentary language. That is my point. It does not matter who is using it.
Mr DUNHAM: Speaking to the point of order, I ask when this practice came about, Madam Speaker? As somebody who has been censured by the party opposite and had a variety of allegations made about me, which were subsequently found to be untrue, I just wonder when this practice came about.
Madam SPEAKER: What I am saying to you, member for Drysdale, is that it does not matter whether it is a censure or not, we should all try not to use unparliamentary language. Just because it is a censure does not mean to say you can end up with a slanging match, and that is my ruling. Chief Minister, withdraw that.
Ms MARTIN: I withdraw whatever I said.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Please remember what I said: just because it is a censure it does not give you licence to use unparliamentary language, no matter what side of the House you are on.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, can I make a point, though?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes.
Ms MARTIN: If the Opposition Leader is not actually being accurate in here, and is not telling the truth, what do I say?
Madam SPEAKER: Then you need to produce the evidence to show that he is not accurate.
Ms MARTIN: I am asking him to produce the evidence to support his argument.
Madam SPEAKER: All right, you could do it that way.
Ms MARTIN: So, Madam Speaker, I say to the second speaker for the opposition: will you produce some evidence? Will you produce …
Mr Dunham: It is in your hand.
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: Here we have a brochure from your local member, which says what he is committing to for the next election. There have been lots of brochures around, lots of television advertising - policies delivered over the last six months, particularly over the last four-and-a-half weeks. I would like to see some evidence in one of those brochures, in one of those television ads, that says Labor will reduce the funding to the Northern Territory. I find it quite extraordinary. In the same breath, this is the illogical presentation we get from the Opposition Leader. In this fantasy world that he is trapped by, he says Labor will reduce funding to the Territory. Then he says we have horizontal fiscal equalisation, which is a policy that is implemented by the independent Grants Commission.
All this rubbish - we have an independent Grants Commission, which very carefully does the relativities, and, let me say, the relativities under federal Labor actually were higher for the Territory. They were seven and eight times higher. Now we are down to about 4.7 - that level. They were actually higher per capita. We were getting more under federal Labor - under the dreaded Hawke, under the dreaded Keating - than we are getting currently. Your arguments are contradictory. You are saying, on one hand, Labor will reduce it, and yet we have an independent body that determines that funding - the Grants Commission does the relativities with great care. I would like more, and I say very clearly to Canberra: ‘We want more’. We are down there saying that very often, standing up for the Territory. However, that is the GST pool that is then divided by those relativities determined by the independent Grants Commission.
Therefore, where is your logic in saying Labor will, under that principle, actually reduce funding to the Territory? No, so you are wrong on that count. You have not been able to prove that Mark Latham, as Prime Minister, would reduce the funding. He is not on the record in this election campaign - and he is not even on the record in this. You are extrapolating from statements he made. It does not say there: ‘When I am Prime Minister I will …
Mr Mills: Yes, it does
Ms MARTIN: It does not say it; it does not. Then you contradict yourself by a short reference to the Grants Commission and its process.
You expect a logical censure and, on two points already, you have failed hopelessly, absolutely - and it is typical. When the Opposition Leader gets his burst of ‘I am on the pulpit’ rhetoric, he gets it all wrong. You are simply in here, not standing up for the Territory, but doing John Howard’s bidding and the Canberra Liberals’ bidding. That is what you are doing. That is what that ad in the paper this morning, which had all the CLP Chief Ministers lined up, was doing. It was not standing up for the Territory, it was doing the President of the Liberal Party’s bidding. That is what it was doing. It was doing the bidding of the former Chief Minister and now President of the Liberal Party: fight for John Howard in Canberra, not fight for the Territory. You are not even standing up and fighting for the Territory.
We certainly do not have the member for Solomon as an example of why we vote CLP or pretend Liberal in this election. He does not stand up for the Territory. You do not stand up for the Territory. It was an embarrassment at the Telstra Awards at lunchtime to hear the member for Solomon say: ‘Behind every successful man is a successful woman. Well done, girls, you are going quite well’. What kind of federal representative is this man? What is the kind of man who stands there - and we heard the sequence of events about the national nuclear waste dump. He thinks it should be in the Territory!
Mr Mills: That is nonsense!
Ms MARTIN: He does! I am not verballing him; he said: ‘The Territory has an obligation to accept nuclear radioactive waste from other parts of Australia and house it in the Territory. He is a significant embarrassment to you. When did I hear any member of the opposition take him to task? You cannot even take your local member to task; how on earth do you think we believe this rhetoric that you are taking Canberra governments to task? It is a load of rubbish! Standing up for the Territory is a little more than coming in here trying to strut your stuff - making up stuff and standing up for an awful federal representative. When you think back about those who have represented the Territory, you would have to say that Dave Tollner is the worst by a roaring mile - an absolutely roaring mile! What was it that …
Mr Stirling: Even worse than Nick!
Ms MARTIN: Yes! What was it that the former President of the Liberal Party described him as? The good Dr Len Notaras, when he was the President of the Liberal Party, described the member for Solomon as a ‘6’6” albatross hanging around the neck of the CLP’. This is how the former President of the CLP described your candidate for Solomon - and you are in here, advocating for him to go back to Canberra for another three years! How is that representing the Territory? The Dave Tollner recipe for the Territory: we could make Katherine the site of the next national nuclear waste dump. The member for Katherine would love that. Did I hear her saying that is a load of rubbish? Silence!
Mrs Miller: It is a total load of rubbish!
Mr Elferink: It has been totally discounted! It is out! Gone!
Mr Mills: Anyway, back to the business at hand, please, Chief Minister!
Ms MARTIN: We could really do well with another three years from the member for Solomon! Astute, stand up for the Territory; always gets it right! That is what I like about the member for Solomon; he always gets it right! Astute comments on foreign policy and a whole range of things. Then he bumbles off and says: ‘Oops, got that one wrong again’. What about his record in the federal parliament, not speaking on major debates to do with the Territory? He does not speak on major debates to do with the Territory. Here we have this mob advocating him going back to Canberra, and putting down a very fine Labor candidate in Jim Davidson, who is hard-working and has won the respect of business, and is out there impressing everybody he meets with his ability to represent Darwin, Palmerston and the Territory.
The basic premise of this censure is one that has no evidence to support it; it has no grounds. The Opposition Leader has simply come in here and said: ‘I have extrapolated from this that we are going to have reduced funding in the Territory’. It is wrong - it is simply wrong. In fact, let me just say how the Territory would be better off under Mark Latham as Prime Minister and federal Labor in government.
Rather than what the Opposition Leader referred to as divide and rule and pick on the wealthy, every school in the Territory will be better off under a Labor government ...
Mr Dunham: Rubbish!
Ms MARTIN: Every school in the Territory will be better off and they will have more resources under a Labor government. We are a young Territory and we need extra resources into our schools. We need to be getting our students through with better outcomes, whether they want to go to Year 12, or whether they want to go into TAFE and the VET courses. We need to be achieving that. We all know what the Howard government did when they got into power in 1996: cut the heart out of our university, cut the funding out of our university, cut into the TAFE courses we could offer. There will be extra university places for Charles Darwin University under Labor, and there will be an additional 400 TAFE places to address skill shortages. That does not sound like cutting funding to the Territory to me. That sounds like building education resources …
Mr Mills: Do not trust him.
Ms MARTIN: When the Opposition Leader says, ‘Do not trust him’, let us look at costed policies, at commitments to the Territory. That is what I trust. Every school in the Territory will be better off; our university will be better off; our TAFE students will be better off. That is not bad as a starter; that is a pretty good starter. When you talk to Territorians, one thing they do want is to see their children educated, to be given an opportunity in life to have the skills for the jobs of the future.
Let us look at health. We have had a government for eight years which has simply snipped away at Medicare. You talk to an ordinary Territorian about whether they can get bulk billing at the doctor. We have the lowest bulk billing rate in the country. Are you proud of that as Territory Liberals - that we have the lowest bulk billing rate in the country? You say: ‘Go on, John Howard, do it to us again. Yes, let us send Dave Tollner back to Canberra to see if we cut that, see if we can get it even lower in terms of bulk billing’. Labor is going to turn that around. There will be an increase in bulk billing incentives in the Territory so that more Territorians can see a doctor for less. How can the opposition criticise this when we are talking about access to health?
Mr Mills: It is unfunded, and I do not trust him.
Ms MARTIN: These are funded, careful policies which contrast with a very anxious and nervous Prime Minister who has just grabbed at the surplus and, every time he walks out the door, throws another $1bn at something - uncosted. If you are talking about interest rates - which the Opposition Leader did, when he asked, ‘What will it be under Labor?’ - take a look at the commentators. The informed commentators - the banks, the financial commentators - are saying there will be no difference to interest rates whether you are under Liberal or Labor - no difference. Let us stop the scare here. The only difference is the rash rush of promises that Prime Minister Howard is making. That could see the real pressure come for interest rate rises. That is the heart of it. I do not think the Opposition Leader bothers to get an informed opinion on this. He has just been given the rhetoric from Canberra and he is in here spouting it. There will be no difference to interest rates whether you have Liberal or Labor in power. That is the informed comment on the issue. However, a proviso to that is that, with the spending we have seen over this election campaign and before it from the Howard government, we could start to see pressure on interest rates.
Let us go back to health though. A Medicare hotspot team at Royal Darwin Hospital provide after hour GP service; a bad thing? That sounds to me like funds to the Territory. That sounds to me like well targeted funds to the Territory that will help Territorians, and take the pressure off our emergency and allow Territorians to get access to medical services in the later hours and early morning. It is an initiative that is funded, that puts dollars into the Territory in real programs.
There will be a Medicare office in Palmerston. For eight years – silence. Now we finally have a little bleating from the member for Solomon saying: ‘I will do it too’, now that Labor has offered it. Labor is committed to a Medicare office. There will be initiatives to increase the number of doctors in rural and regional areas and, importantly - and I make no bones about this - dental health is very important for me, it is very important for Territorians.
We saw the heart cut out of dental services. The Howard government simply took a $1m out of our ability to deliver those services . There will be $300m in dental care programs across Australia from Labor - $300m. It is all very well to talk about how great it is to be a senior in Australia, a senior Territorian; if your teeth have gone to the dogs, life is not up to much. You can do the mushy food, but if you do not have good dental care and you are on a waiting list for two years because the federal government has cut the heart out of dental services, then life is not up to much. We have a Labor opposition that recognises that and funds are going back into dental health, back into employing dentists, making sure our waiting lists for those such as seniors are at a manageable level - and they have been awful. We have put additional Territory funds into that, but John Howard cut the heart out of those dental services. Did we hear a squeak from his little acolytes on that side of the House? Not a squeak, not a criticism.
We had some very vague references to industrial relations, how the place would go to industrial chaos and that the work force would be damaged. Again, not a shred of evidence for this. He said: ‘A federal Labor government will get rid of those AWAs. What a shocker! What a shocker to do that’. Yet, as we said in Question Time, after eight years of the opportunity for our employers to grab those AWAs, they have a coverage of 3%. They are an absolute roaring success! Who are you standing up for? Are you standing up for workers being treated decently? Are you standing up for decent awards? No, not at all. Yet, here we are at a time that we are building the Territory work force. We have projects …
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: We are building the Territory work force and the projects are coming on line.
Mr Henderson: They do not get out much, do they?
Ms MARTIN: That is a good point from the Leader of Government Business. You do not get out much, do you? What do you do? You sit up there in that closed opposition conference room – I have been in the opposition conference room. It can create an unreal atmosphere, from time to time. It is important to get out there and talk to people. Go down the mall, go and talk to people, talk about what is happening in our community.
Mr Dunham: Go and have lunch at Christo’s.
Ms MARTIN: We have the member for Drysdale saying: ‘Go and have lunch at Christo’s’. There is a long history of a government, when in power, that lunched its way to …
Mr Henderson: $56 000 worth once!
Ms MARTIN: That was Mick Palmer. What was your sum? We will have to go and check up what the former Minister for Health’s sum was.
Mr Stirling: Mick spent $55 000.
Ms MARTIN: $56 000.
Mr Stirling: $56 000, was it?
Ms MARTIN: $56 000 in one year on his own personal expenses. That is hard eating, isn’t it? That is hard eating. It is tough.
Mr Dunham: Yes, and what did he do with live cattle exports?
Mr Kiely: Government by long lunch, that was you lot.
Mr Dunham: He was more efficient than the whole lot of you put together.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, order! Let us get this debate back on track.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, I take your point to get this debate back on track, but it was never on track to start with. The censure is, basically, a load of rubbish. The censure is unsupported in that it does not produce the facts for the allegations – and they are simply allegations - that the Opposition Leader is making. If the Opposition Leader wants to truly respect the traditions of this parliament, he will have to get his facts right. We reject this censure because your facts are wrong. On Saturday, put Jim Davidson in as the member for Solomon. Let us have a Mark Latham Labor government in Canberra and the Territory will do well.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, not unexpectedly, the Chief Minister has decided where her support will be on Saturday. She belittles the CLP and calls us cronies of the federal Liberal Party for supporting John Howard as Prime Minister of Australia for the next three to four years. She says that we have no case to argue that Mark Latham should not be a future Prime Minister of Australia.
I say very emphatically that we do have a case. The Chief Minister has a wonderful way of belittling anything the opposition says but, then, emphatically asks us to support notions of some sort of crystal and glorious future for the Northern Territory by virtue of her own statements.
Can anyone remember the statements about Chinatown, when the Chief Minister came to office? Can anyone remember the fact that this first Labor government in the Northern Territory was going to create a whole new office complex, and build a whole new cultural centre for recognising the Chinese contribution to the Northern Territory? Not only that, they would put aside about 4000 m2 of government space to accommodate it? That, down there, is the realisation of Labor promises. That, down there, is the realisation of the only decision this government has made and stood by that has been of any initiative, supposedly, to enhance development of the Northern Territory. Three-and-a-half years later, where are we? Zip down there; an empty block of land with a black curtain around it - that is Chinatown.
Now the Chief Minister asks us to have faith in someone called Mark Latham, someone who she believes emphatically will deliver in the same way that her government has delivered. She has the upmost faith in this man, and has the claim that this opposition, by this censure motion, cannot put forward any substantiative argument as to why this man should not be Prime Minister. This is a serious motion and, if the Chief Minister wants to put her bet on Mark Latham on the future of the Northern Territory, we stand here emphatically and say we put our money on John Howard. You can call us cronies of the Liberal Party, if you like. You can call every former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory a crony of the Liberal Party in this matter if you like. However, we will stand emphatically and say we will stand with John Howard for the future of Territorians because that is best for the Northern Territory.
That is not cronyism, crawling to the Liberal Party, or being part of the Liberal Party, that is simply saying that is what we believe and we have the arguments to prove it. If you ask where our arguments against Mark Latham are, I will say this: first, the comments the man has made on the public record; second, the attitude by the other state Premiers in the rich states of Australia in terms of their belief that the Northern Territory gets too much money; third, which the Chief Minister would not address and she should have addressed it - the ANSA funding arrangements methodology that exists in Australia and how that can be changed; fourth, Labor’s dishonesty - the fact that Mark Latham is asking us to believe that he will deliver for Territorians and Australians, and yet he has gone against his own charter of budget honesty which he signed up for by refusing to put forward to the Commonwealth Treasury his policies to be fully costed and go the through the rigour of scrutiny by Treasury and Finance.
How would this Labor government in the Northern Territory accuse us if we brought forward policies that did not go through that sort of rigorous process? They would laugh at us and say they were unbelievable. Rightly, we can stand here as Territorians and ask how this man can expect Australians to believe that he will deliver on his promises, when he will not even put his policies up for public scrutiny. On the last effort that I looked up, there was $25.6bn worth of projects that had missed the Treasury deadline on the charter of budget honesty, which this man and the federal Labor Party had signed up to and said that they would adhere to. They have missed the deadline, and that was before they rolled out Medicare gold, which is being totally thrown out and canned by the AMA and your own Access Economics, who you put so much faith into. They say it is unworkable, it is unbelievable, it is not deliverable. The best the AMA president in Queensland could say was that, maybe, perhaps in 10 years, you might be able to get some change, but certainly not under the methodology and arguments that Mark Latham puts forward to Australians at the moment.
Another reason why we do not trust Mark Latham as the Labor Prime Minister of Australian is the record of Labor governments in the past. You can go back to Whitlam and Hawke/Keating, who opposed self-government for the Northern Territory and opposed the now Charles Darwin University. Paul Keating refused and reneged on the railway, despite their promises. It was a Labor federal government that delivered up to 70% in interest rates to Australians and Territorians, with the impact of business and inflation Australia-wide. The Chief Minister says: ‘We cannot get commentary on his industrial relations policies. We should have faith in the industrial relations policies that Mark Latham brings forward because they would be good for workers’. Well, try these for commentaries. Try Alan Wood from The Australian newspaper; not a great friend of the Liberal Party often. This is what he has said:
Alan Wood, The Australian, 24 February 2004. You want another independent commentator? How about Paul Kelly in The Australian. Paul Kelly is a pretty even-handed commentator and this is what he says …
A member interjecting.
Mr BURKE: You laugh. I will tell Paul Kelly that. As far as the Labor Party in the Northern Territory is concerned, he is a Liberal stooge. I do not think many Australians believe that. They believe he is a very informed commentator. Paul Kelly in The Australian says this:
The Australian Chamber of Commerce, in The Australian on 17 February, said this:
And so it goes on. In The Australian newspaper editorial - there is an independent commentator:
Another editorial in The Australian:
If that is the case, you have a person who proposes and puts himself forward as the new and best Prime Minister to lead Australia into the future. I saw an ad last night where he said: ‘Australians are ready - I am ready: Mark Latham’. The Chief Minister and her Labor colleagues have committed themselves to this man who said that, as far as he was concerned, the funding arrangements that flow to the Northern Territory - you have seen the quote: ‘… as given and decided by the Grants Commission, are absurd’. The Chief Minister’s answer to that quote was: ‘Well, he was young and inexperienced’. My answer to the Chief Minister is to use Rudyard Kipling’s words that said: ‘A dog always returns to its vomit’.
That is the way Australian’s should understand Mark Latham: a dog always returns to its vomit. I tell you the vomit of Mark Latham is this: Territorians are over-funded; there is no way this Northern Territory population should get up to seven times the pro-rata funding that goes to the Northern Territory in comparison to other states. Places like Campbelltown and Blacktown deserve more money, as far as Mark Latham is concerned. That, in itself, is a comment. However, where it becomes really dangerous is this: as you all and the Chief Minister knows - and I have sat in COAG meetings and I know - there is not a COAG meeting where funding is discussed where the strong Labor states of Victoria and New South Wales do not come forward and say: ‘We want to change the funding arrangements. We believe that we are getting dudded. We want a new tax system arrangement in Australia and we want monies that flow to the Northern Territory under the current modelling to be changed’. The danger of that - which the Chief Minister fails to recognise - is that those two states put Mark Latham in power. He belongs to the Labor Party in New South Wales and he is beholden to the Carr government for his position. The new taxation arrangements in Australia can only be changed by virtue of agreement of all the states and territories of Australia. It cannot happen at the moment. Do you know why? Because the Commonwealth government, which is the federal Liberal government, will not even entertain it.
Our Treasurer, the member for Nhulunbuy, I am sure would put forward his case to say that the funding arrangements should not be changed. However, I ask Territorians to ask this question: what weight would the Treasurer and Chief Minister of the Northern Territory have in the COAG argument against the Labor states of Australia, led by New South Wales and Victoria, who have the capability under those arrangements to change the funding arrangements, and also have a mendicant Prime Minister who, philosophically by his own statement, believes that the Northern Territory is over-funded. That is the danger for Territorians and what we put forward in this motion: that first of all you have a Prime Minister who claims that he is going to deliver for Australians and Territorians but, in fact, does not stand by the fact that the current funding arrangements that provide benefits to the states and territories under horizontal fiscal equalisation processes that have been around for many years and have been agreed under ANSA arrangements, are currently correct. That is the danger and the argument we put.
The implications for the Northern Territory are great. We have ministers in here who represent probably the most pressing health issues in Australia, difficult educational issues, and we have had arguments in this House about the paucity of funding we get for federal roads. That is the danger of the Northern Territory; we are dependent on 80% of our funding from the Commonwealth. We know what happens when a slight change results in reduced funding to the Northern Territory, where the Territory government says: ‘This is not fair, the modelling is wrong. We have to change it, we need more money’. The reality is we cannot afford to have any situation whereby those modelling arrangements could be changed to the detriment of the Northern Territory. They will and can be changed if people like Bracks and Carr, supported by Prime Minister Latham – God help us if it ever happens – get their way.
Therefore, I back John Howard. I back a man who has delivered for the last eight-and-a-half years to Territorians and Australians low interest rates, low unemployment, high productivity, and one of the strongest economies in Australia.
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: Well, you do not believe me? You do not back any of that? I back Territorians and Australians who will support the fact that, at the end of the day, they have more faith in a Prime Minister who can stand on a track record of eight-and-a-half years, than a pretender who signs cardboard sheets. This must be the Labor strategy, you sign a cardboard sheet that says: ‘I promise there will be no inflation’, ‘I promise there will be no rise in interest rates’. Do you remember the ‘I promise no public servant will be sacked’? That is the Labor way of doing business, and they expect us all to be like lemmings and follow them over the cliff.
I do not believe Territorians will. I believe that Territorians, at the end of the day, will recognise the person who has delivered a strong economy, low interest rates, and has taken home mortgage rates from about 17% under a Labor federal government down to the 6%, or close to it, that the average in Australia is now, and support the Prime Minister. To suggest that our support for Prime Minister John Howard is somehow un-Territorian and we are lackeys, just shows, in fact, what lackeys you are.
Dr Burns: Come on, what about Tollner’s record? Talk about that.
Mr BURKE: All they want to do is talk about the member for Solomon. If it was not for the member for Solomon, there would not be two federal seats in the Northern Territory. Where were you when that argument was going on? If it was not for the member for Solomon, there would not be free entry to Kakadu. Where were you when that was going on? And where were you when all the phases of radioactive dumps was being rolled out by Simon Crean and Bob Collins – wherever he is now - and was being mooted by a previous federal Labor government? Where is your strength of integrity, you lot? You have none!
The most you can run in this federal election is to attack Dave Tollner on a spurious non-issue of nuclear dumps, when you know it is not on the agenda. Why don’t you concentrate on the track record of Mark Latham? Why don’t you help explain to Australians that this fool who has never been a minister in any government, never held a job of any note in the public or private sector - the most he has been before he pretends to be Prime Minister is the Mayor of Liverpool City Council. There was a state government inquiry into Liverpool City Council after his term as mayor. As we said today, they put it on cyclone watch. This was a council that, after Mark Latham had had his way and said: ‘I will deliver massive surpluses to the people of the Liverpool Council area, I will teach these amateurs’ – he was exactly quoted as saying that they were a bunch of amateurs trying to run a $40m budget and they needed him to sort it out – he came in there and wrecked the place.
We are expected to believe that this is the man who will lead Australia. It says in the 1994 statement of financial position for Liverpool City Council that the amount of liabilities for creditors increased by 51% whilst borrowings increased by 45% while this jerk was Mayor of Liverpool City Council.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, member for Brennan, withdraw that remark, thank you. What you called …
Mr BURKE: Well, I could quote from the - I will withdraw, Madam Speaker. I withdraw unreservedly. However, given some of the comments that people who worked for Mark Latham - as quoted in this report - have said about him, ‘jerk’ is pretty nice.
In fact, some of the words that he said - and I will quote one where he called one Labor member ‘a c..t’ is typical of the way Mark Latham does business.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, but you do not have to do it.
Mr BURKE: That is the way he speaks. That is the way he describes people, Madam Speaker. It is in the report from the investigation of Liverpool City Council.
This is the guy who is going to introduce industrial relations changes that are going to benefit the workers. When he was handling an enterprise agreement at Liverpool City Council, the employees that he was negotiating with - 245 of them - put a no confidence motion against him of 243-2. This is the guy who put the council into debt so that it became a worrying council for the state Labor government, and they had an inquiry into it. He is going to deliver surpluses for Australians, is going to manage an $800bn Australian economy, and he could not even manage Liverpool City Council without stuffing it up. One of his …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 62:
This is a censure motion against the Chief Minister and we have accepted that. However, nowhere have we accepted that we should use such language against another member in another House. I ask that he withdraw these comments and that he keeps on track.
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: I am simply arguing why he should not be …
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw. Just withdraw, member for Brennan. We did say we would not make unparliamentary comments about another member of parliament.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker. The Leader of Government Business refused to withdraw Mr Bomb …
Madam SPEAKER: I did not give you the call.
Mr Dunham: Well, it seems to be an erratic …
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat, thank you! I am talking to the member for Brennan. Member for Brennan, just withdraw.
Mr BURKE: I withdraw whatever it was. I think he is asking me to withdraw the whole statement.
Anyway, five former mayors - these are not my quotes, these are theirs:
Mr Henderson: How big was your deficit?
Mr BURKE: I am talking about, as you say, the next possible Prime Minister of Australia, someone in whom you have the utmost faith. The Chief Minister asks Territorians and this opposition to have faith in one Mark Latham - a member, as I said, and a potential Prime Minister who signed up to the Charter of Budget Honesty and, on last check, there were $25.6bn worth of promises that had not gone to Treasury - uncosted, unfunded. So, how can anyone believe anything that Mark Latham says?
Under Mark Latham, Territorians and Australians will be losers. There is a litany of initiatives in Mark Latham’s policies, not the least being that single income and sole parent families will lose family tax benefits worth $60 a week for under fives and $40 a week for over fives, but get a new tax threshold worth only $20 a week. All families will lose the Coalition’s $600 per child a year payment and, in particular, families with larger numbers of children will be worse off.
It goes on and on. It even extends to black spot funding. The black spot funding for the Northern Territory, which fixes and helps to attend to dangerous places in our roads, has had the flick under a Latham Labor government. I wonder if Territorians know that your 4 discount docket from Woolworths or Coles, which a lot of Territorians are very happy with, has gone as well.
I could go on for another hour on this bloke, but Territorians should back John Howard. They should be very wary when they come to vote on Saturday about the promises and policies of Mark Latham, because he is dangerous for the Northern Territory and Australia.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, notwithstanding the diatribe of hostility, venom and vindictiveness from the member for Brennan against the member for Werriwa, the federal Opposition Leader, Mark Latham, the substance of this censure motion was nothing more than a torrent of abuse at Mark Latham, the member for Werriwa, from the member for Brennan.
Notwithstanding that, the substance, the first point of this motion, is a censure of the Chief Minister and this government for failing to stand up for the Northern Territory. A censure of this government for failing to stand up for the Territory!
Let us have a little look at a few of the things this government has done in standing up for the Northern Territory. In the first place, we have turned the economy around the corner, because of this Labor government’s strong intervention. In three years, we have addressed the fiscal black hole left by the member for Brennan when he was the former Chief Minister.
Mr Burke: What a load of rubbish! You put a $90 rego tax on.
Mr STIRLING: The deceit! Well may he talk about Parramatta Council or whatever it was and their deficit! This is a bloke who went to an election telling Territorians there would be a $12m shortfall, $12m deficit - unsustainable, the Under Treasurer said, and we were headed for a $126m black hole. I will take Mark Latham’s record and time, against yours, member for Brennan. Absolute disgrace!
We have spent record capital works on infrastructure, year on year. We have injected cash into tourism - $27m over three years; in health, more than $100m to date; in education, more than $40m to date. Why did we have to inject such massive sums of money into these areas? Because it was the neglect of the former government because they were cash strapped and running up a bill quicker than you could believe.
We have construction figures today that show a 53% increase, year on year, of residential building approvals. We have announced the waterfront project at $1bn. We have successfully negotiated the transfer of the tank farm; which is a project going to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars. We will see the development of Darwin as an LNG hub and gas onshore. We are going to oversee the expansion of Alcan. According to their side - and one of the issues that came up in this debate from the other side - was this question of unemployment. According to Dave Tollner, the member for Solomon, the unemployment rate in Darwin is about 3.3%; about half the national rate. It is here in the pamphlet: ‘Local unemployment rate 3.3%’. Yet, we were questioned by the Leader of the Opposition this morning about our unemployment rate. That is what standing up for the Territory is about, and it is a record that we are proud of.
It is interesting; there is a bit of a throwback here - much more from the member for Brennan than the Leader of the Opposition - in wanting to get stuck into Canberra. A bit of Canberra bashing days before Latham is even elected: they are going to climb into this Canberra government some three or four days before the election is even held. It does not surprise me from the member for Brennan, because he has form on this. One of his favourite tactics, of course, was bashing Canberra.
I go back to 31 July 2002: ‘Stone gives Burke a serve’. This is a good one, because they appear side-by-side in today’s paper - great mates:
This is not bad from Stoney; this is not bad:
This is interesting. We are going back a couple of years there in history, but today we saw the same elements that led to Mr Stone’s criticism of the member for Brennan. We saw it today: attack-dog mode, full-on Canberra, and this – what? - four or five days before the man is even elected. What will happen next week if Mr Latham is Prime Minister? It will be pretty hard to cop it in here.
I can assure this House that the federal Leader of the Opposition, Mark Latham, if he becomes Prime Minister on Saturday night and is sworn in at some time over the next couple of weeks with the government, is not going to take away horizontal fiscal equalisation. The other Labor states …
Mr Dunham: How would you know? He would not tell you!
Mr STIRLING: I will tell you why he is not going to do it, mate, because he could not! If you understood the system, you would know he could not. You have never been to a Treasurer’s conference, so you do not know how these things stack up! The other Labor states all act as a group on these sorts of questions. They act very much in self-interest, as does COAG, when the leaders are together.
New South Wales and Victoria will not be getting their way over the rest of the states and territories with a federal Labor government. I can make that unequivocal assurance because I know - and I have been to a couple of Treasurer’s conferences; no one on that side over that has - that it simply cannot happen like that.
The inter-governmental agreement that was drawn up to decide on the distribution of the GST when the new tax system came into being, is based on the very principles of horizontal fiscal equalisation. Under the process, New South Wales and Victoria usually raise their heads and vent a bit of steam about HFE. They are occasionally joined by WA when WA is getting a hard time. However, WA dropped off the train last year and joined the smaller states because they thought the Commonwealth were raiding their piggy bank. Therefore, you get the situation of NSW and Victoria versus Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, ACT and NT. If you have any idea about numbers - and I am not suggesting the opposition would - it is pretty hard to see how two can beat six, or at worst, if Western Australia crosses the fence because they never fully decided what side of the fence they want to be on in this debate, how three can ever get over the top of five with a vested interest in horizontal fiscal equalisation.
I go to that famous and quote - my first ministerial council, I had a phone call from a former Chief Minister, Marshall Perron. He was giving me fatherly advice ‘Be very careful of these southern states because they will try and get around you when you go to these ministerial councils’. We went through the principles of horizontal fiscal equalisation and he put a quote in my mind that I have never forgotten. He said: ‘You want to remind these blokes when you are down there that horizontal fiscal equalisation is the glue that binds the federation together’. The glue that binds the federation together. Marshall does not claim it as his own. I do not the origins of the quote, but it certainly stuck with me. When I did have the privilege of becoming Treasurer of the Northern Territory, it was a quote that was well to the fore when I sat in that forum at the Treasurer’s Conference.
The other issue in this censure is Labor’s industrial relations policies. Let me say, unequivocally again, that there will be no negative impact on struggling Territory business and the mining industry. This censure is all about a piece of political diatribe designed to inject some life into the dying campaign of their mate, the member for Solomon. We heard it over and over again in the input to the debate. My advice to them would be: why waste your breath? The flip-flops, the inanities, the crass stupidity of this member for Solomon already sealed his fate. A tempered motion such as this ain’t going to revive his chances. When Centrebet have the candidate sitting at $1.60 against the incumbent at about even money of $2, I would think he is pretty well gone.
Here is a man who endorsed a nuclear dump, declared the finalisation of treaty between East Timor and Australia when it had not even been completed, made comments on Iraq in a bumbling, contradictory way, and threatens to sue anyone who ever mentions his dog. As the Chief Minister said, the former president, Mr Len Notaras said: ‘This is the 6’6’’ albatross around our neck’. How perceptive! I like Len. I take that. He is a good critic in my view …
Ms Martin: A very astute man.
Mr STIRLING: He is astute and perspective and he read the wind a long way out.
Let us examine the facts. As I said, horizontal fiscal equalisation is a principle for which the smaller states and the territories of the Commonwealth have fought and won over the years of federation - and they will go on winning and fighting that battle. Why will they always win this battle? Because there are five of them - at best six - and there are only two and maybe three big states. Three will never beat five; two will never beat six. That is a fight. It is an interesting argument and you can bring up new facts or what is perceived as facts, but it always an interesting debate. It is a fight that absolutely crosses political lines. No matter what persuasion the state governments of South Australia, Tasmania, the ACT and the Northern Territory are, they will never cross the divide on this issue. It is a fight, as I said, by Victoria and New South Wales and, occasionally Western Australia, against the rest. It will always occur regardless of who is in power federally and who is in power in New South Wales and Victoria, or any of the states.
No federal government has acted to remove the principle of horizontal fiscal equalisation because, apart from the fact of it being the glue that binds the federation together, it goes to that ethos of a fair go - a fair go for Australians. That is exactly what it is about. If you understood it, you would recognise it. It would be a battle that you simply would not want to enter as the federal government because you are on a hiding for nothing.
When the CLP held power, most of the time - or for all of the time when they worked with Labor governments such as the previous and current Premiers of Queensland, Wayne Goss and Peter Beattie; Tasmanian Premiers Michael Field and the late Jim Bacon; South Australian Labor governments under Bannon and Arnold; West Australian governments under Burke, Dowding and Lawrence - they worked together. They worked together on this issue to protect and defend horizontal fiscal equalisation as a principle the same as I do now and this government will continue to do - whatever political persuasion the other states and territories might be. The former CLP government worked with federal Labor governments of Hawke and, subsequently, Keating, to defend those principles. Similarly, I work alongside Queensland, Tasmania, South Australia, the ACT and, sometimes, Western Australia to protect the principle to this day.
Unlike the member for Brennan, I have a strong measure of the men and women who make up the ranks of the federal opposition,. I am aware of the strong commitment made by the federal Opposition Leader, his shadow Treasurer, minister for finance, and other senior shadow ministers, to strengthen the regions, developing the capacity of remote areas, and making Australia a stronger place, regardless of where Australians live.
One of the un-truths peddled by the Prime Minister is that Labor will take Australian industrial relations back to centralised wage fixation. That is an absolute complete falsehood. There is nothing anywhere that suggests that is what a Latham Labor government will do. What the federal government conveniently leaves out of this misrepresentation is that it was Labor which introduced the system of enterprise bargaining to Australia. Why would you want to go back? Why would you go back to a centralised wage fixing system when you have introduced and overseen the implementation of an enterprise bargaining system which serves Australia well today? Why would you turn your back on that and go back to centralised wage fixing? What Labor will do is improve security of employment around casualisation and unfair dismissals, help balance family and work, and restore collective bargaining - and that would be the abolition of these AWAs.
The casualisation of the Australian work force is endemic; it is the cause of tremendous unnecessary stress for a lot of workers and families. What a federal Labor government will try to do is assist employees to obtain permanent employment wherever it is appropriate for them to do so. AWAs are un-Australian - there is no doubt of that where workers are coerced into signing substandard contracts, and signing away rights that other Australian workers enjoy. You have to ask yourself why less than 3% of the work force overall is currently on AWAs, despite the fact that the Howard government has had eight years to push these right through the industrial relations system - tried to ram them down the throats of workers wherever they are - and, eight years later we have around 3% of the work force on AWAs. Well, hello! It speaks for itself. Their removal will affect a minority of employers and their employees. They are rubber stamped by government, once they are signed off - a controlled bureaucracy, the Office of the Employment Advocate – and, rather than allowing any truly independent specialist tribunal deal with approval of these secret documents, there is a politically motivated process to ensure that workers are disadvantaged by these AWAs.
This office was supposedly set up to protect the worker where there might be undue ripping away of workers’ rights. They were supposed to apply the idea of a ‘no disadvantage’ test to a worker’s AWA. It is supposed to ensure that no worker would be worse off under an Australian Workplace Agreement. There is a bit of independent research that has been done on these AWAs - a comprehensive analysis of industrial agreements and interviews undertaken by Melbourne University’s Centre for Employment and Labour Relations Law. Researchers noted some AWAs included clauses - and this is what the Leader of the Opposition needs to be careful about when he touts and spruiks the case for AWAs. In some cases, they removed all forms of leave - sick leave, rec leave - that is it, you do not get leave - gone. They required employees to work at any hour of the day or night on any day of the week on ordinary rates of pay, and forced workers to work up to 58 hours per week without overtime. The evidence is in the Melbourne University’s Centre for Employment and Labour Relations Law analysis of some of these AWAs.
How could those agreements possibly pass through the Office of the Employment Advocate on a ‘no disadvantage’ test? Here I have leave - sick leave, rec leave - here I have none. They do not regard that as any disadvantage, apparently.
Unlike the Coalition, Labor is committed to putting fairness back in the system. Labor introduced the system of enterprise bargaining. It has provided flexibility to enable the growth of employment for which the Howard government takes the credit. The difference between the two is that the Labor Party has regard for the work force as part of the equation.
The other major difference between Labor and the Coalition is avoiding and resolving disputes. The Howard government, as always, introduces and runs with the law of the jungle in industrial disputes where might beats right. There is no regard for right; if you are powerful enough, you win. By restricting the powers of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, disputes can drag out for weeks and months whilst the specialist tribunal charged with resolving disputes is hamstrung. It is difficult to establish how Labor’s policy of returning fairness and sanity to that system is, in any way, likely to damage any industry - in particular the mining industry.
The speedy resolution of potentially damaging disputes is in the interests of all industry. It is in the interests of workers as well, of course. By contrast, the Howard government will always be ideologically driven by a ‘winner takes all’ mentality, irrespective of the damage done in the process. AWAs have proven to be unworkable and unfair. The low rate of take-up over eight years demonstrates how little interest there is amongst employers and employees in them. They are used by a minority of employers to largely reduce conditions of employment. Yet again, suggestion that the ALP’s industrial relation policies will hurt business is an example of John Howard telling lies in order to remain in power.
Madam Speaker, I have an amendment to put to this motion. I move to delete all words after ‘that’ and insert the following:
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that the member be allowed a further 10 minutes to conclude his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STIRLING: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Further, a Latham government will also:
Each of those points speak for themselves in how the Territory would be far better off under a Mark Latham Labor government. We saw the sensitivity and the anxiety from the opposition in the way that they prosecuted this so-called censure motion today - all about trying to shore up a loser in Dave Tollner in the seat of Solomon ...
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: Well, I did not bring on the debate. Jim Davidson can win without any shenanigans of this Assembly. He does not need this government saying good things about him in here to win. He is going to win. Go and take your $2, your even money with Centrebet, if you are that convinced that Tollner is going to get up. I tell you, Gerry Daffy will be happy to take your money; he has got Davidson at $1.60.
Each of these points speak for themselves. They underline the commitment of a Latham federal government to the Northern Territory. I ask all members of parliament who stand for the Territory - they really ought to be supporting this amendment.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I speak against the amendment and for the original motion. It is interesting that, at the 11th hour, this quite long amendment has been put to this debate. I hope it will be circulated …
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, it has been circulated.
Mr DUNHAM: … because there are substantial points there that are erroneous and, in true Labor style, they will change, because the loopholes are so big.
The MPI of this morning - it was pretty interesting that this is our General Business Day and, on such a day, one would think that the business of the parliament was handed over to the opposition. So ill-prepared was the government for a debate of this type, which they must have been anticipating, that they sought to fend it off further and further. You can see why now, having heard this debate. The reason they fended it off is that they are totally incapable of mounting a defence for the putative Prime Minister of Australia. They are totally incapable of mounting a defence to say why Mark Latham would be, in any way, beneficial to this place.
The Territory has a long history of being suspicious of politicians who come from the southern part of Australia and, for those of us who were here before self-government, one can understand why - because of the patronising attitude that many southern politicians have towards this place. Hawke’s Boyer Lectures talked about too many levels of government, and you can see that later on he carried this disposition further. That is why the words of the current leader of the federal opposition ring so loudly in our ears. It is all very well for the Chief Minister to dismiss this as foolish talk from a young new member of parliament, but the fact is that they have not been retracted. Like Hawke with his Boyer Lectures, this is the disposition of this man and, until the very time that he stands in this place or in the Northern Territory and makes a public retraction of those foolish statements, they stand.
The reading of this leaves no other option, other than to believe that this man, who grew up in the western suburbs of Sydney in a fibro hut - if you are to believe his rhetoric - believes that the needs in that particular part of Australia are greater than Darwin. Well, this man has never been to the remote communities in the Northern Territory, unlike our current federal Treasurer, I might add. I was fortunate enough to join Peter Costello on Bathurst Island when he went there, and I know that he understands some of the issues in the Northern Territory. I know John Howard does; in the last year or so, he has been here three times. He has spoken widely to the populous, and I believe he has a disposition of understanding what happens in this place. Therefore, before you run the case of: ‘Trust him, it is something he said a long time ago. Although he has not retracted it, we know in his heart of hearts he did not really mean what he said all those years ago’ - well, I do not believe that.
We can go to more recent history. The Treasurer gave us this patronising chat about numbers and said there are so many states and so many for and so many against. Well, this is a numbers game and we have two federal seats. We are entirely expendable in the eyes of Mark Latham, who is trying to win the bulk of seats out of the populous states of New South Wales and Victoria. How do we know this? Because he has already jettisoned Tasmania. We know that to be the case because we can take the words of the current Premier of Tasmania that he is quite prepared to jettison the interest of that particular state so that he can garner support in New South Wales and Victoria. If you heard that on the radio this morning, these words have to be ringing loudly in your ears because it is a pretty simple thing to write off two seats in the Northern Territory and try to garner another couple of dozen in other states. Therefore, the numbers argument that was put by the Treasurer is a foolish argument.
People have talked about horizontal fiscal equalisation. I thought I should read out what it means because it does have a definition. The definition is this - and I quote from Treasury documents, Budget Paper No 2 at page 42:
GST, remember that:
However, remember, it is only a couple of years ago that the Labor governments did not believe in the GST. The reason that they have gone so quiet on it is because they believe it was impossible to get the circumstances available to Australia to change the GST. What are those circumstances? Every state must agree. To have every state in the Commonwealth, as Labor states, puts the GST firmly back on the agenda. It is firmly an issue that has been embedded in Labor Party policy, rhetoric and banners around schoolyard fences on polling day: that the GST is bad for Australia.
Therefore, we know that one of the three fundamental legs to this, the GST, is an issue of some angst for the Labor Party. We know our share of national population is dropping. Why is that? Because we have elected a Labor government in the Northern Territory and people are leaving. We know the third leg of the relativities of the Grants Commission are a matter the current leader of the federal opposition has some difficulty with. Therefore, there are three risks to our funding stream and all three are on pretty shaky ground, I would suggest.
For the Treasurer to give us these patronising fireside chats about how he goes down and talks to his cobbers, mates and colleagues from these other states, does not mean nothing, because he is a little baby in the scheme of things - he is miniature. He is miniature when you have a potential leader who is quite happy to jettison the five Labor seats of Tasmania. Do not think that the one seat in this place means anything to him. Do not think that the one seat is something that is going to give him any sleepless nights.
There was a lot of noise in this debate about: ‘Well, what do you think about your mate, Mr Tollner?’ I guess the reality is the people standing for elections - we have Mr Snowdon who, I believe has been pretty close to being sued for treason for what he has done for the Northern Territory, particularly for roads. He originates from Canberra and is much at home in that place. Given that in this election year he spent a vast amount of time in New York, I am quite happy to say that Maisie Austin is not only a better candidate, but she will beat him. We go to …
Mr Henderson: I will take a bet on that one!
Mr DUNHAM: You laugh.
Ms Lawrie: Take a bet on that one! How much?
Mr DUNHAM: Well, there are two reasons why I thought that the member for Karama would agree with me. One is her gender and the other is her ethnicity, because there have been long arguments in this place about the rightful place of Aboriginal people and women to determine their own affairs and to participate in the political process. I would have thought that the member for Karama would be a staunch supporter of Maisie Austin and, knowing as I do what most of the members on the other side think of Warren Snowdon, they would find a much better proposition having a local like Maisie Austin there then our man in Canberra continuing to represent us.
Let us come to the candidate for the seat of Solomon: Mr Davidson. If you vote for Mr Davidson, it is a protest vote because that is what he does. This man is anti-development, anti-mining, anti-Defence Forces and he is anti-industry. We can talk the big picture. We can talk about what Mr Howard does versus Mr Latham. We can talk about the domestic picture and you lose on every occasion because, not only have you stood candidates who have not been helpful to us, but some of whom have won and their track record is evident to us - and I include Mr Snowdon in that.
Let us look at track record. The Howard government: real wages increased by 14%. All very well to talk about the workers and how Labor has this disposition to help workers. Under the Howard government, real wages increased by 14%. In the previous 13 years, real wages rose by 2.9%. Who is worker friendly? Which policies are worker friendly? The pragmatic policy that say that we should get the country running, and the country should be efficient and wealth earning, and that wealth should be shared by everybody including the workers? That would seem to be a much better policy then some semantics about collective bargaining and whether you can have secondary boycotts and the like. While it might appeal to many people, it is not necessarily a terribly efficient policy for the nation, and neither does it bestow the wealth that comes from efficiency back onto those workers. Therefore, to run your usual mantra of ‘we care about workers and the Coalition does not’, I suggest you look at the reality of it.
If we go to the federal election, I see that we have a fairly clear and stark choice between the two leaders contending. If you go to the domestic election, we have a fairly clear and stark choice for both the voters of Solomon and Lingiari. I would hope to have a result that sees both Maisie Austin and David Tollner elected. I would see that their election will do more for this place than the many years that Mr Snowdon has serve abysmally the interest of the Northern Territory people. Then, I suppose we could go to the state election - the Territory election.
We have here a parade here of wonderful things that have happened. ‘We are going to oversight the Alcan development’, which I thought was a pretty interesting verb, the verb ‘to oversight’. The Alcan development has happened, not because of any of the policies or initiatives of this government, but because of the ore bodies and the policies and initiatives of the company. Wickham Point is something that was inherited by this government from the good work that had been done by the previous government - and mucked up to the extent that the gas that should have come to Territorians and benefited Territorians is no longer available to us. The railway was also inherited by this government and they mucked that up. They had two jobs to do: organise a booze-up and build some terminals - and they mucked them both up. So badly was the booze-up organised, that it went from being an alcoholic to non-alcoholic to whatever; people could get there then they could not get there; and eventually we found that the railway actually had nothing to do with the Chief Minister. No, it was actually to do with Mr Tyrrell, who took the blame. So, it is all very well screaming and yelling about …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! Both the amendment and the motion go to censuring the Chief Minister on the one hand and also …
Mr Dunham: Well, circulate it.
Mr HENDERSON: It has been circulated. … and also welcoming the plans by Mark Latham and federal Labor. It has nothing to do with the welcoming party for the train …
Mr Dunham: Okay, I can see why you are worried about running you record out, cobber.
Mr HENDERSON: I urge you to have the member confine his remarks to the question before the Chair.
Mr Dunham: No, sit down. Sit down. Do not go and waste your time.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale!
Mr Dunham: I can see why you are worried about its running – parading your potential …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale! There is no point of order, Leader of Government Business. However, I ask you to contain your comments to the amendments before you.
Mr DUNHAM: Okay. There is a strong relationship between Commonwealth government policies and Territory government policies and, to quarantine this debate merely to Commonwealth policies without looking at your sorry track record, is a bit of a problem.
Let us go, for instance, to GP services. If you look at the plan for Royal Darwin Hospital redevelopment that was initiated and funded by this government, you will see, adjacent to Accident and Emergency, a GP clinic on the plans. It now does not exist. What has happened is Labor has said: ‘Oh, we have this really good idea: we will relieve the pressure on emergency services and build GP clinics adjacent to the emergency department’. Well, what a great idea. ‘We will also have more bulk billing GPs’. What a great idea. We had a big mob of them out at Palmerston, and you shut that, too.
Therefore, do not come to us with these policies saying: ‘We care because we are going to increase bulk billing; have more access to doctors’, when we know you could do it - you did not need Mr Latham to tell you - and you chose not only not to do it, but to withdraw services. There is a linkage, my friend. There is a strong linkage between things that are done by the Commonwealth and things that are done by you.
When you drop the ball as badly as you do, do not try to pretend, when the Commonwealth comes up with an idea, that is a good idea and has your full support, because you could have done it before. You are worried about people waiting for dental services. Well, pull your list out and have a look at it. Under your government, there are long waiting lists for dental services. There is a potential GP facility that can go into Royal Darwin Hospital. That did not happen - there were GP services at Palmerston that were shut down.
Therefore, when you run out the parade about really caring about Medicare, I can tell you that the Commonwealth government that has done more for health in the Northern Territory is the current conservative government. I can tell you that I am probably supported by the member for Arafura on this, because she worked in a service that was funded out of new and innovative funding models to provide resources, particularly for remote people. She was a beneficiary of that in so far as she was not only a wage earner out of that money, but she was able to work in a service that dispensed all those services. If you talk about the rhetoric of ‘we care about education’ or ‘we care about health’ or ‘we care about Medicare or bulk billing’, you have to look at your own bona fides because you have not been able to demonstrate that.
Let us look at where this money goes from the Commonwealth Grants Commission. It is in this budget paper and provides very good reading because it deals with the Commonwealth Grants Commission, Specific Purpose Payments and whatever. It is argued by Treasury that it is very important for two services here in the Northern Territory. We mount a particular case, and I quote from page 43 Budget Paper No 2, 2004-05:
That is what Latham is attacking. Latham is attacking our money, our relativity; that goes predominantly to health and education. Therefore, do not stand here and parade your socialist credentials to us, with a man who believes that the money we receive for substantial health and education needs - and you know this because these are your budget papers; they are not mine - is at risk with the words that have been spoken by the federal Opposition Leader.
It is pretty easy for this parliament to ask him what he means. Instead of amending the motion to say: ‘Dear Mr Latham, We love you dearly …’, why don’t we just say: ‘Mr Latham, when you said this, it has been put by various commentators that you were just foolish, young and stupid and recently elected, but it is an issue of some concern in the Northern Territory, and we would like to know what you mean by that’. I will bet you that in Campbelltown and Blacktown, they still think this is what this bloke thinks. I will bet you they do! I will bet you he is running this case for all its worth out there about how he grew up in a fibro hut with no dad or whatever it was. He is saying: ‘This is what I think: you guys are doing it tough out here in Western Sydney’. Well, go to Wadeye. Go to Gapuwiyak. Go to Angurugu. Go and have a look at these places. The ignorance of these southern politicians, who can parade the great social conscience they have, because of their parlous socio-economic circumstances growing up in Sydney - heaven forbid! - and missing out on all these wonderful things.
Well, have a look at our Grants Commission submission. I have been out bush with the Grants Commission. I have had to present the cases to them. We have presented oral submissions to them. We have presented an enormous amount of written work to the Commonwealth Grants Commission. It is an extremely important task, and it is important because it delivers big mobs of cash to us, as we have said. You cannot let those words sit there and say: ‘Well, we do not understand them, they are pretty old, but we make the assumption that he was just this young foolish bloke’.
Let us say as a parliament: ‘Dear Mr Latham. You have three days; tell us what they mean. If you do not retract them and tell us exactly what they mean, we do not think we should vote for you’. I believe that if we put some sycophantic set of words about saying, ‘Dear Mark, you are a lovely bloke’, you are missing the point. If he did not mean this, what did he mean, and why do we not get him to retract it?
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I speak for the amendments and against the motion.
Territorians – Australians - have a big choice to make on Saturday in the future government of this country, the future Prime Minister of this country and also, very importantly, in the two federal seats, who is going to represent the Northern Territory. I suppose both the amendment and the original motion are arguing political points, but also commitments, certainly in the amendments that Mark Latham and federal Labor have made in improving the economy and lifestyle of Territorians. That is the choice that people will be making as they walk into the polling booth on Saturday to cast their vote and make their judgment.
However, it really is a long bow. It is a very long bow for the opposition to go back at the fifth week of the campaign. I do not know who dredged up this quote out of the Hansard at the last minute. However, if this is the single biggest issue that the opposition has brought in here today - four days out from polling day - for Territorians, well, they have left their run a bit late. Their research team has certainly fallen away from what it used to be, because this is a quote that is 10 years old, made in a maiden speech to the federal parliament. It has absolutely no bearing in regards to this election campaign, and absolutely no bearing on how Mark Latham and federal Labor would work with the Northern Territory government if they are successful next Saturday.
Mr Dunham: How would you know? Where is your evidence?
Mr HENDERSON: The member for Drysdale says: ‘How do we know’. We do work with the federal Labor leader and with all the federal Labor shadow ministers and members, and we have good, well developed and strong relationships - as you would expect - with the federal Labor parliamentary wing. We have managed to secure, working with Warren Snowdon in Lingiari and Jim Davidson, the candidate in Solomon, and the federal opposition and shadow ministers, a strong commitment from an incoming Labor government to the Northern Territory - right across the Northern Territory. That commitment and those promises will be delivered if a Labor government is elected across Australia on Saturday.
To come up with this quote from 10 years ago at the 11th hour to try and shore up a very struggling campaign by the current member for Solomon, Dave Tollner, is pretty desperate. I really do not believe that it is going to go anywhere. However, if you want to go back and quote current politicians and commitments that they have made, and say that these commitments point to the integrity of the person and you cannot trust them, well, honest John Howard certainly has a lot to answer for regarding his title. Prior to the 1996 federal election, John Howard was promising Australians that there would never ever be a GST. That was the commitment by the Prime Minister of Australia in the lead-up – well, he was not the Prime Minister in the lead-up to the 1996 election. However, if you are trying to draw a parallel between comments that were made in years gone by with the likelihood and the integrity of people, you could go back to honest John and that 1996 election commitment that there would never ever be a GST in Australia. As soon as he was elected, of course, he forgot that and we now have the GST.
We also have that same Prime Minister of Australia, if you want to talk about integrity and honesty, and having confidence. The member for Drysdale said: ‘How would you know that Mark Latham would not ransack the coffers of the Northern Territory. How would you know?’ - a hypothetical. There is one quote 10 years ago to hang a whole argument on and, therefore, this man cannot be trusted to be the leader of Australia, the Prime Minister of Australia. Well, if you compare that, you can run the same analogy to the current Prime Minister. ‘I was not told. I did not know’. Well, who is running the show? Who is running the show when you have a senior policy advisor to the then Defence Minister, Peter Reith, going on the public record - he could be sued for defamation if he is lying and, obviously, not - saying ‘I rang the Prime Minister three times and told him personally there was no evidence - no evidence whatsoever - to support the allegation that the Commonwealth and the Prime Minister was running in the lead-up to the last federal election that children were being thrown overboard’. If you cannot trust the Prime Minister - ‘I was not told. I did not know’. These are the comments he made, calling people liars. Is he going to sue that gentlemen for defamation? I do not have his name in front of me at the moment. I do not think so.
If you are talking about integrity, and the believability of any commitments that John Howard may make to the Northern Territory based on comments that Mark Latham made 10 years ago, well, you can run the same analogy: you cannot trust a word that John Howard says and how do you know that any of the commitments that David Tollner and John Howard are making to the Northern Territory are going to be believed by the people, and certainly if they are going to be enacted if they are re-elected.
The whole thing is a beat-up in the lead-up to the Territory election; trying to find something – anything - to try and claw back Dave Tollner’s diminishing chances of retaining the seat of Solomon. It was interesting how many of the speakers opposite actually stood up - I do not think anybody did – and say that David Tollner has done a great job of delivering to the people of the Northern Territory. There was not one of them who would stand up and say the current member for Solomon has done a fantastic job and deserves to be re-elected on his record.
As my colleague, the Treasurer, reminded me, I had forgotten that overheard phone call from Len Notaras, the then President of the CLP, that ‘there is a 6’6” albatross around our necks’. I had forgotten that particular quote. David Tollner’s representation in Canberra has proven to be an albatross around the neck of the Territory over the last three years.
When the member for Drysdale climbs into Jim Davidson and says that he is anti-business and anti-development – well, put some facts before us. I have known Jim Davidson for about 15 years and he would be one of the most pro-development, pro-business people that I know in the Labor Party. I was very pleased and proud to have had Jim working for me for two-and-a-half years. He has wide respect amongst the business community. He has worked in private enterprise for the best part of his business life …
Dr Burns: And the mining industry.
Mr HENDERSON: And the mining industry. He was the project manager at Robertson Barracks. He would know more people in the construction industry and the private sector than the member for Drysdale has even forgotten over the years. He will do a great job …
Mr Dunham: Well, some of them have been ringing me about him.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Drysdale!
Mr HENDERSON: He will do a great job representing the people of Solomon in the federal parliament. To come in here and say he is anti-business and anti-development really is a heap of rubbish.
Again, part of the rhetoric of the opposition is that all of these policies are uncosted. Well, as of yesterday, Labor has submitted 70 policies to be costed. The Coalition so far has submitted 57. Of Labor’s 70 policies, 47 have included savings measures. The Coalition has submitted only one savings measures and that was a saving proposed by Labor. Therefore, if you are talking about fiscal responsibility - now I have not read the Financial Review for a couple of days but they have been running a ‘spendometer’. You cannot call the Financial Review a Labor rag. That is the last thing that you would call the Financial Review - some sort of ‘Labor rag’. Again, I do not have the quotes in front of me, but I have been reading the Financial Review. I always read the Financial Review. They have been running the ‘spendometer’ and they have been commenting that Labor is putting out costed policies that do include savings measures, and that the Prime Minister is being pretty reckless in his expenditure of the forecast surpluses into the out years compared to Labor, which is at least proposing savings. If you are talking about fiscal responsibility, well, the Financial Review is saying that the promises and commitments by the Labor opposition is exceeding those of the Coalition in terms of their fiscal responsibility.
The Labor opposition has committed to budget surpluses. ‘Surpluses’ is certainly a word that those members on the other side do not have in their vocabulary, because it was many years since this parliament, under a CLP government, saw anything like a surplus. I am not going to revisit the history of the appalling deficit that we inherited from the previous government.
The amendment has been put and circulated. I am not going to go through them again, dot point by dot point, but it clearly indicates the level of commitment that Mark Latham and a federal Labor government will commit to improving the economy and the lifestyle of the people of the Northern Territory. It is an impressive list of public commitments. They will be delivered on and, hopefully after Saturday, we will have two federal Labor members sitting in the House of Representatives arguing and standing up for the Territory, and not being an apologist for the current Liberal government.
To show what a great job Dave Tollner has done as the member for Solomon, without any consultation with the Northern Territory government or the people of the Northern Territory, he is just throwing his hands up and saying that we have an obligation to the nation to house the nation’s nuclear waste. Well, if that is the type of representation that we are going to come to expect from the member for Solomon, Dave Tollner, well, I suppose he will have to stand up to the constituency on Saturday.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the motion before the House. I move that the question on the amendment be put.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! Just as a point of convention. The motion was that the motion be put, as I understand it. That was not even considered.
Ms Martin: That the amended motion be put.
Mr Baldwin: Well, you have not passed the amendment.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: So, you want me to go back and say that the amended motion be put?
Mr BURKE: Yes.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the motion was that the question on the amendment be put.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: So the question now is that the motion be put.
Mr Stirling: We have resolved that in the affirmative. Now it is those in favour of the amendment.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: So we put the amendment. The question now is that the amendment be put.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 10
Mrs Aagaard Mr Baldwin
Mr Ah Kit Mr Burke
Mr Bonson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Ms Carter
Mr Henderson Mr Dunham
Mr Kiely Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Dr Lim
Mr McAdam Mr Maley
Ms Martin Mrs Miller
Ms Scrymgour Mr Mills
Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion agreed to.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that consideration of General Business item No 3 in relation to a reference to the Auditor-General to inquire into Metis Consulting contracts be postponed until a later hour.
Motion agreed to.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move:
If ever there was a case for this action it is now. If ever there was a time when the expertise, the resources and the commonsense approach of a bipartisan parliamentary committee was needed, it is now. We have a government that has increased the number of pokies in the Northern Territory, and a licensing minister who is in denial. He is a minister who believes his own rhetoric and spin when he says that the numbers will not be increased. He is also refusing to accept that his decision to now ask for advice and conduct research are a clear acknowledgement of his failure.
It is a simple equation: increased pokies equals increased taxes for the Treasury, and equals increased gambling-related harm in the community. Yet, this government has frozen funding to the groups that deal with gambling-related harm on a daily basis, at a time when the Community Benefit Fund is full to the brim, and this harm will only increase as more machines go into the community. We are, no doubt soon, going to hear again from the minister in his state of denial, and he will explain how successful he has been in actually reducing the number of pokies in the Territory.
When it became apparent to the minister that, maybe, more pokies was not such a voter friendly idea, the minders and the spin doctors went scurrying to see what defence they could come up with. If you listen to the Treasurer, he will tell you that removing the requirement for a takeaway licence will decrease the number of gaming machines in the communities by taking out venues and, therefore, potential machines that will be introduced. It is a good argument until you realise that accommodation hotels and remote wayside inns - which have never wanted gaming machines before, and never will - are taken from the list and city taverns are being added in. You have to hand it to this minister; he has really stood up for Territorians and solved the problem when, really, it was his problem and a political one. In fact, it has not been solved because we have the potential for a significant increase in the number of pokies in the Northern Territory.
He has told those pokie barons down at the Saville Park Suites and the Holiday Inn: ‘Oh look, you guys cannot apply for pokies any more’. Likewise, under this minister: ‘You can sleep well at night now being assured that there will be no pokies at the Rabbit Flat’. Apart from his argument being thin at best, the minister simply cannot be believed. Just ask the people in the industry who this affects. There is no doubt about it; the minister is running with the hare and hunting with the hound. He has told everyone involved a separate story, hoping to get out of this mess in one single piece.
Firstly, there are the taverns. Our minister has gone to them and he said: ‘Don’t you guys worry, Uncle Syd’s looking out for you. I will make sure you can apply for pokies by removing these takeaway requirements, and then everything will be okay’. Then, finding out the pubs in the suburbs which already have pokies are not really keen on this, the government has gone to them and said: ‘Oh, look, do not worry about these taverns getting pokies. Just do not rock the boat, and we will look at perhaps getting more machines for you’. Then, finally, when the clubs heard about that, he has gone to them and he has said: ‘Look, don’t you clubs worry. I will introduce a community impact statement and make sure that it is so darn hard for any of these taverns to get machines, they will not even bother trying’. Well, which story is it? Three different stories; three different audiences. It sure does not kill the perception out there in the industry that, to convince the minister for licensing of your point of view, you do not need the best argument or the most articulate presentation, you just need to be the last person to speak to him.
I will add that this is the only licensing minister in the history of self-government who has presided over the granting of a liquor licence to a hairdresser. He huffs and puffs and waves his arms in the air and says that it is a stupid decision and he would like to change it, but he cannot do anything about it because it was the big bad Licensing Commissioner’s fault. Well, if by his own admission, he cannot stop a hairdresser getting a liquor licence, can you believe a word he says when he says that you will not see pokies up and down Mitchell Street or at the airport? The minister has as good as admitted that he is wrong on this issue . All he needs to do now is to accept this proposition in this motion that we are putting forward. His own actions, and since the decisions to increase the number of pokies are testament to this - and if nothing else I am proud that the opposition has been able to push him in this direction. If it is out of electoral imperative or just plain embarrassment, I do not really mind; we are finally getting some of the consultations research that we have been asking. This is an indictment of his failure so far.
In the minister’s own press release, he stressed the need for research into gambling. The minister identified that he would like to address the problem and address the prevalence of gambling in the Northern Territory. This will identify the prevalence of gambling activities in the communities and who is gambling by such categories as age, socio-economic status, cultural background, place of residence, etcetera. Second, in the minister’s own press release, was the impact of gaming machines in the community. This will provide information on the impact of casino-based and community-based gaming machines in the Northern Territory and their positive and negative effects on the community. Let me get this straight. The minister does not know how prevalent gambling is in the Territory, who does it and how much they do it? Further, the minister does not know the impact of pokies on the community and what negative and positive outcomes of more are. Yet, he can make the biggest change to the distribution regime for gaming machines since they were put into the community, without having the slightest clue of either.
If this matter was before a parliamentary committee, I can assure the House that we would not be playing catch-up like this now. Just as he backflipped in early September by allocating funds for research, he has done the same with the creation of a gambling advisory group. Again, a good outcome. However, when you scratch the surface we are going to see the minister’s true form . He has changed the name of the Responsible Gambling Advisory Committee and now promotes it as his new advisory group - a good move to continue the role of this group and one we on this side of the House certainly support. However, there is one question that remains unanswered: where were they when this minister made the decision to increase the number of pokies, or made the decision that results in a potential significant increase in the number of pokies? Where were they?
I look at the list of the well-respected people and organisations: Amity House, Anglicare, Relationships Australia, Salvation Army - and the list goes on. His own media release says this of the group: ‘Combined they have a wealth of experience and knowledge about gambling in the Territory’. Well, there is no question about that. Therefore, how on earth did he manage to not pick up the phone and ring them while he was thinking about making the changes to legislation that would increase the number of pokies into our communities? He forgot to phone them, did not consult them, now playing catch-up. Did the minister not have time? Did he not know their numbers?
Whatever the result, if we turn our minds back to March this year, the Treasurer has had plenty of time to ring the Tranche 4 electricity customers and explain to them why it was somebody else’s fault that he had to increase their electricity charges. This government and its staff has time for the spin, but none for the real consultation. They have time for this sort of thing, yet they cannot pick up the phone to four community groups at the forefront of problem gambling and say: ‘Hey, I am thinking about increasing the number of pokies in the community. What do you think?’ Sadly, nothing has changed. These groups were there before when he increased the number of pokies. He did not ask for their advice then, and there is no reason to think that he will actually take their advice now, after the event.
Just as this minister has done before, I am just as sure he will do it again in the future. The minister has attempted to blame the National Competition Policy for the problems of his own creation. He did blamed the National Competition Commission before when he put the electricity prices up, and he has done it now when he has made the decision to increase the number of pokes. To blame the NCP then was a pork pie, and it is simply a pork pie now. He has taxed business a whopping 40% on their electricity bills and turned around and claimed that it was all somebody else’s fault: it was National Competition Policy that made him grab more money off Territorians. Now, when he has cynically increased the number of pokies in the community for no other reason than it is to collect tax for the Treasury coffers, he again blames the NCP.
This has to be laid bare for all to see. This deceit has been unravelled when the minister proved what can be achieved when you have the backbone to stand up to the NCP recommendations. You demonstrated that, minister, when you released the Alcohol Framework. Out of 62 recommendations, the minister chose to accept one and leave the rest - the other 61 - in the too hard basket. And what was that single recommendation? Sunday trading. Why was it in there? Because the National Competition Policy review of the Liquor Act said we must give Sunday trading to supermarkets – a National Competition Policy recommendation. That is the point. The minister knocked this recommendation back because he felt it was in the public interest to do so. He could do it then in the interests of the public and the wider community, and he can do it again. All he has to do is stand up and say it: ‘No, I have made a decision on the best interests of the Northern Territory community, speaking to the National Competition Policy, that we will not have any more pokies until I am satisfied that it is in the Territory’s best interest. I have no research, I accept and I admit that. I have no expert committee and I have not consulted with the people who count. So, at this point as a responsible minister, I will say no to the NCP’.
The good news is that it is not too late because this minister simply did not stand up responsibly at that time to the NCP and let that moment pass. However, it is not too late. The minister and the members opposite can still support this motion. It can still be supported. We can return to the days when the important decisions such as this were handled by a bipartisan committee, and careful consideration was made to avoid any adverse impacts on a community. Minister, it is a step forward that you have already constituted an expert committee. It is a step forward that you have commissioned research. Now, all this minister needs to do is to agree to a parliamentary committee to analyse this information, talk to these experts and, most importantly, review this decision to increase the number of pokies. Let us have this debate now because, like my colleagues in the CLP - and, I am sure, many on the other side of this House - I do not want to look back and wish that we had acted before it was too late.
I commend members on both sides of this House to join together to support this motion in the best interests of the Northern Territory.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, it is always interesting to hear the Leader of the Opposition on this topic because, depending on what day it is, he seems to change the line of tack and the argument being put. In fact, there are different views from different members of the opposition on any given day.
Nonetheless, we do not support this motion for a number of reasons. It is difficult, in the first place, to see what benefit that Territorians, this parliament or anyone else, would derive from the motion proceeding, particularly in view of the ridiculously short time frame envisaged in the motion that you would form a committee, it would be able to consult, receive feedback, compile a report and come back in here before the end of the year. It is a ridiculously short time frame in which to be able to achieve anything.
Second, as a government, we have put in place a much more effective package to address a whole range of issues related to gaming machines and gambling, generally, in the community. That package includes new legislation, which has seen more stringent criteria and public processes applied to gaming machine licence applications. On that point, the Leader of the Opposition accused me of going to different groups and telling a different story each time. The story is right except that it applies to himself, because he come in here and said: ‘There will be a proliferation of machines; we are going to flood the community with poker machines’. He went out there and told one group that, and the next group he went to, to he said: ‘Do not worry about getting any of these extra new machines. The criteria and guidelines for getting new community gaming machines is so tight, you will never be able to get through the system’. It is the Leader of the Opposition who has shown a little inconsistency. We know because when we go and talk to these groups, they tell us what the Leader of the Opposition and others have said to them.
Therefore, it is not this government and it is not I as minister who has put a different story. We have put a consistent line to each of the industry groups and key stakeholders within the industry overall. We have gotten across a very solid understanding of what we are attempting to achieve.
I want to wrap these points up because it is not about proliferation on one day, and the next time it is. It is not about proliferation in one breath and, in the next sentence, it is about proliferation. We never said at any time that we would reduce the number of machines. What we have claimed to do and what we want to do is stem the increase. If we look at the dates between 1 July 2000 and 31 May 2004, community gaming machines increased by 48% across the Territory from 650 to 962. We have already, and we will continue to, stem that increase.
Our new research program, developed in conjunction with representatives from the gambling industry and community support services to give us a clearer picture of gambling in the Territory, will allow for more effective management of gambling activities, more targeted harm-reduction strategies and the creation of a new Gambling Reference Group made up of a broad range of community and industry stakeholder representatives to advise government on gambling related issues.
This package will help to ensure our already strong gambling regime remains well managed and well controlled, so that the community can continue to derive benefits from gambling but, at the same time, we can work at minimising gambling-related harm. It is a forward looking and sensible approach which will underpin and strengthen our gaming regime now and into the future. It effectively addresses many of the issues the opposition sought to have reviewed by a select committee.
Other matters the opposition has proposed for review are simply unnecessary. For example, what benefit would be derived from reviewing the 1995 select committee report on gaming machines that followed the announcement by the CLP government that gaming machines would be allowed in community venues? That report called for a comprehensive review of the gaming machine industry to be undertaken in 1998. A review did occur in 1998, under the guidance of Mr Otto Alder, the results of which were tabled in the Assembly. The review’s recommendations, as well as a Productivity Commission Report into Australia’s Gambling Industries and National Competition requirements, formed the basis of the Gaming Machine Amendment Bill 2000. That legislation saw gaming machine ownership transferred from the government to licensees, and made changes in tax rates to ensure venues were not disadvantaged.
The point of this very brief history lesson is that there have been significant changes to the gaming machine regime since the 1995 select committee report. There would be no sense - absolutely ridiculous - to go all the way back to 1995 and see what the select committee said was going to happen when it, in itself, proposed further reviews which have been undertaken, which proposed changes and recommendations which have been implemented. Parliament has been kept well involved and well informed of each of these developments over the years, so there would be little - nothing, in fact - to be achieved from going back to a nine-year-old report to see what the member for Brennan, member for Nhulunbuy – myself - and the former member for Casuarina, Mr Peter Adamson, had to say nine years ago with the changes that have occurred since.
There would also seem very little point in reviewing the National Competition Council Report on Gaming Machines in the Northern Territory, which was finalised in June 2002. The NCC review found that, overall, the positive licensing framework established under our legislation provided benefits to the community, promoted the probity of gaming operations and minimised problem gambling. The review did make some recommendations aimed at improving regulatory processes in achieving probity and problem gambling objectives. I will not go to each of those recommendations, but I will say that government has acted on them in the interests of the Northern Territory. We have introduced legislative amendments that clearly define who can and who cannot apply for a gaming machine licence. They also apply more stringent criteria to the licence application process.
So, rather than looking back over the history of gaming machines in the community, the government would prefer to focus on what is in place in the Territory now, how we can continue to strengthen our regime while maintaining the original objectives behind the introduction of community gaming machines in the first place, to provide economic benefit and recreational activity to the community. Community gaming machines have provided significant economic benefit to the Territory since the first machines were turned on in the Nightcliff Sports Club on 1 January 1996. In 2003-04, community gaming machines generated $15.6m in taxes, used to support services throughout the Territory. Clubs, of course, retain the operating surplus from poker machines in order to improve facilities and services for members, and to distribute among local community groups, sports organisations and charities.
Government recognises how important gaming machine revenue is to the continuing viability of many clubs, and their capacity to provide financial support to their affiliates and the community through the provision of recreational amenities and services. That was always the primary objective of community gaming machines, and it has not changed. If there is any doubt by the opposition on that point, they only need ask the member for Brennan, who chaired that committee. It was one of his first functions on entering this parliament, well before he became a minister. That was the primary objective - it has not changed.
Gaming machine licences were made available to hotels and pubs in 1996. Since then, hotels have been required to provide 10% of their gaming machine profits to the Community Benefit Fund. Those funds are disbursed to the community in a number of ways. Around $700 000 a year is provided to non-profit community organisations through the CBF Small Grants Program, in grants up to $5000. This government has established clear guidelines for the disbursement of those funds after the Auditor-General found that the former CLP government was using the Community Benefit Fund as a pork-barrelling electioneering piggy bank. Under the new CBF guidelines, the government has distributed more than $1.3m to 470 community groups throughout the Territory since early last year.
Community Benefit Funds are also given to agencies for the provision of counselling, support and other intervention services for problem gamblers and their families. I was not sure what the Leader of the Opposition was saying in relation to this point. He seemed to suggest that we cut the funding off or something, but nothing could be further from the truth. A total of $822 489 has been disbursed to Amity House and Anglicare since 2001-02 to support the work they do with problem gamblers and their families. The Community Benefit Fund has also provided more than $80 000 for the development and implementation of the Responsible Gambling Code of Practice, which outlines strategies to minimise problem gambling in gambling venues. The code was developed by a committee made up of gambling providers, support services and government officials. Just recently, I announced a new gambling research grants program.
Apart from Professor Jan McMillan’s research report which the former CLP government commissioned in the mid-1990s but never acted on or released, there has been no research done into gambling in the Northern Territory. The opposition, to this point, has not asked about it either. The fact that it comes up in this debate strikes me as curious. It is no secret that we have relatively little data to inform our decision-making in relation to gambling policy and harm minimisation. We do not have a clear picture of who gambles in the Territory, how much they gamble, or what they gamble on. Of course, the whole point of the research by Professor Jan McMillan, who was commissioned to do that research by the former government, was to get a benchmark for the level of gaming and gambling in the Northern Territory prior to the introduction of community gaming machines, so that the government understood what levels were occurring out there before the machines were introduced in the community, so that there could be a benchmark to measure from that point.
However, they would seem little point in having that research done by McMillan when it was never released. The report was never released, and it was only in recent times that this government released it. This sort of information is critical if we are to manage gambling ...
Mr Baldwin: It did not need to be released; it is a benchmark report.
Mr STIRLING: It was never released!
Mr Baldwin: I know!
Mr STIRLING: You were the minister. You were the dill who never released it! I do not know why we spent thousands and thousands of dollars on Jan McMillan for all of the work that she has put in - all of the trips she made to the Territory ...
Mr Baldwin: It is a benchmark report, you idiot!
Mr STIRLING: She wrote the report for the government, and you locked it away! No one ever released it, no one ever saw it. We could not even get a copy when we were opposition. Taxpayers paid the money for this research - the biggest waste of money you ever saw because no one ever got to see it. I doubt this member over here, when he was a minister, ever read it. He would not have the focus or, probably, the intelligence to read it in the first place.
That information is critical if we can manage gambling activities effectively, target harm reduction effectively, and put in place proper prevention strategies where they can have the greatest effect, work best, and deliver those services to those who need them most - those who are most harmed from gambling and gaming.
Under the research grants program, around $450 000 is now available from the Community Benefit Fund, with applications closing on 15 October. Two initial priority research topics have been decided upon. The first will provide information about the participation rates in different types of gambling in the Territory, the problems that exist, and where interventions should be targeted. The second will look at the impact of gaming machines on the community, providing a balanced assessment of the negative and positive consequences of both casino-based and community-based gaming machines.
This research program and the decisions on the priority projects have been informed by the Gambling Reference Group, originally the working party that developed the Code of Practice for Responsible Gambling. The reference group comprises representatives from support services - Anglicare, Amity House, Relationships Australia, Salvation Army; gambling providers - Clubs NT, Australian Hotels Association, SKYCITY Casino, Lasseters, NTTAB, Tattersall’s, the Darwin Turf Club, International All Sports and Centerbet; and the regulators – Racing Gaming and Licensing.
The support services representatives also have links to the Consumer Affairs Council and the Northern Territory Council of Social Services. This group, importantly, has now agreed to provide an ongoing independent comment and advice to government on a range of gambling matters. They will have a direct say on policy matters and practical issues in relation to gaming machines and gambling, generally, in the Territory. Both government and the Gambling Reference Group are enthusiastic about the value that this initiative can add to how the Territory deals with gambling-related issues.
The development of the research fund, as well as the establishment of the Gambling Reference Group, are important and long-overdue measures. They will greatly assist government and the community to better understand and manage gambling in a responsible way in the future.
I will put all this in perspective. The Northern Territory does have a strong regulatory regime that ensures that the spread of poker machines in our community is well managed and controlled. We have not had the experience of uncontrolled proliferation of machines in the community that has become such a problem in other jurisdictions, and the statistics bear this out.
Based on 2002-03 figures, there are seven gaming machines in clubs and hotels in the Northern Territory per 1000 adults. By comparison, South Australia has 13, Queensland 14, NSW 20, Victoria seven, Tasmania six, ACT 21, WA nil - because theirs are casino-based only. Those figures put the Australian average 2002-03 at 13 machines per 1000 people. The Territory, with seven machines, is well below and just over half the national average.
The Northern Territory government further strengthened the gaming machine regime in June this year with legislation that clarifies who can and cannot apply for machines, and puts more controls on licensees wanting to increase their machine numbers. Under the changes, all clubs remain eligible for gaming machines but, for other venues, only pubs and taverns whose primary activity is the sale or consumption of alcohol on premises are now eligible. The amendments effectively reduce the types and number of outlets that can potentially apply. Those that are eligible are now required to undergo more checks and balances before they are issued with a licence. This includes, for the first time, the capacity for the community to make comment on licence applications.
At the time these amendments were passed in June, the opposition expressed concern about the community not being properly consulted. I did take the criticism on the chin. Whilst the first part of the whole review had been widely consulted, the later changes were not. Since that time and that criticism, I personally visited a wide range of community organisations to explain the changes that the amendments brought about, and allayed any fears of an unfettered expansion of machines in the community. None of the support agencies - or the clubs for that matter - we visited in that process expressed ongoing concerns about the legislation following those meetings.
The amendments in question have been in place since 1 September. I am advised that there has been just one gaming machine licence application under the new regime. It is early days, but it would not appear that the Licensing Commission’s door has been bashed by new applicants as a result of the changes.
Government has developed a regime of processes that will see our gambling industry remain strong, but well regulated. At the same time, we are working to develop new measures to combat problem gambling and we are doing it, importantly, in conjunction with a broad range of stakeholders. This approach is responsible and effective. It will carry us into the future and, as such, we do not support the opposition’s motion which would see a ridiculously lived - in time frame - committee set up from within this parliament to go back and look at a report dated 1995, which recommended and oversaw the implementation of gaming machines in the community.
There is no value in going back over the history. Those of us – the member for Brennan and myself, the member for Daly, as much as he ever understood matters about gambling or gaming - would have some idea. When they wanted to move to 1 machines, the member for Daly wondered where they were going to get the one cent coins …
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: The prosecution rests, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the minister may make frivolous remarks on my knowledge of the gaming industry, but I can tell you, with all my experience, it is far more than his.
He is very sensitive about this motion, and I will tell you why: simply, he stuffed up. That is what happened; he stuffed up. What he did not tell anyone, with the amendments that he made to the legislation was (1) there was going to be an increase in the number of machines in the Northern Territory; and (2) that he had not consulted with all of the stakeholders. That came to light when? It came to light when I sought a briefing from his and Treasury officers. After some reluctance, they admitted that some of the stakeholders, particularly those who deal in harm minimisation from problem gambling, had not been consulted about the amendments. When pushed - and pushed quite hard, I have to say - the Treasury officers admitted that yes, it would lead to an increase in machines.
Simply, when we debated the amendment to the Gaming Machine Act is when we made that statement. We then, if we put this in context - back, I think it was in the August sittings - moved this motion to show that the proper way was to go and consult. Consultation prior to the amendments would have been nice – it would have been really good. However, we suggested that a select committee similar to that which first looked at introducing community gaming machines, and then the same committee that reviewed it. He makes light of another review because of the time frame. We will change the time frame if he is worried about that - make it February if he is worried about December, keeping in mind that this was introduced back in August. He also harped on about the 1995 report.
Well surely, when he was part of the review in 1998 that led to changes and amendments to the Gaming Machine Act in 2000, they looked at where they have come from. That is all this motion is saying: look at where the arguments have come from before the introduction of gaming machines in the community. Are the primary objectives of the distribution of gaming machines in the Northern Territory still being met? That is what the motion is saying and that is all a review would do. What it refers to, obviously, would be all the work previously done by the members for Nhulunbuy, Brennan, and so on. He dismisses it. Where once it worked well when he was a member of it, whilst he is Racing and Gaming minister he is now dismissing it as an effective tool - and one might suggest a bipartisan tool - to look at the conservative way in which the Territory as a whole - not the CLP or the ALP, but the Northern Territory - has introduced gaming machines in the Northern Territory.
He has just rattled off the figures of seven machines per 1000 of population against the 13 machine average around Australia. The only ones that beat us are, I think, Tasmania and Western Australia because they do not have community machines in Western Australia. I believe it is conservative because a very conservative approach to gaming machines in the community comes from a very effective mechanism called a parliamentary committee that had a look at how to do it. Since that time, it made recommendations to parliament which passed laws for the introduction of gaming machines. Then those laws were reviewed using the same 1995 report and others. In 1998 it made the review, and then parliament made the amendments in 2000. What we are saying is that it worked then; why not let it work now? But, no, the minister - because of his pompous nature and because he believes that he knows more than anybody else - says that is not an effective mechanism or tool to use, albeit it was good when he was there as a member of that committee.
The benchmark report that the minister referred to was just that: a set of data that is benchmark stuff that you do - and we did do it. Why did I not release it? Because it was a piece of benchmark data that very few people would understand it in its form. I am glad that we did do it. It was never hidden. In fact, the member for Nhulunbuy never came and asked me for a copy of it - that is how concerned he was about it. However, it was always there. The beauty is that we have that benchmark data so that it can be compared against in the future. I would like to see what he has done in his three years about updating that data.
The Gambling Reference Group that the minister talked about - and I congratulate him for doing it - was, I believe, a good way of ameliorating his stuff-up in the first place: the fact that he had not gone and consulted, had not used a parliamentary committee that we are asking for now - albeit it is probably too late and he has set up some other things. He has covered his tracks - that is the whole point - because he had not gone and asked or told the community that this could lead to extra gaming machines in the community. He certainly had not been to all those community organisations that deal with harm from gambling and other such things. It is a way of covering his tracks; albeit a good way.
Nobody is suggesting, or has suggested, that the amendments that he has moved are necessarily wrong. What we were saying was: why didn’t we get to have a say? Why didn’t the Territory get to have a say? All they saw was a National Competition report that said: ‘These are issues for National Competition, you can have your say’. People had their say, and the next thing they knew there was a piece of legislation being amended without any feedback to them about what the government was proposing. At the time, we said: ‘Well, hang on, what is the rush? Let us have a look at this’.
One way of doing it was to put those amendments to the side for a minute. It was not going to affect anybody. He used all sorts of excuses about competition payments and all the rest of it. Not a problem, really. In the end, he admitted in a briefing to me that it was not a problem, he was not worried about that. But no, he would not put it aside, or go to a committee that he had been part of, which is the effective way of doing the job. We had had bipartisan working parties in the past which were always totally effective - we shared information. We made decisions on gambling in the Territory in this parliament together on a consensus basis. You talk about the sale of the TAB, the introduction of Internet gambling - whatever you like - Sportsbet operators, corporate or otherwise. The minister knows this, and he is quite embarrassed by the fact that he forgot to go and ask some people, including Territorians, what they thought of the effect of possible increases of gaming machines.
In that context, he knows, I know, and I believe this parliament knows, that this motion reflects the right way to go about it. If he is worried about the time frame; well, change it. They have just changed a severe censure motion on them without blinking an eye. Change this to suit yourself, minister - that is what it is doing. I know you are not going to, because you have been embarrassed, and you had to then go and talk to all of those groups. I am glad to hear you say that you have now talked to them. They may not have concerns now, but they certainly did after I and others came out of the briefing given by you and your officers. I do not want to carry on about the minister’s lack of responsible process but, in the context, this was certainly the way to go.
The only other point is that I ask the minister in future, as in the past, that he does the right thing when it comes to gambling issues - whatever they are - to ensure that he involves members on both sides of the House, including the Independents, in any other changes he is considering; whether it be in the gaming, racing or any other area. We have worked well within the Northern Territory as a parliament to introduce new things into the jurisdiction, and I believe we can work well in the future. The stuff-up that occurred here is a real warning, and I hope he takes notice of it and does things in a bipartisan way, as we have in the past.
I have not yet raised the issue of the legislation and amendment that is sitting on the Notice Paper, and has now for nearly three years. However, I could go on about why the minister has not progressed that legislation. I have my views, and he has his views. I could be quite derogatory towards him personally and his views. I have not yet raised it in this parliament, but if he wants to go off in a partisan way on these issues, then I am certainly happy to raise that and to have some potential licence holders publicly starting to ask some questions of him as well.
I ask this parliament to support this motion. It is a tool that has been effective in the past and can be in the future. Minister, bite your pride - go with it.
Motion negatived.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Today I bring a small but significant amendment to the Bail Act that will provide authorised people - be they courts or police officers - to ask a person with a history of criminal activity to demonstrate why they should be given liberty when there is evidence from their past behaviour that the person struggles with the responsibility such liberty asks of them.
The right to be at liberty is the right of any innocent person. It is enshrined in the act and captures some of the most fundamental principles of our criminal justice system. Custody is reserved for penalty or for one of the other reasons that bail may be refused.
The very existence of the Bail Act suggests that the right of a person to be at liberty is not absolute. There are circumstances in which a person who has a right to be at liberty may have that liberty restrained. The reasoning that a bailor may grant a bailee include the likelihood of the person committing an offence whilst at liberty, the need to seek counsel, issues surrounding domestic violence matters, and even the bailee’s own protection. In those matters, bail may be refused for summary or regulatory offences. It is unlikely considering the nature of those sort of offences but, nevertheless, it does fall within the realms of contemplation.
The amendment is aimed specifically at indictable offences. These are what the Criminal Code would refer to as crimes. There are three different types of offences in the Criminal Code: regulatory offences, simple offences, and crimes. It is the latter category to which this amendment turns its attention. There are offences in the Bail Act in which the right to liberty is not automatic. The people who find themselves charged with murder, for instance, do not have a right to liberty; quite to the contrary, they have to demonstrate that right to the person considering bail. From time to time, they may get it but, more generally, they may not. There are people in remand sections of our Territory gaols right now who stand convicted of nothing and have yet to face trial. Under such circumstances, a person may never have been convicted of any offence in their whole life but their liberty is still not given as a right. One might say for good reason.
Therefore, the reasoning for this bill is not unsound. It brings a person who has been repeatedly convicted in the past of a crime, a responsibility, should they find themselves charged with a similar offence again, to demonstrate why their liberty should be restored to them.
The Bail Act tries to reflect the real world. By its structure, it acknowledges that the world is not a place of absolutes - not just black and white. Otherwise, it would be far shorter and would try to do a whole lot less than it does. Understanding this, the bill attempts to capture the flavour of the Bail Act and argues that, in the real world, a person who has been convicted three times in the past three years of an indictable offence of the same or similar nature, has a habit. They could well be described as an habitual criminal.
When such a person comes before an authorised officer, it is not only sensible that the authorised officer’s deliberation should include prior convictions - indeed they can and do - the bill shifts the focus slightly. It says that, if you have prior convictions, repeatedly for the same or similar offences - inside the Northern Territory or not - and you are asking for bail again, then you have to show why you should be at liberty rather than an authorised officer having to find reasons why you should not be. If a good reason for bail is made out to the balance of probabilities, then such bail may still be granted. However, we as a parliament should not blanch at the general proposition that, if you are a repeat offender, you are not automatically entitled to bail should you be charged again. In short, your past catches up with you.
Most people manage to go through life without regularly being charged with indictable offences, let alone being convicted of them. This bill only affects those in our community who have repeatedly breached the trust of the community. If they then ask for the trust to be extended to them again, they must demonstrate why.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move:
That -
I raise this motion neither to support nor condemn the government but to get to the truth about this whole matter which has cost taxpayers a considerable amount of money. There has been considerable debate in and out of the parliament regarding this whole matter. There has also been a considerable amount of public money spent in the prosecution of this affair. Part of that cost has been related not only to court costs, but ongoing legal costs related to defamation proceedings between Mr Anderson and the Minister for Local Government, and also to the cost of feeding the animals.
At the last sittings, after a censure motion had been debated surrounding this issue, I was given a confidential briefing regarding the matter. Naturally, I do not intend to go into what was said but, obviously, there is certainly more to this issue than has either been debated in the parliament or reported in the press. The reason I would like this matter to come before the PAC is because it is an opportunity for the government to:
To me, there is no doubt there are two sides to the story and the only way I believe that it can be told is through a PAC process. The government may argue that legal action is still pending and it would not be a suitable time for the PAC to look at the issue. I say we could at least look at the processes that took place without jeopardising any legal action, or to simply agree to the motion and put the date back to a time after legal action has finally been determined. Either way, this matter needs to be brought before the public so they can see for themselves that the money the government has spent on the matter was money well spent or could have been avoided.
This is an opportunity for the government to put its case and prove that it has done the right thing as it said it did in the last parliamentary sittings, and show people it really believes its own statements that this is an open and transparent government. I urge the government to support the motion.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Acting Madam Deputy Speaker, the government will not be supporting this motion. The government has received legal advice from the Department of Justice that it would be inappropriate to have the Public Accounts Committee process running in parallel with legal processes. There is a case before the courts in Western Australia involving Mr Anderson and minister Ah Kit. Material would be provided at a PAC committee hearing that would impinge on the case Mr Warren Anderson has launched against minister Ah Kit. People appearing before the committee would be forced to contravene the ruling by the Speaker about the discussion of matters that are before the courts. I cannot conceive of how we might conduct an inquiry that examines in detail the actions of the Animal Welfare Authority and departmental staff between 9 October 2003 and 13 November 2003 without discussion of matters that will be relevant to the current case between Mr Anderson and minister Ah Kit.
The member for Nelson has received a full briefing on this matter, but government is willing to provide him with another briefing. We have nothing to hide. All government costs and processes associated with the case will be open to full scrutiny under the Estimates Committee process. This matter was also the subject of intense scrutiny during the last parliamentary sittings, including a substantive motion.
I will provide for the House an outline of the events leading to the withdrawal of charges in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction on 5 August 2004 against Owston Nominees No 2 Pty Ltd. As a result of information received from the manager of Tipperary Sanctuary last October, a government-employed veterinarian and animal welfare officer investigated the supply of food to the animals at the sanctuary. The officer reported that there were insufficient quantities of food available at the time of his inspection to feed the animals. The matter was brought to the attention of the Animal Welfare Authority.
Feed was supplied to the sanctuary by the government. During the period from 10 October 2003 to 11 November 2004, 112.68 tonnes of hay were provided at a total cost of $29 211.60. A further order for pellets was made on 22 October 2003 at a cost of $1320. Letters were sent to the owners of the animals on two occasions - 16 October 2003 and 21 October 2003 - seeking immediate action to address the situation. The owners did not provide feed for the animals.
As a consequence of the investigation into the information given by the manager referred to earlier, and because there were insufficient quantities of food on hand when the animal welfare officer inspected the sanctuary, legal advice was obtained as to whether prosecution action was appropriate. The solicitors advising the government sought the advice of independent counsel. Charges were laid consistent with that advice.
Due to the complexity of the case, one of the country’s leading prosecutors with experience in similar matters, a Senior Counsel from the Sydney Bar, was engaged to lead the prosecution on behalf of the Animal Welfare Authority. After speaking to the authority’s witnesses, the Senior Counsel advised that the case was based on reasonable grounds and that, in her view, there was a clear case to answer.
During the hearing of the charges, which commenced last April, the key witness for the prosecution underwent lengthy and probing cross-examination by counsel representing the defendant. The cross-examination and re-examination of the witness was completed on 4 August 2004 when the case resumed after an adjournment. At the conclusion of the evidence of the key witness, the advice of Senior Counsel and other lawyers representing the authority was that a finding of guilt was unlikely. Acting on that advice, the authority properly withdrew the charges. The company made no application to the court for its costs.
The matter was launched in the public interest and, when it became clear that the prosecution was not likely to lead to a conviction, it was dropped - again in the public interest. It is not yet possible to provide a final figure of the cost of pursuing this case. Invoices totalling $120 000 have been paid. There are some yet to be received. The owner of the animals, Owston Nominees No 2, was invoiced, and all accounts for feed were settled as at 10 March 2004.
Enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act requires that the owners and carers of animals take their responsibilities seriously. Where owners appear not to take that responsibility seriously, it is incumbent on those responsible for the administration of the act to take action. The Animal Welfare Authority and the staff who support it have absolutely nothing to hide in this matter. They have operated at all times in the public interest.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this matter is relevant to a case currently before the courts. The Estimates Committee, of which the member for Nelson is a member, will be able to examine all the costs involved in the case. It is not necessary or appropriate to refer this matter to the Public Accounts Committee. For that reason, the government is not supporting this motion.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I point out that the minister has just done exactly what a person charged with a criminal offence usually does when their lawyer sends them in front of a microphone in the media: has a very carefully prepared statement from which he reads, and adds no comments of his own.
This government is starting to quickly develop itself a reputation for using its powers to go after individuals. Again today, I read in the newspaper that that is exactly what the Attorney-General, the first law officer of this Territory, is suggesting that the police should do to an innocent man. Without entering into that debate at all, there is a grave concern about the fact that the law officer will get involved in an individual prosecution and give advice, such as he gave in the newspaper today. It is shocking.
Let us talk about another innocent man. This innocent man is Warren Anderson. Let us not use Owston Nominees No 2; let us just use Warren Anderson because, when the Minister for Community Development decided to go of on this rampant prosecution of Warren Anderson, the press releases he put out talked about Warren Anderson. That is what the purpose of this particular exercise was: to go and hunt down some big game. It was just another type of hunting being applied here by the minister - he wanted a piece of the big game; he wanted to get his scalp. When the minister was presented with what he thought was a classic opportunity, the minister came out with all guns firing. The problem is that, if you go after a big game from time to time, the big game comes back after you. That is exactly what has happened in this instance.
What are the questions we are asking? Well, here is a question the member for Nelson is asking: how much is it costing? ‘We cannot answer that’, said the government. ‘We cannot answer it because it is before a court’. Well, that is interesting. The matter was before the court during the estimates process. When I asked the question there I got a very precise figure. It was $47 000 and something, if memory serves me correctly. He had absolutely no problem discussing how much it was costing Territorians then. I had to leech it out of him. It was a little difficult getting it out of him, but he was prepared to answer the question, because it does not go to the matter before the court. It does not touch on the evidence before the court. It has nothing to do with the evidence before the court. What the member for Nelson is trying to discover is: how much is this circus costing?
During the debates in this House and the subsequent censure motion, defeated on party lines, of the minister responsible - or irresponsible - for Community Development, once again, the costs were made public ...
Mr Ah Kit: Better minister than what you will ever aspire to be, sunshine!
Mr ELFERINK: … $100 000 and something, if memory serves me correctly.
I hear the minister interjecting, and I look forward to the Minister for Community Development standing up and contributing to this debate.
There was no problem with investigating the costs then, and letting Territorians know what the costs were. However, why then, all of a sudden, would a matter before the court become a reason to prevent the costs from being examined? I will tell you why: it is that the protection of this minister is becoming more and more expensive with every passing day. As this matter grinds ever so slowly forward, the protection of this minister is going to continue costing.
All he had to do was to say sorry. In this House, we have had long, complicated and passionate arguments about the word ‘sorry’, and how noble it was to use it when it was appropriate to use. Yet, this minister cannot bring himself to say it in other circumstances. That is a tragedy, because he is refusing to use that word ‘sorry’, is now costing, not him, but Territory taxpayers. What the member for Nelson wants to do is explore the value of each letter in the word ‘sorry’ to Territory taxpayers in this instance. Is that such an outrageous thing for a member of the Public Accounts Committee to do? Absolutely, it is. Why? Because it could embarrass government.
The Leader of Government Business today rose and told us about how much he was interested in advancing open, honest and accountable governance during ministerial reports. I am just waiting for the Leader of Government Business to waltz in here now and say that he continues to support open, honest and accountable government, and support this motion by the member for Nelson. It would be simple to do. He is on the record as saying that this is a principle plank, indeed, of the Martin Labor government. However, when it comes to questioning or inquiring into what the Martin Labor government does, we have seen exactly how transparent they want to be. All of a sudden, the glass becomes very opaque indeed.
The explanation given by the Attorney-General is nothing shy of bodgie, because he omits certain details about the case itself. I will go into that, because it cost money to investigate this matter. An officer was called to Tipperary Station and asked to investigate the sheds there. He was duly shown some empty sheds by a fellow by the name of Freeman. Let us talk about Mr Freeman for a second because, upon on his evidence alone this whole circus was launched into, publicly deriding and attacking an innocent man. What was the evidence? The evidence was that cheques were bouncing and Tipperary could not afford to pay for the feed the animals required. The investigator went down, got some details from Mr Freeman and returned to the office and said: ‘Absolutely, the manager of the place was saying all of this to us – there is no money in the bank. Gee whiz, those animals are going to go hungry’.
What did the bureaucracy do? It did the right thing; it informed the minister’s office. That was when the minister went off half-cocked. I bet you, London to a brick, that that investigation was not complete at the time that Mr Mackinolty and the minister were pumping out media releases about how dreadful Mr Anderson was.
The matter was sent out, oddly enough, to a local solicitor’s firm. Why not the DPP? Remember, we are talking about a summary offence - a misdemeanour in the old name - a minor offence carrying a maximum penalty of, I think, about $20 000 - I could be wrong - but a maximum penalty with no major penalty attached to it in a summary offence. It is curious that the Attorney-General tells us that the matter was complex. Investigating and pursuing summary offences should not be complex. They are the lower classes of offences. They do not appear in the Criminal Code only to be separated from crimes. Therefore, the investigation of them should be a fairly straightforward exercise. It was a straightforward exercise in this instance.
However, the whole thing was predicated on one assumption: that Mr Freeman was being entirely honest with the people he was reporting to. Let us talk about this cross-examination to which the Attorney-General referred. What was discovered during this cross-examination that was conducted? Two things: (1) that Mr Freeman wanted the animals for his own purposes; and (2) as a result of that desire, he had been sacked two days before the complaint was made to the Animal Welfare Authority. That clearly demonstrated an interest on the part of Mr Freeman to engage in behaviour that was detrimental to Mr Anderson.
Had any further subsequent investigation been launched? No. As a result of that, the investigation file was put together and, at all stages, the DPP could have stepped in and taken over the case. The act which governs the Director of the Public Prosecutions empowers the Director of Public Prosecutions to step in and take over a case at any time, especially for a summary offence. The government has stepped outside of the DPP process. They have not relied, in the first instance, on going through the DPP. They have hired private solicitors, so that is going to cost money. That is something that the member for Nelson is interested in.
They then got one of the gun silks in this country from down south who does not get out of bed for less than $8000, as I understand it. They used that gun silk to come up here and prosecute a summary offence; something that the DPP will be entirely capable of. Why didn’t the DPP step in? Because I believe they could smell it for what it was. After laying hundreds of charges in the first instance, they tried to prosecute on a single charge - a hungry rhino. Even that charge could not stand up because their one star witness have been totally discredited..
The whole thing was a circus. The whole thing has been the subject of much debate in this House, as the Attorney-General pointed out. However, what the Attorney-General refuses to do now is to be opened, honest, and accountable about how much this has cost us. This is what the government’s position is: carefully read statements and carefully worded denials. However, at the end of the day, the Territory taxpayer is having to find out how much this cost. I too, want to know how much this has cost Territorians. I too, believe the government should be open, honest and accountable. By coming in here and saying they are not going to be open, honest and accountable, and are not going to support this motion, they are tarnishing the credibility by which they obtained government. They are here on a promise, Madam Speaker. They are in breach of that promise, and they will be condemned for it.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank speakers from both sides. What the member for Macdonnell has raised is that there are many questions that need to be answered. I certainly do not have the answers. I just want the information and a forum where we can fully investigate all the issues that surround this particular case.
I thank the minister for giving me some more detail and I will study those at a later date. However, I do not believe the Estimates Committee is the appropriate forum for this inquiry. I can, perhaps, ask that, if the legal action is still occurring at the next Estimates Committee, will the same excuse be used to say that we could not debate it then; that we could not have parallel discussion on this issue occurring in the court and the Estimates Committee?
I consider it far more appropriate that this matter be referred to a Public Accounts Committee. It would allow a far broader opportunity for all those people involved to be questioned. It would not be limited in time, as would an Estimates Committee inquiry. It would allow a thorough investigation of all the issues. It would also be more satisfactory from a public point of view because they would see the government, if it supported this motion, had nothing to hide; that it believes in open and transparent government, and that they were setting up a special inquiry into this issue because it had attracted so much debate and controversy in the community. I see that this could be an opportunity to use the Public Accounts Committee for what it has been set up to do; that is, look at the way government has expended public monies. As we know, there has been a reasonable amount of those public monies spent on this particular case.
I am not qualified to argue the case with the Attorney-General on the legal ins and outs of whether you could operate the PAC whilst legal action is still pending between the Minister for Local Government and Mr Anderson. However, if that is the case - and presuming this will be defeated on the floor tonight - I will move this motion again at a later date and, basically, amend section 2, which will say that this Assembly refer to the Public Accounts Committee for inquiry after legal action has been completed, in reference to the matters pending between Mr Anderson and the Minister for Local Government. That way, we can leave it on the books until that time occurs, so that the argument that we cannot deal with this matter while legal action is taking place will disappear.
I still think that this is something that needs to go to a Public Accounts Committee. The public would like to hear what actually happened. As I said, I have heard both sides of the story at a confidential briefing. There is not only the issue about public monies being spent, about the process of exactly what happened, but if there are problems with the Animal Welfare Act. This is an opportune time to look at that as well. If it is deficient, and some grey areas need tightening up to make them more clear, then this again is the process that would come out of the Public Accounts Committee.
Madam Speaker, I commend the motion and hope it will be supported.
Motion negatived.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move:
Unfortunately, this was yet another shot from the lip by the Martin government that was based on very little research and even less consultation. That is why I am urging members of the House to support this motion and to consider this idea further as part of a select committee. Let all sides of parliament review this plan, investigate what this will mean for Territorians, and then report back to the House.
The wheels are falling off this process and Territorians are rightly asking what it will mean for them. Even before the bill was first introduced into this Assembly, two of the much-heralded additions to the estate were withdrawn from the package by the Northern Land Council - those being the Keep River-Spirit Hills area of the Western Australian border and the Nathan-Limmen Gate area in the Gulf of Carpentaria.
The Chief Minister failed to call the bluff of the land council and opted to continue with a package that provided few benefits to Territorians. Despite the government’s feigned optimism, even this reduced package has proved impossible for the negotiating team to reach agreement on in any reasonable time frame. In fact, there is no certainty they ever will. No wonder! Whereas the major stakeholders are the traditional owners and park visitors, both local and from overseas, there appears to have been little, if any, input from either group. Likewise, where has been the input from the Parks and Wildlife managers, for that matter?
The major participants have been the Chief Minister’s select team - none of whom have had any real park management experience - and the two major land councils with some oblique references to the Commonwealth government. Anyone who has negotiated with these two land councils will leave you in no doubt that you can play the Chief Minister’s team off a break. It does appear, regrettably, that that is just what is happening.
Rumours abound that even more of these lands, which were to have been added to the park estate by Aboriginal Territorians, are also to be withdrawn from the package. Will the Chief Minister give us a guarantee that there is no more to be added to the list? I doubt it, because she cannot!
Ms Martin: It is in legislation in the House, you silly nit!
Mr MILLS: This raises another very important …
Ms CARTER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Unparliamentary language.
Ms Martin: Excuse me!
Madam SPEAKER: Unparliamentary language, Chief Minister.
Ms Martin: Sorry, Madam Speaker, withdrawn.
Ms CARTER: Thank you.
Ms Martin: You are wrong, Terry. Read the legislation.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, please do not use Christian names.
Ms Martin: I withdraw ‘Terry’ and substitute ‘member for Blain’. You are wrong!
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This raises another very important point: if the land councils are withdrawing parks from their side of the bargain, what are we pulling back from our side of the table? The answer is nothing. This is a sad reflection on the Martin government’s ability to manage this and any other major negotiation that they have attempted.
As the land councils progressively pull more from their side of the bargain, we are being left with even worse - or what was already - a lousy deal. The Chief Minister is giving away the farm; the land councils have stared her down and she blinked.
This government has failed to negotiate gas onshore for Territorians, and they have yet to work out how to accommodate refuelling of ships at the redeveloped wharf precinct. They gave away the chance to have some control over the Lee Point Defence housing development, and they are doing it again. The Chief Minister is incapable of sitting down and talking business and getting a favourable outcome for Territorians. She is the Territory’s answer to Jack and the Bean Stalk, and gives away the prized cow for a couple of magic beans. I would strongly recommend that any charlatan or conman who finds his way to Darwin would be well served to head straight to the Chief Minister’s office because, if you are selling shares in the Harbour Bridge or seaside views of Alice Springs, I am sure you will have no problem in finding a willing customer in our Chief Minister.
What about the Commonwealth role in all this? Are they included to negotiate a greater Territory participation in the management of Kakadu and Uluru National Parks? Not likely! Could they be being asked to contribute to some of the upfront establishment costs, only to leave Territorians with 99 years of unspecified financial responsibility?
This leads to a very important question: what about costs? The Chief Minister has been virtually silent on this matter, although some her ministers have inferred that costs could be insignificant. As I stand before you, the cost to the current and future generations of Territorians will be anything but insignificant. From the replies to questions in the budget estimates on the costs relating to management, it is clear that joint managed parks are much more expensive to manage than those run exclusively by Parks and Wildlife. This is not necessarily unreasonable, provided that the benefits to Territorians can, to some extent, at least justify those extra costs. However, the Chief Minister has provided nothing to give Territorians comfort in this regard. In fact, the opposite is true.
Additionally, there is the matter of the annual rental back of parks, the ownership of which will be freely transferred to the land councils. We are yet to hear what this grand plan will cost us. I am looking forward to the explanation of how it is cheaper to give away land that you already own, and have no real prospect to losing, and then pay to lease it back.
Then there is the issue of the ongoing role of the land councils. Everybody is aware that the most successful model of joint management in the Territory is at Nitmiluk, where the traditional owners choose to exclude the land council from all other than a statutory role. Obviously, not all owners are as one with the Jawoyn, but the Nitmiluk model appears to have been discarded out of hand by this government.
Given that negotiations are with the land councils only, how can we be sure that the wishes of the traditional owners will be satisfactorily considered, let alone met, in your package? How can we also be sure that land councils will not write themselves into the ongoing management of parks, which we know will inevitably lead to conflict with Territorians and the tourism industry, as has been evident at Kakadu and Uluru? Are there genuine attempts to involve traditional owners and let them derive planned benefits, or is this just an exercise in providing greater empowerment to land councils? Just what do the traditional owners get? Land councils are supposed to support and assist traditional owners. These negotiations effectively reverse the master/servant relationship. Is it any wonder some traditional owners are not happy with this process? The land councils are there to protect the interests of traditional owners. Who is protecting the traditional owners from the land councils?
There are just too many unanswered questions that can only be resolved by putting this process under the spotlight of a parliamentary committee. How are we to protect from Aboriginal-dominated boards effectively acting as another tier of government that is focussing primarily on their agenda of outstation proliferation and management practices resulting in reduction in tourist numbers and experience? Are we effectively handing over the management of our parks from an elected government to a minority indigenous bureaucracy whose objectives probably will not be compatible with other community expectations? Why only two land councils? Is it because they are the equivalent of indigenous unions as far as the Labor Party is concerned?
Territorians own the parks that are being handed over to land councils, and they have not been consulted on their land. There is a persuasive legal argument that some of the parks would be lost in any legal proceedings; but what of the others? Just what justification can the Chief Minister give in handing over ownership of almost every park in the southern region to the Central Land Council? How will this impact tourism in that region? Will Watarrka National Park be subjected to the same restrictions as Uluru, for example? Research shows that around 70% of visitors nominate our parks as the reason they come to the Northern Territory. I would have thought that something so crucial to our economy would have been given more protection than this, particularly with the Chief Minister being responsible for this portfolio.
Above all this - the legality, the morality and the practicality of what is being done - there is just one very important issue that we must no forget - the importance of conservation of these parks. Yet, the Martin Labor government has disbanded the Parks and Wildlife Commission and replaced it with a single public servant. With Labor’s plan to hand over our parks, the Territory needs the expertise of the Parks and Wildlife Commission as we have never needed it before. Now, however, the commission is a one-bureaucrat show, who has to answer to the minister who appointed her. Our parks estate is vulnerable and at the behest of the political whims of the government of the day. It leaves the decision of our most important natural asset - our parks - to this bureaucrat who does not have the expertise to make the important decision of the Territory.
Parks have been marginalised and decimated by the Martin government, and the board that would have driven this exercise in a perfect world has been abolished. How are they able to cope? The CLP believes in joint management of our parks. The contribution to conservation, tourism, and of traditional owners, cannot be underestimated. The difference between us and the members who sit opposite; we know that joint management can be achieved without handing over the title of these assets. We know partnerships can be achieved with traditional owners without another layer of bureaucracy in the middle to interfere.
That is partly what I suspect the Chief Minister is afraid of - any scrutiny by parliament of what is going on here and the deal that the Chief Minister has done with the land councils to get herself elected will be laid bare. This great land grab by the land councils cannot be allowed to continue without the scrutiny of this parliament. Ordinary Territorians are being sold short and the Martin Labor government is complicit in this.
I urge all members to support this motion. Let us slow down and consider what is happening here. There is a deadline for the completion of these negotiations that the Chief Minister has set, and it is fast approaching - and the land councils know this. Chief Minister, your team must be getting close to the stage of seeing agreement at any cost. That is the only option to save face. We have already seen a spectacle of the Chief Minister having a serve of humble pie once recently, and I am sure her minders are keen to avoid another course, whatever the cost to Territorians today and into the future.
Madam Speaker, traditional owners, Territorians who fish, camp, walk, enjoy the scenery, have great pride in taking their friends and relatives from elsewhere to see our parks, or depend on tourism and its contribution to the economy for their living, all have an interest in the future of our parks. Parks must remain for the benefit of all Territorians and not just a select minority who seek to gain from this deal.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, the Opposition Leader has just said parks must remain for all Territorians. That is exactly what the Framework for the Future bill is about. I have never heard such a load of gobbledegook, except for the censure we heard earlier today. The Opposition Leader has chosen to come in here and seriously misrepresent what is an open and transparent process and has not even read the legislation. The legislation is open and transparent. What is in the legislation, the Framework for the Future bill, is what any negotiation is. That is why we brought that legislation into the parliament, open and transparent. Yet, we had – how many minutes?
Mr Henderson: Fourteen.
Ms MARTIN: … 14 minutes of the Opposition Leader simply again making up what he says are facts, and are simply rubbish, to try to argue some fatuous case about deceit from this government.
On this issue, this government has been open and transparent. That openness and transparency is in the form of a bill that is in this House. The details are set out. When you come in here and say: ‘What is in; what is out; are you putting more on the table?’ - what is there is there. Anything that has been withdrawn, we made public. There is no sleight of hand here. There is nothing up my sleeves. There is no deceit. There is no other agenda. There is no obligation. What you see in that bill is what you have. I seriously resent the Opposition Leader coming in here, in his pompous and long-winded style, accusing us of lying to and misleading Territorians - because we are not. I have never heard such a load of pomposity hiding an anti-indigenous Territorian sentiment, which is what this is all about.
When you say our parks must be open to all Territorians, what are you saying? The deal is that every park will be open to all Territorians. So what are you trying to say there? That a change of land title is not going to be access? It is a load of rubbish and you should be honest about your real agenda here, because your real agenda is transparent.
My government does not support the motion that the Assembly establishes a select committee to investigate community benefits associated with the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act. The time for the debate in the public interest argument was during the public consultation phase last September and when the bill was finally debated in this House last November. The opposition was briefed on the bill - you could not tell from what the rubbish we have just heard in here - and did not bother to propose a select committee inquiry at that time. Considering the bill was released for public comment in September 2003, prior to tabling in the Legislative Assembly in October of that year, and then not passed by this Assembly until November 2003, I believe the motives behind this belated call for an inquiry to be nothing but political - to be nothing but political - and the voice that we are hearing from the opposition is an isolated voice in our community.
During the public consultation period, the feedback received was, generally, very positive. I wonder who the opposition is actually representing in the arguments they are putting forward in this House. Key stakeholders including representatives from the tourism, mining, Aboriginal pastoral, fishing and environment sectors, were also fully briefed on the bill. The majority of these appreciate the many practical and positive benefits that flow from the act, and that is not just as far as their own interests are concerned.
There is widespread acknowledgment from all but this blinkered opposition that benefits will flow for all Territorians, and I stress that point: all Territorians. The only dissenting voices came from the opposition ranks, focussed on the narrow aspect of the transfer of title for some of the parks involved in the package. We have just heard a lot of associated gobbledegook from the Leader of the Opposition, trying to present it as reasoned argument.
Let me remind members of how this legislation came about. Members may recall the Ward High Court decision handed down in August 2002, which held that the declaration of the Keep River National Park was invalid. That was as much a surprise to us as to any other Territorian. The finding is a result of the wording of section 12(1) of the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. Before the act was amended in March 1998, that section provided that an area of land could only be declared as a park or reserve if and I quote from the act - and it would have been interesting to have the Opposition Leader refer to the act in presenting some of his arguments because he was simply wrong again and again and again. Section 12(1) of the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act says that all the rights, title and interest in that land was vested in the Territory, or if no person other than the Territory or the Conservation Land Corporation held a right, title or interest in that land. In essence, the Ward High Court decision meant that, where native title rights and interests existed on land over which 49 parks were declared between 1978 and 1998, these declarations miscarried.
Consistent with legal advice from the Solicitor-General, and confirmed by a second legal opinion from eminent external counsel, the government moved swiftly to re-declare 38 of the parks and reserves on 7 November 2002. However, our legal advice confirmed the re-declarations could not resolve Aboriginal land claims or existing or potential native title determination and compensation claims.
A further major impact of the Ward High Court decision is that 11 of the 49 parks declared between 1978 and 1998 could not be re-declared because of section 67(a) of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (ALRA). Therefore, 11 of those 49 parks could not be re-declared. Section 67(a) prevents the grant of estates or interests in any land that is subject to a traditional land claim. Until the Ward decision, it was believed that land claims that had been made since the parks were originally declared could not proceed. Once the Ward decision clarified that original declarations as park had miscarried, it became clear that the land claims could now proceed to hearing before the Aboriginal Land Commissioner. Where is the conspiracy there, I ask the Opposition Leader.
The costs of depending myriad claims under ALRA and the Native Title Act would be very high and would merely reduce funds available for community services for all Territorians. We know the CLP’s agenda is - these Libs from Canberra’s masquerading as Territory Libs. They think that the way they led on Kenbi as a land claim is the way to go. They spent millions of dollars - $20m to $25m. ‘What does it matter? They just keep paying out money on litigations’. That is the moral that we had to work with and rejected it solidly.
The cost of defending a myriad of claims under the ALRA and Native Title Act would be very high. We put that sum as somewhere may be between $100m and $150m. What would it go on? Lawyers. Good lawyers, but lawyers. It would certainly reduce funds available for community services for Territorians - funds to build our tourism capacity, a master plan for our parks, to give our tourists and locals a greater experience in our wonderful environment.
That is the balance. We have the opposition telling me that I should have taken the lawyer option. We could have spent 10 to 15 years in courts looking at all those claims. We could have done that. That was an option; that is what you would have done in government. The other option is to see capacity grow, to develop our parks for everyone to have greater access to some of the wonderful parks of our terrific Territory. But, no, the opposition is now saying we should have gone the litigation way. I said very clearly at the outset of this process, that if we could not get an agreement in the package we spelled out in the Framework for the Future bill, we would, sadly, go to litigation one by one.
Any implication that, somehow or other, there was some underhand deal; that we were rolling over to anybody - and the list that the Opposition Leader has is a long one in his conspiracy theory ideas - is simply not right. I said that very clearly. This is an opportunity to resolve these issues. If traditional owners and potential native title holders cannot agree to this opportunity to resolve these issues, then we will take each, one by one, through the courts.
All affected parks also potentially remain subject to native title claims and/or native title compensation claims. The cost of resolving these issues through the courts would be prohibitively expensive for Territory taxpayers, not to mention the potential compensation costs, which would take many years to settle.
It has been suggested that the Australian government would pick up 75% of the costs of compulsorily acquiring native title rights and interests in the parks concerned. It should be noted that the Australian government offer only applies to compensation payable with respect to past acts and certain future acts. No state or territory government has accepted the Australian government’s offer in this respect. The proposal particularly disadvantaged the Territory where more limited development, by comparison with other states, meant the Territory would bear a greater burden for any development that constituted a native title future act, when compared with a state that would be funded for the compensation effects of past development.
In addition, the proposal does not allow for any reimbursement of legal costs incurred, given that the precise nature of the native title rights and interests will need to be determined in order to calculate compensation.
What is the opposition’s answer to this? They have been arguing that we should compulsorily acquire the native title interests over the 17 parks in question. The advice we received is that this approach would engender continuing delay and uncertainty and, as I said, would prove extremely costly to taxpayers. The compulsory acquisition approach is likely to involve considerable litigation in the federal court determining the precise nature of the native title rights and interests for the 17 parks involved. Compulsory acquisition would also take a long time to conclude. The most optimistic scenario for the hearing of the determinations by the Federal Court is at least five years. However, a realistic estimate is that the determinations are not likely to be concluded for the 17 parks for many more years - probably, realistically, 10 to 15.
Here is an opposition that is just out there saying: ‘Uncertainty, let us just keep uncertainty going. Let us not be able to develop infrastructure in our parks because it will be uncertain. Let us see some parks potentially locked away; we would never be able to go there’ - potentially. The opposition has illogical arguments. We have a transparent process that lays it out in the bill. To have the Opposition Leader come in here and accuse this government of doing deals that nobody knows about and of having some underhand agenda, I find personally, seriously offensive.
It has been standard practice to negotiate ways to manage native title issues, including through indigenous land use agreements. For example, the previous government successfully achieved a negotiated outcome in the railway negotiations, and the Australian government negotiated an ILUA for the establishment of the Defence facility at Bradshaw Station. The establishment and operation of national parks can well work with the exercise of native title rights and interests. The government has proposed a solution which seeks to reconcile the interests of Aboriginal people and the wider community in a way that gives benefit for all Territorians.
I again draw attention to the open manner in which the government has dealt with the process involved with the parks legislation. Now that the legislation has been enacted, there is little flexibility afforded to government or the traditional owners involved in the process. This was deliberate so as to ensure transparency. It means that, as Chief Minister, I can only exercise my powers under the act if the section 10 provisions were fully complied with. It is spelt out.
On that point, we are talking about traditional owners. The Opposition Leader asked: ‘Why are you only dealing with two land councils?’. You did say that in the speech, didn’t you? ‘Why are you only dealing with two land councils?’. Do you know where this land is? Do you know that the land is only within the boundaries of the CLC and the NLC; that there is no land that is a park or a reserve on Groote Eylandt; that there is no park or reserve on the Tiwi Islands? Did you realise that? No, I do not think you did.
To again underpin the idiocy of what we heard in here, you accused us of some kind of conspiracy with the Centralian and Northern Land Council, and funding for elections, or deals with getting over the line because we are just dealing with those two. There was a logic; they represent and are talking to the traditional owners.
You also made the comment that there are traditional owners who are unhappy and who have not been consulted. Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish! Absolute rubbish! This has been a very consultative process and, to come in here and malign the land council - because that is what the CLP always does, and has done for year after year after year – will not wash. They are representative bodies that are enacted under federal legislation and we, as government, deal with them properly. That is what you would expect of government. However, it does contrast starkly with the approach from the CLP.
I go back to the legislation. The only flexibility under the legislation has been on timing - if the Opposition Leader had read the bill, he would understand that - which allowed for the extension to the end of this year to allow full compliance with the conditions of the act to be achieved. In approving that notice of extension, which was publicly announced at the time, I was satisfied that there was already substantial compliance with the conditions specified in section 10 of the act, and that there will be full compliance on or before the end of the year. Where is the conspiracy there?
This government is looking after the public interest; the opposition is only looking after their own political interests. They are backwards looking and they are desperate to find relevance in this issue.
As I stated during my second reading speech, the legislation draws together a range of government objectives beneficial to our community, including job creation - that is a damning one to be accused off isn’t it? - protection of biological diversity, enhancing recreational educational and tourist opportunities, and creating a sound and sustainable economic base for regional development. Allow me, briefly, to list some further advantages for the benefit of the opposition. These include: huge savings from protracted and confrontation litigation that was a feature of former CLP governments; tourism development and an improved capacity to meet tourism demands and expectation; enhanced parks land management; Aboriginal social and economic development including improved opportunities for joint venture partnerships and employment; resolution of uncertainty regarding future developments; the development of constructive rather than adversarial relationships with traditional owners; and the expansion of the parks estate through leaseback of additional Aboriginal land.
How are we, in this proposal, denying all Territorians access to the parks? What we are doing is, in fact, adding land to the parks estate. Then we have a master plan in process. We have committed funds to see further infrastructure once this deal is complete - once we get to the end of the year and it is signed off. We are looking at positively enhancing our tourism and local experience. The rubbish that we heard from the Opposition Leader is simply wrong - it is wrong.
As I have stated previously, at its heart this framework will provide the certainty required to establish a truly world class and fully integrated NT national parks and reserves conservation system. That is not a bad aspiration is it? Not a bad aspiration! And we will do it. That is the difference; we will do it. That certainty will mean that our parks can continue to operate with the necessary guarantee of continued access and enjoyment by all Territorians on a no entry fee, no entry permit basis.
Just as importantly, it will also result in new and exciting opportunities to develop our parks and reserves in ways that fully complement our tourism strategy - and I am proud of that, as Tourism Minister - and will create economic opportunities that are currently not there and not being realised. Significantly, the legislation recognised, for the first time, that one of the objectives of the Territory’s parks system is to maintain and promote traditional values alongside protection and promotion of the value of the natural environment. It is these two elements, environment and culture, that are lynchpins in the future development of tourism in the Territory. It is our unique and ancient cultural heritage as well as the spectacular landscapes, flora and fauna, that attract thousands of visitors here each year. The thousands are, in fact, 1.3 million and growing.
Do you know what? Unfortunately, according to surveys conducted by the NT Tourist Commission, the majority of our visitors believe that they are not able to sufficiently experience Aboriginal culture, and they want improved access to pristine areas. If we are to seriously deal with the future of one of our most important industries - our second biggest industry - we must address this shortfall. This is exactly what we are doing through the parks legislation. We are making sure that visitors, as well as Territorians, will not only have increased access to better managed parks, they will also have access to the traditional and cultural knowledge integral to that country, so ensuring a more enriching and meaningful experience.
All these matters are currently being addressed in the preparation of the parks and conservation master plan, which aims to establish a 15 to 20 year vision for parks and conservation in the Territory - a vision shared with Aboriginal traditional owners, other land holders, and the community at large. The master plan will provide a blueprint for the conservation of the Northern Territory’s biological diversity and associated Aboriginal cultural values, and will pay particular attention to the Territory’s systems of parks and reserves. It will strongly focus on the role of the parks and the conservation of biodiversity, in providing inspiration and enjoyment for present and future generations of Territorians, and for the many tourists who come to the Territory seeking to enjoy our natural and cultural heritage.
The overall goal of the master plan is to provide the basis for ensuring that we pass on to future generations the full range of biological diversity now present in the Northern Territory, together with the priceless legacy of our parks system; not only intact but expanded and improved. The planning process is well advanced and involves extensive consultation with stakeholder groups and the public at large. The master plan web site is currently receiving around 5000 hits each month, and there will be further opportunity for public input once the draft is released for public comment. As part of that process, a series of regional meetings will be held throughout the Territory. Absolutely key to that whole public consultation and to the master plan, are the people we have in Parks and Wildlife. They have been integrally involved in this, and I am very enthusiastic about the parks master planning.
Much of this I have said before, but it is worth bringing home the point, especially as the opposition does not seem to get it. As a responsible government, we put a high priority on the need to balance the public interest in this matter, and to ensure an outcome that meets the community benefit test. The government is adopting a hard-headed and responsible approach that requires the settlement of all existing and potential litigation under a comprehensive agreement based on core principles that protect continued access to parks and reserves for all Territorians.
Allow me to again outline these core principles. They include: the development of a parks master plan to expand and more effectively manage the parks estate; current mining and exploration leases are unaffected and existing applications are being fast-tracked; current tourism operator concessions are guaranteed; all Territory parks and reserves will remain accessible to all Territorians and visitors on a ‘no fee/no permit’ basis; business as usual in parks until the negotiations are completed; where title change occurs, they will be conditional on the land being leased back to the Northern Territory subject to joint management under NT legislation; and those managerial plans will come here to the parliament. The underlying principle of this legislation is to maintain and expand the Territory’s parks estate for the benefits of all Territorians. These benefits are overwhelmingly obvious. This legislation is also balanced by requirements that will protect the interests of all Territory citizens and key stakeholders.
My government is ensuring increased access to the Territory’s pristine environment and unique cultural heritage so it can be enjoyed by all Territorians and visitors to this special part of the world. In doing so, we are establishing a framework for the future, one that will bring economic benefits to the Territory stemming from regional employment and responsible planning for our tourism industry, while also protecting our ecological and cultural inheritance for future generations.
Madam Speaker, the opposition’s arguments on this are unsustainable. If they had genuine concerns, they would have raised them over the last year. To say now that what we need is a select committee to investigate community benefits is political grandstanding, and this side of the House rejects it.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I listened to the Chief Minister’s comments on this motion and, apart from the rhetoric about the decision that has been made by the Labor government will result in greater benefit for Territorians, greater access to our parks, greater recognition of native title ownership, less litigation in the courts, all sounds repetitive and, in the Chief Minister’s mind, obviously wonderful for Territorians.
What I find particularly disappointing is the fact that, once again, the Chief Minister seems to take every opportunity to belittle comments and arguments put by the opposition on such an important issue. The way the Chief Minister attacked the Leader of the Opposition for raising these issues is particularly offensive. The government seems to be incredibly sensitive. I have never seen a Leader of the Opposition or members of the government or opposition in the past jump to their feet calling points of order because of some comment that they believe is an unfair attack on their person. We have reached a sensitivity in this House whereby one has to be extremely careful as to how one uses one’s words.
Where we do have an expert in this House is the Chief Minister who, I believe, is probably more skilled in her choice of words that anyone else in this House, but skilled in a way that is not only offensive, but belittling - and she can get away with it. She belittles the opposition because we raise issues that she believes are trivial or beneath her status. If anyone read the Parliamentary Record, there are the comments that she made in the censure motion against the Leader of the Opposition. Whilst you cannot pick her up for individual words that are offensive, the tone of her comments is patronising, schoolmarmish and offensive in the extreme. Frankly, it is difficult to listen to.
I was thinking about what I could say in this debate, and I wrote one word: consultation. The Chief Minister stands on an argument that the general public has been widely consulted and is supportive on this matter. It is interesting that, in this case, the government has made a decision about what is best for Territorians with regards to the parks estate, and then gone out to sell the great benefit of this decision. They call that consultation.
It is an interesting move because I do not believe the government has been capable of doing it in any other process. Even today, we saw the Lands minister saying: ‘We have to deal with the Myilly Point precinct, but we do not want to do anything that might be against the public interest so what we are going to do is say: “Here is the precinct. What do you reckon? Give us all your thoughts and we will take those thoughts on board and act in what we believe to be in the public interest of Territorians”’.
What they did not tell Territorians, of course, is that the Myilly Point precinct, through land use objectives, had been settled through the hard work of planning officers in the department in 1999. It had been out for public consultation and the land use objectives for that area have been settled. I would be surprised if anything different of any great substance arises. That does not stop the government from saying they have a clean sheet of paper and: ‘By the way, we are going to consult the public. You only have four weeks, but we are a consultative government’.
In this case, the consultation did not occur. There is no point standing up and telling Territorians that you consulted before you made a decision and that Territorians support it. Surely, no one would try to suggest that most Territorians have any deep understanding of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act or the Native Title Act. Most Territorians rely on the faith and good judgment of their government. In this particular case, it was backed up by the rhetoric and glossy brochures that have been put out, and the assuages of the Chief Minister that if we did not do this it would cost $150m of taxpayers’ money and, therefore, we would not be able to deliver health services and education services. Of course, the average person would say: ‘Oh well, an agreement seems to be a reasonable thing to do’. The reality is it is not true. When the opposition stands to question the process that has been put in place, all we get, in the most schoolmarmish fashion – I should not say schoolmarmish fashion, because there were excellent schoolmarms in the past, including you, Madam Speaker – in a very patronising way, the Chief Minister belittles the arguments of the opposition.
Well, I have an argument for the Chief Minister straight back. She said, when she brought forward this package of negotiation agreement, that this was the package, and if we did not get agreement on this package, all bets were off. She repeated again in this Chamber tonight that if she did not get agreement on that package, all bets were off. Well, in that package were a couple of parks which had already been withdrawn. We have a situation in the Northern Territory where the Chief Minister has fallen on her own argument. She is asking Territorians to believe in the process that is being conducted, yet part of the asset that was integral to the process at the outset has been withdrawn. Why has it been withdrawn? It has been withdrawn for reasons unbeknown to me. If the opposition questions the process - including why some of these parks have been withdrawn - all we get is abuse.
If the Chief Minister was true to her word, she would have said, when Litchfield Park was withdrawn from negotiations: ‘All bets are off. I gave you a package. It included 49 parks, some involved transferring to Aboriginal land rights title under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, some were freehold park title, some were joint management arrangements. There were undertakings given that there would be free access. There would be undertakings given that there would be no exclusivity, and there was a package of parks. You now have withdrawn parks for your own reason, because you believe you can get a better deal through litigation or by separate negotiation. Based on my words and my stance, all bets are off. Litchfield Park is either in or all bets are off’.
But no, the Chief Minister is now trying to say: ‘Well, other reasons have arisen and we have withdrawn this park. Limmen Park, because it has great mineral prospectivity, obviously, we will handle that on a case-by-case basis’. It is very hard to be convinced on the government’s argument that the consultation is occurring in a way that Territorians can be comforted.
When the Chief Minister talked about public consultation, I listened to the fact that she is going to consult widely with Territorians after this particular deal is somehow done; and I certainly hope that that occurs. However, the consultation that has occurred to date leaves many questions unanswered. When the Chief Minister said: ‘All you do is bag this’, those questions were put directly and, I believe, with research and genuine concern, to her in the Estimates Committee process. Whilst the Chief Minister can speak and read very authoritatively from documentation that is prepared by her officers, and with legal advice in this Chamber, she was particularly weak when it came to answering questions about the intended or unintended consequences that will arise, or could arise, from these decisions that she has made with regards to the parks estate and the management of the parks estate, the precedence of native title arguments and claims that are being made through the courts at the moment on other issues in the Northern Territory, particularly on pastoral leases, etcetera.
When the Chief Minister says: ‘All the CLP wants to do is go into court and spend $100m to $150m of taxpayers’ money; that is all they ever want to do’, well, that is not true. I certainly hope I can stand in this Chamber one day and that native title is never raised as an issue. It has been very divisive in the past, and this Labor government is experiencing the fact that, on some issues, it can be very divisive and difficult to achieve settlements on.
The Chief Minister says that this is only way a settlement could be reached. We dispute that. We say that there is no question that the aim should be to get a settlement. However, there is also no reason why, as part of government’s armoury and argument, if they believe that they are being unnecessarily hampered in their ability to get an agreement, the acquisition process should not be commenced, in demonstrating the strength of the Native Title Act and the powers of the Northern Territory government in accordance with that act. That is the way it has been done successfully in other areas. It was the way it was done in Darla and, I believe, in the East Arm Port settlement. I am quite sure that the government, on those areas that are currently in litigation - for example, Limmen Park and sadly, probably, in the future Litchfield Park - undoubtedly the acquisition process will be used.
Chief Minister, the argument of the opposition is that, on such a important issue, this should have been put towards a select committee of this parliament. We have had select committees of this parliament currently engaging themselves on any number of issues. It is too trite to simply suggest that, somehow, on an issue as large as the future of the Territory’s park estate - or a large part of the park estate - to have a select committee to deal with these particular issues …
Ms Martin: Did you have a select committee on the railway?
Mr BURKE: Well, if we had acceded to the Labor government - the Chief Minister asked if we had a select committee on the railway. If the Labor government federally had their way - Martin Ferguson who could be a federal government minister - would have had a Royal Commission on the railway. He called for a Royal Commission at the most sensitive stage of the negotiation process for no other reason than to scare off shareholders at a time we were trying to close the deal. That is a person who will be one of that crowd that will supposedly be working in the Territory’s interests if they gain government federally on Saturday - Martin Ferguson. He is very clearly on the record for that.
It is not trivial to suggest this should go to a select committee. We had a select committee on cane toads out of which the member of Nelson certainly did not get much comfort from all the efforts and consultation of that committee. If we could have a select committee on cane toads, why can’t we have a select committee on the future of parks estate? Why can’t we have a select committee on the process that is being conducted, and the overall benefits for Territorians in going this particular path. Of course, if the government had been consistent with the way it has approached things and made decisions in government so far - certainly that is the position they put to the public; that they are very keen on consultation before they make a decision.
In this instance, there was very little consultation. The consultation that has occurred was with stakeholders groups, and those stakeholder groups, I do not believe, are as comfortable as the Chief Minister says. I do not believe the intended consequences - or unintended consequences - of the Chief Minister’s decisions have been clearly enunciated. I do not believe that the Chief Minister has been able to get the accommodation that she claims she would get - albeit if that were the case, Litchfield Park would not have been withdrawn. I certainly do not believe that the ministers who have carriage of this particular decision have the inside knowledge of the Native Title Act and the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act so that they can confidently stand up for Territorians and argue their case.
If we are not going to get a select committee, I look forward to the public consultation. I give the Chief Minister a guarantee: we will have public meetings and explain to Territorians what we believe are the implications of the parks handover. We will see from those public consultations whether or not Territorians are as comfortable and as okay with the path of the process the government is going down, as the Chief Minister claims.
Ms Martin: You will tell Territorians they cannot get into parks anymore, and that their parks are going to just go into rack and ruin, are you? You have to tell the truth, Denis.
Mr BURKE: The Chief Minister says that we have to tell the truth. What we will do, in fact, is …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I have been cautioned repeatedly on using Christian names in this House and I find it offensive that the Chief Minister chooses to do so.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, did you use a Christian name?
Ms Martin: Oh, I did. Sorry, member for Brennan, I apologise.
Mr BURKE: It is only fair and reasonable that the opposition, in calling public forums, will explain to Territorians what exactly was the package that was put forward at the outset, what exactly is the package that is there now, ask them if they have any idea as to why some parks are withdrawn now from that particular package; and ask them if they have any idea of what this settlement negotiation that the Chief Minister asked them to be comfortable with does in fact entail. We can also dwell on areas of native title and, where there are native title issues that are currently before the courts or in mediation, whether those native title issues will have any impact on the negotiations for the parks or vice versa. Most importantly, vice versa. Also, whether the accommodations that the Chief Minister is making now in the courts, not on traditional owners, on traditional claimants – traditional claimants, not traditional owners - will create a precedent for native title issues in other areas of the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, disappointingly, the Chief Minister and the government are not interested in supporting this motion. However, that will not stop the opposition from continually raising it more and more to Territorians whilst it is an issue that is alive.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I actually have some sympathy for the Northern Territory government and the position that the find themselves in. The reason for this is that, to a degree - and we heard it from the Chief Minister’s lips here today - they have a gun pointing to their heads. This is the gun: ‘as a result of the Ward decision, 11 parks were subject to land rights claim’.
The Chief Minister is in this invidious situation where she has to find a way to be able to deal with the parks estate issue and, by her own admission, potentially lose access to 11 parks in the Northern Territory. The parks estate has been built up by repeated Northern Territory governments over a long period of time, and is one of the jewels of the crown of the world regarding what sits in that parks estates. Then you can add on the addition of Uluru Kata-Tjuta and Kakadu National Parks to sit there as the diamond in the crown of the whole parks estate. I understand that they are different systems of ownership and that one is managed by Parks Australia and the other park is managed by the Northern Territory government. However, the government is stuck in this dreadful situation where they have the potential of losing 11 of those parks.
There is already a gun pointing to the head of the Northern Territory government. It is important to go back in history a little and discover why this is. The reason is that, prior to self-government and because we are a territory, we have a system of land administration in the Northern Territory - which fully affects more than half of the Northern Territory now - which is beyond the control of the government. Issues that deal with this particular type of land management rests with the Federal Court and the federal government. Therefore, as a result of the Ward decision, when you find that original claims are upheld in their validity in being allowed to be lodged, this means that the government in the Northern Territory is in a very specific situation - unlike any other place, with the exception of the ACT – which is that we do not have administrative control of our lands.
In any other state, control of lands is an issue for the state government. They have control, through their various systems of title, over nearly 100% of their lands. There are small exceptions to that; there may be acquisitions by the Commonwealth government under certain circumstances. However, as we have seen recently in South Australia, those circumstances are very limited. The Northern Territory government is not in that situation.
The Labor government of the Northern Territory says it finds itself in a situation where they may lose 11 parks and those parks, if they are lost, will become freehold title. They will become someone’s personal property or, in this case, a trust property. When those parks are lost, the gates might literally close on those parks. That is the gun. Therefore, the Northern Territory government thinks to itself, quite justifiably so: ‘How are we going to set this aside? How are we going to avoid losing these parks in question?’ So, the government says to the land councils, the representative bodies of the traditional owners - nominally: ‘What can we do to fix the situation?’.
Bear in mind that, if you look at the CLC Annual Report this year, one of their performance measures and stated aims is to acquire as much land as they possibly can. That is one of the stated aims in the annual report. The CLC and the NLC think to themselves: ‘We are going to go after our mission statement, and that is to acquire land on behalf of our client base, which is Aboriginal people’. They then say to government: ‘Here is the deal: we will not go after those 11 claims, but there are certain assets in your parks estate to which we want access. In fact, we want to own them’.
Therefore, in accordance with the stated aims of the CLC and NLC to acquire land, the government thinks: ‘Here is an option. If we dress it up the right way, we can make sure that access to these parks is open and stays open. Here is the set of conditions under which we are prepared to negotiate. Rather than lose 11 parks, we will put up 49 parks for transfer of title’. The government assures Territorians that the transfer of title works by us giving title to those parks, but there will be certain caveats put on those parks. We will transfer title away from the Crown, the current owner, to land trusts and the parks estate form of title, and that will be a transfer of ownership.
That does carry with it certain implications, one of which is that, under the conditions proposed by the government, they can only exert their influence to a certain degree. One area in which they can exert their influence is the current access rights by tourist operators and the like are to be protected until those rights come up for renewal; then the owners of the land have the option of deciding who has access and whether or not they are going to renew. This is privately-owned land, so there may well be a commercial reason for allowing certain tourist operators into an area.
By transferring the ownership of the parks from the Crown to private hands, you are allowing greater authority of ownership rights to be exerted. Those ownership rights will be exerted. Why? If I was in that position, that is exactly what I would do. As a private owner of property, I would want to see how much I can extract out of anyone who wants to re-negotiate a right of access to my park. If someone wants to open up a business in my park, I am going to try to negotiate the best possible deal on behalf of the owners. That is a fiduciary obligation on the part of the land councils.
The land councils will be placed in enormously powerful positions. The traditional owners will be, too. What is happening is that, over time, we will see greater and greater ownership rights exerted over these parks. As the conditions that the Chief Minister has outlined change, those ownership rights will exert themselves more and more to the exclusion of other operators in the area. That will happen over time.
The other thing that will happen is that, as an owner, despite the fact that I have made an agreement with the government of the day that I promise to do this, this and this, I will constantly be looking for ways to exert my authority more and more. We see this reflected in places like Uluru Kata-Tjuta where there are increasing exertions by the owners, as is their right, to try to limit access in certain areas - access to the climb, where people go - and, before you know it, especially over a period of decades, access is becoming increasingly limited.
Part of the deal as described by the Chief Minister is that parts of existing land trusts are pulled into the parks estate; and that is good. However, as those pristine land trusts and areas have ownership already which is exclusive, that is now a choice of the owners. In principle, the owners of those land trusts have a choice as to whether or not people enter those parks. The government is saying that, as part of this deal, we have a concession being made to us. You can only make a concession if you are in a position to give it. That is exactly the position these owners are in. That position is going to apply to 49 parks, over time.
As part of the approach this government is using, they also saying: ‘We are negotiating this outcome and we are not going to require the claim of right to be tested. We are going to accept that the claim you are putting in our parks is legitimate and we are going to negotiate - so we are already removing the first hurdle, which is you asserting your claim. So we accept that your claim is legitimate and, as a consequence, we are going to enter into negotiations and come up with a deal’.
There is another issue. Because of the nature of this particular title, native title will not be extinguished. You are going to have two particular forms of title over different properties. You are going to have land rights for freehold title, and you are going to have native title sitting next to it. This presents the government with a huge complication, which was acknowledged in the estimates process. What happens when native title holders are trying to exert rights independently of the actual title holders of the land trust instruments? It becomes a very difficult situation, indeed. The subordination of native title on existing and ‘non-change of users’ systems such as pastoral leases, means that pastoralists can keep operating. However, I am not entirely convinced that that subordination occurs in this instance. Second, and more importantly, if it does not exist, that means you could find, very quickly, native title holders trying to exert some sort of right independently of the land trustees, and the beneficiaries of that land trust.
Consequently, you need to do something about the native title now. We are not going to extinguish it; so what are we going to do? According to the government, we are going to suppress it, presumably for the length for the lease. Therefore, part of the deal the native title holders have to agree to is that they are going to sign a document, an ILUA - indigenous land use agreement – that says their native title is now suppressed - it goes away - for the duration of the title of the lease. How long is that lease - 49, 99 years? Ninety-nine years. What happens as a matter of legacy in 99 years time? When the lease comes up, that native title suddenly resurrects itself. It has full validity. So long as there can be sufficient evidence to demonstrate the park claimants have continued to exercise those things which establish the existence of native title, then we are going to be setting up a future generation that has big problems.
This government talks about legacy and those sorts of things. Here is a very important legacy that they are setting up: when these leases expire or are up for renegotiation, this title is going to resurrect itself. When this title resurrects itself, people with a claim of right are going to want to exert that right. Therefore, this is the mental picture we have: we are going to have Aboriginal people in the courts fighting other Aboriginal people over the nature of the title of these parks. We talk about protecting the parks for time immemorial - negative. We are talking about protecting these parks for the terms of their leases. The legacy that we are going to develop is an acrimonious legacy, which is going to, ultimately, find its way back into the courts, in spite of the best effort of this government.
If you look at the Lhere Artepe approach in Alice Springs, the CLP had taken the position that negotiation is the preferred option in the first instance. However, when that fails and pressure builds, there is a place for acquisition. The Attorney-General has made this assertion himself recently in the Alice Springs News: if the system becomes too difficult and the problem with the associated bodies become too complex, then acquisition is something that we will have to look at. The Chief Minister herself says that, if we cannot nail this down properly within the terms of the legislation, then we will go down a litigious process. The government has been more patient than the former CLP has - at the expense of Territorians in my opinion; but that is their choice, they are the government. The government has been more patient with native title claimants and those people they acknowledge to have native title rights. However, at the end of the day, the government knows full well that its only option, if the system breaks down, is to have the matter heard by the courts. That only difference between the CLP and the ALP on this is where you intervene.
There are also two important questions that apply themselves to the parks estate and the arrangement that the government is engaging in. The first one is: how much is the asset worth? I would argue that it is priceless, but I am sure the Valuer-General would put a valuation on an asset like the Territory parks estate. However, we are talking about an asset that belongs to the Northern Territory government. How much is it worth? I would guess hundreds of millions of dollars. It is a very valuable asset, even in its dollar value. That is what the government is saying that we should transfer title of. I would be, and am, concerned as a person in the Northern Territory that, if the government of the day decides to give away an asset valued at hundreds of millions of dollars, it does so carefully. The Chief Minister assures us that she is doing so carefully. Okay, the jury is out; we will wait until December.
The second one and the one that I do not understand is: how much is the lease-back? All the government has to do is tell us how much we are paying for an asset we currently own. When I say ‘we’, I am talking about the Crown, the people of the Northern Territory. That is going to cost taxpayers; so where is that money going to come from? That is something that the government has ...
Ms Martin: Where is the money for your salary come from?
Mr ELFERINK: From the taxpayer. However, the point is …
Ms Martin: Oh, good point!
Mr ELFERINK: … I know what my salary is, Chief Minister. This is the important issue: I do not know what the lease-back value is. My salary is a matter of public information. Why is not the value of the lease a matter of public information? Why? Because I would suggest that the value of the lease is going to be not cheap, and it is going to cost the taxpayer quite a bit of money.
Ms Martin: Moratorium until 2010.
Mr ELFERINK: And after 2010? That is only six years time. What I am saying - five years, three months - that is nothing. After that, it is going to cost, and it is going to cost taxpayers. The only thing the moratorium achieves is that, in the life of your government, it is not something that you have to worry about in terms of budget implications. The problem is that this is typical of Labor spending: ‘We do not care if it does not cost us now, as long as somebody else pays the bill later’. That is another aspect of this that I am deeply concerned about.
Another issue is the CLC’s and the NLC’s representation as bodies. The Chief Minister is quite correct; you have to talk to the CLC and the NLC - the act requires it. However, there are issues that do concern me that may resurrect themselves as other problems inside these land councils, in litigation in the future. Those problems deal with, for argument’s sake, the fact that the right people are signing the ILUAs.
I will give you a classic example and I will put a name to it. Herman Malbunka is a traditional owner of the Watarrka National Park and did not get an opportunity to sign the ILUA. In fact, when I spoke to him a day before it was going to be signed, he was quite ignorant of the fact that some of his land, where he claims to have title interest, was going to be signed away by people who he says did not have title interest. I am not an anthropologist, but what I do know is that that sounds like the beginning of a legal battle at some point in the future. If, indeed, it is true that Watarrka does fall within his traditional country and he has missed out on an opportunity to sign that ILUA and he disagrees with the terms of the ILUA, then he has an equitable interest that has been ignored by the land councils. What reassurance can the Chief Minister give me and Territorians that the documents that are being signed by the land councils and the traditional owners are the right documents and are going to avoid litigation inside the CLC into the future? I would like to be reassured on behalf of Mr Malbunka, my constituent, that he is being properly looked after by his representative organisation.
There is nothing the government can do about this because, as I said at the outset, the Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act is beyond the reach of this government to influence. Therefore, this government is slightly seriously disempowered in native title and land rights. It does not have the ability to get itself involved at a level which any other state government could do. That is why this government had to go down the processes it has had to. It is the reason the former CLP governments chose to test the veracity of claims against the Crown land with some vigour.
Ms Martin: No, you did not.
Mr ELFERINK: You have just been telling us that we spent all this time in court. Well, what the hell do you think we are doing if we are in court? We are testing the veracity of claims.
Ms Martin: Not always. What do you think the railway corridor was? Larrakia land next to Darwin High - never tested their interest. What about Rosebery/Bellamack – never went to court.
Mr ELFERINK: Which only goes to prove the CLPs position, as I said at the outset: negotiate first, litigate second. The fact is that we showed a little less patience in the same position that you have; that is the only difference between the positions - the only difference. What you are trying to do is spin it and doctor it in all sorts of ways.
The problem in the Northern Territory - and this goes down to the very issue of our land management capacity here in the Northern Territory - is that we do not have the capacity to effectively govern the land inside the Northern Territory, and the legislation which governs land inside the Northern Territory. It is not this government’s fault; it is not the CLP’s fault; it is what rests in Canberra and what we have to work with. This government, as well as any future Northern Territory government - so long as we are, basically, not a state - is going to continue to struggle with the same issues.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I suppose what comes out of listening to the debate tonight is how complicated these issues are; they are not simple. They certainly arouse plenty of passion, and they are matters that need to be debated fully. I have on record that I support the government’s proposal in relation to how we develop these parks that were subject to either land claim or traditional ownership rights. I do not step aside from that, as I believe that is the way we should go.
I see the advantage in having a committee look at some of these issues, not necessarily to hold up the works or to create a political opportunity for some people. However, there are issues out there that relate to the philosophy of how we run parks. If you look at Australia in general, the parks were run by the Crown for all the people in their state or in Australia. We have moved away from that. I am not saying that is a bad thing. We have moved away where we have parks now which are leased from traditional owners and that is a new philosophy, you might say, in the management of parks in Australia.
I am not sure that we have always had an opportunity to debate that out in the open so much. It is a change that many non-Aboriginal people certainly would not have seen before, especially if they had come from southern states where I am not sure any parks down south are leased from Aboriginal traditional owners. All parks, as far as I can remember, were owned by the Crown and they managed those parks.
In the Territory, we have a different system. I do not think you have to be too old to understand the amount of controversy when Ayers Rock became an Aboriginal national park. There was a lot of controversy and, from memory, there was an election over it. It was certainly an issue that aroused a lot of passion in the community. We have since then had Kakadu National Park and, from the Territory’s point of view, Nitmiluk and Djukbinj which is on the eastern side of the Adelaide River. We have certainly moved from a lot of controversy about the way our parks were seen - that they were basically parks under Crown control – to parks now leased back from the traditional owners.
However, there are a couple of concerns arising from those changes. One is guaranteed access. I know the Chief Minister said there would be in debate earlier this year. The other is guaranteed free access - no fees to access those parks. People would appreciate if those issues were clearly agreed upon in the management plans so that the conditions under which they access those parks at present will not be changed under new arrangements.
I said in my statement that I have concerns about the land councils. I mentioned, from personal experience, concerns I have about the Northern Land Council. I have to admit that the land councils would not be regarded in the general community as open and transparent bodies. They are fairly difficult to access at times, even for people who are Aboriginal, unless you are part of the inner core. I know that people on the fringe find it difficult at times to get answers from them and, where there are disputes, it is not always easy to have their opinion conveyed as a legitimate one.
A select committee would provide an opportunity for people who have an alternative point of view. The member for Macdonnell mentioned the traditional owner for Arltunga who said he has not been consulted or represented in these discussions. A select committee would at least be allowed to investigate whether the processes we are putting in place have ensured that the traditional owners of these lands are the correct traditional owners, or at least question that by asking questions of the land councils. If these people come to us and claim to be a traditional owner, at least the committee could ask the land councils in an open forum. I know there are some matters regarding traditional ownership that should be dealt with in camera, but there are other matters that could be discussed in an open forum.
That would give the community a sense of security or a belief that, if we are going down this path or joint management and Aboriginal ownership of these parks, we have ensured that we have spoken to and reached agreement with the right people. Surely, that should be something over which we do not want to make a mistake. Once mistakes have been made about traditional owners, I can tell you from personal experience, it is extremely hard to reverse. I hope that those matters are clear and have been sorted out before any arrangements have been made.
I hope we can work through these issues. It is one issue concerning land rights that has caused much division in the community at times. There are certainly many accusations around election time about the race card, etcetera. I hope that we can genuinely work together to come up with a bipartisan proposal in relation to the management of these parks. We were given a difficult proposition on how to deal with the parks after the Ward decision, and we have to reach a way of managing those parks.
It would be legitimate enough to say that many people would like to know how much it will cost. I do not have a problem with that but, as part of the open and transparent processes, people would like to know how much it will cost because that money goes back to Aboriginal people to help them improve their livelihood in their communities. I do not have a problem. I would much rather see money go to them than a bunch of lawyers. I am not knocking lawyers because they have to feed their families, too. However, if we are going to spend money, I would rather see this money go back into helping Aboriginal people become more self-sufficient.
As I said, I see some advantages in the system we have. Probably the one park that convinced me was the Gregory National Park which, as you know, at the moment is split into a small narrow park and has a very large section further to the west. I believe the arrangement will be that that centre part will become part of the park. It will be interesting to know what access we have to that centre park. These things I would like to hear about in the debate.
I know the management plans are going to come back. I hope they do not come back as 38 management plans in one day, and be told that we have three days to look at them all. I hope this parliament has time to look at management plans …
Ms Martin: One by one, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. … because that is what I believe is very important. If we have concerns about the management plans, we really need to make sure, as parliamentarians, we read those management plans and discuss them with the public - whether it is the bushwalkers, the tourism industry, the fishing industry, whatever. I believe we have to make sure that these management plans are looked at by us and discussed with the public. I have a lot more faith if we have the ability to do that and come back to the parliament and say we do or we do not agree with these management plans, because we have the power to say we do not agree with them, as a parliament, and they may have to go back for renegotiation.
The select committee has some benefits. It may clear the air from the point of view of the public. I have spoken to people about the parks issue, and explained the difficulty that the government has. I see and tell them of the benefits for many of these Aboriginal communities. Most of these parks are remote. Not many of these parks are that close to major areas. These people in these areas do have limited opportunities to create some work and a certain amount of independence where they live. I believe it is important for those people. I have spoken to people about the issue such as we would gain some more land and, in many cases, Aboriginal people will have more work opportunities.
Yes, we will not have land controlled by the Crown; it will be a leasehold arrangement as we have in Nitmiluk, which I believe is 99 years. We have a similar agreement in Djukbinj, and I have not seen any particular problems, although one would have to say that there are a lot of concerns about Katherine Gorge National Park, when it was first mooted that it was going to be leased back from the Aboriginal traditional owners. Again, you do not have to be too old to remember signs up and down the main road to the national park protesting about the changeover. A lot of people felt some of those concerns.
I look back now – do we have a good situation, has anything changed, have we been disadvantaged? I do not think so. Perhaps in Uluru, there has certainly been a move to restrict a little more than people would like. Perhaps the member for Macdonnell has raised some legitimate issues about people having more control and, therefore, there is less access. How you handle that in these negotiations, I do not know. I am certainly not a lawyer who has land experience. However, he did raise an issue which at least was a reasonable issue.
It is a complicated issue, an emotional issue, but it is an issue, I believe, as mature Territorians and mature parliamentarians, we have to deal with head-on. We have to make sure everybody has a fair go and a fair say and, in the end, we hope we come up with a solution to this matter which will be for the benefit of everybody. Also, we must not forget, a benefit for the environment, because national parks, generally speaking, are places to preserve the environment.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the motion. I also support the model the government is putting forward. However, we need to make sure the processes are fair, and the best way to do that is through a select committee talking to the public.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank contributors to this debate: the members for Brennan, Macdonnell and Nelson. I acknowledge the Chief Minister’s contribution and the proposition that we place before this Chamber; that is; to debate issues of primary concern to the Territory both now and into the future - the issue of leaving a legacy. I am loathe, in time to come, to reflect back on a decision that has been made in this Chamber that I had an opportunity to contribute to, and allowed the opportunity to pass.
I must say that what we have proposed is a mechanism whereby the whole community can be taken forward on this matter. We, largely I believe, are at a crossroads, and our whole community needs to be brought to this new place. We are all Territorians, indigenous or not; those who have come recently and those who have been here for generation upon generation. We are faced with the most difficult of conundrums that is tied up to the most emotive of issues; that is, the ownership of land. Even the concept of ownership is a difficult one. What frightens me more than anything is the Chief Minister’s own words, which I find rather embarrassing. If you reach out and touch the argument or touch that precious position that the Chief Minister is holding onto, she will barb up and attack the person who dares to criticise …
Ms Martin: Just your lies, Terry, that is all!
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! The Chief Minister well knows that if she wants to accuse the Leader of the Opposition of being a liar she can do so by substantive motion, otherwise she should not use the unparliamentary language.
Dr Lim: And she should withdraw.
Ms MARTIN: I withdraw, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker.
Mr MILLS: I will continue on and will not be drawn into such a low level of activity. The higher issue here is that we, as a whole community, need to be taken forward. That is why we propose a means whereby the wider community can be taken to a new place.
A lot of this is fuelled, in fact, by approaches I have had from traditional owners. I am sure that the Chief Minister would wish to spin the position that we take in ways that suit her political agenda. However, there are very deep and serious issues here that I am sure, with the approach the Chief Minister is taking, she would not have the capacity to hear or understand or have sensitivity to. There are a range of traditional owners who have made an approach to me as I have travelled around the Territory, that have really staggered me. I have learnt a lot. There are many people out there - indigenous and non-indigenous - who are unsure and, even worse than that, very afraid of the process that has been put in place and where it is actually going to take us.
For that reason, I am concerned that the government, with its superior numbers and inferior attitude in regards to this debate, can so easily wipe this off. I am very concerned with the capacity of this government to spin and to run this argument in a way that creates the impression of consultation. I am afraid that the approach of this government and this Chief Minister, and the attitude she brings to bear on this matter, has brought the very concept of consultation into disrepute.
To actually create a solution to a problem, and then decide upon that and go out and, basically, sell it with the vast resources you have up there on the fifth floor and other places that you have resources centred - to spin and run your line is the greatest concern. I am more and more being put into the position where I believe I will be standing up for Territorians right across the Territory - and that includes traditional owners who have expressed their grave concerns about this very process.
For that matter, I urge members opposite who can hear and understand what I am saying - and there are some who would - that we are faced with a most difficult of issues. If this Chief Minister can attach herself to a process that is called consultation - when this community discovers what is being done and an opportunity has been missed of a significant magnitude, this will be a moment that the Territory will live to regret.
I urge members opposite to support this motion so that we have the capacity to take our entire community forward and, in the interest of all Territorians - I say that deliberately; all Territorians - that we will be able to come to a place where we will be able to walk confidently - 99 years plus into the future - with some certainly. We are not just talking about guaranteed access and political point scoring; we are talking about a responsible approach to the most difficult of issues. I am urging members opposite to support our motion.
Motion negatived.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move –
I am aware of the volume of business we have on the Notice Paper this evening. I and the opposition will endeavour to keep this matter as brief as we possibly can. Nevertheless, it needs to have some debate.
The thrust of this motion is, basically, to find out how much the taxpayers of the Northern Territory have had to pay for the government’s approach to pool fencing legislation in the Northern Territory. We already have had evidence tonight on repeated occasions that, when we try to extract from government the costs of things, the government becomes very evasive indeed. I am curious to see whether they are going to be honest about the amount that this has cost Territorians today.
I am aware of the amount that is outlined in Budget Paper No 3, but those are merely speculative amounts. There is another element in this matter, the area that paragraph (c) of this motion is interested in, which I wish to dwell on the longest.
However, paragraph (a) of this motion wants a reference to the Public Accounts Committee for investigation and report into the amount of the original pool fencing scheme prior to the original major amendments. That is the cost to Territorians applying or getting pool inspectors or pool police employed, and getting the whole structure put into place which was done very hastily and very quickly without a great deal of thought as to the consequences of how the system was going to work.
Secondly, paragraph (b) requires a referral to the Public Accounts Committee for investigation and report into the cost of the Northern Territory Pool Fencing Scheme after its major amendment. We have an initial scheme which we want the Public Accounts Committee to have a reference to look into. Then there is the cost of the scheme afterwards in terms of how much the changes have cost in the added bonuses for people who suffered under the original scheme; for the extra payments that have been made to people; and the provisions of other services surrounding the provision of the new system, including education programs and those sorts of things. It is a fair request as a matter of the public account as to how much they cost.
Also, in paragraph (c) is where I will pause for the longest amount of time: because of all advertising and promotions scheme, the cost incurred by Territorians who attempted to comply with the scheme which have not been recoverable under compensations packages because of the criteria applied by government.
The problem with much of the cost is the hidden cost that has been inflicted on Territorians. This was the great complaint of Mr Loadman, who felt that he should have been allowed much greater powers to appeal the process in relation to pool fencing schemes, and clearly was dissatisfied. He took the extraordinary steps of writing to all members of parliament about the shortcomings of the appeals process. Costs have been incurred by people who prepared themselves to comply with legislation that subsequently changed or, for whatever reason, purchased fencing and material in an effort to comply with the legislation. The government will restore funding under certain criteria, but there are many people falling through the net. I hear repeatedly around the traps that many people feel hard done by.
The appeals process under the legislation is nothing shy of useless because it does not go beyond government; it does not have any body or authority overseeing issues in relation to providing compensation for people. Therefore, if the government says, ‘No, forget it’, that is it, end of story. It is worthwhile doing an investigation and calling for submissions, as the Public Accounts Committee is capable of doing, and visiting various towns to determine how many people had to buy all sorts of material to comply with the legislation. If they had chosen not to comply, it would not have cost them a brass razoo in the end because their pool, under the new pool fencing scheme, would have easily complied with the much lower standard that was applied by government.
A lot of these people will not be able to satisfy any of the criteria the government introduced, and will be out of pocket. This is effectively a form of indirect tax. Because the government has set minimum standards, Territorians have gone out and spent money to comply. The standards were then removed. That expenditure must be accountable. This parliament should be able to determine from Territorians how much indirect tax they paid and how much they suffered under this legislation.
I am not belittling the importance of child safety or pool fencing. What I am doing is asking the question the government does not want to answer: what are you going to do for those Territorians who fall outside the criteria? The short answer is: nothing. If the government refuses to refer this to the Public Accounts Committee, the short answer will continue to be: nothing, and they do not want to know.
I want to know. As I said in the long debate on reviewing this legislation, these people have a right to compensation from this Labor government for being forced into a situation on which this government changed its mind. You can almost admire a government for saying: ‘Right, we are going to take a really hard decision and stick to it’, because that has a certain amount of credibility attached to it. However, this government did not do that. This government realised that there was a lot of heat in this for them, so they stepped away from it. People who are generally law abiding tried very hard to try to meet the standards set by government, and those people are going to miss out. That is sad because we are never going to know, unless the government supports this motion, how much that is worth to Territorians - how much Territorians have been slugged as a result of this government’s mismanagement of this issue.
I would like to know if the government is - in the interest of being open, honest and accountable, which they said they would be - going to find out from Territorians exactly how much they had to pay to meet their failed attempt to impose this legislation on people.
I urge honourable members to turn a benevolent eye upon this motion. I urge the government to send this to a Public Accounts Committee so they can examine what they have wrought on the community of the Northern Territory, so that they might try and find a way to settle this issue which still has a lot of people feeling very unsettled. I urge government to support this motion, give the reference to the Public Accounts Committee, and let us find exactly how much this has cost Territorians, both directly and indirectly.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the government will not be supporting this motion. Might I add, if the member for Macdonnell has concerns, then he has available to him the opportunity to contact my office and to pass on details of people out there who have all these concerns that he says they have, so that I can then forward them to the Swimming Pool Safety Section and have those concerns looked at so that we can make people more comfortable in informing them how the legislation applies and what the processes are.
The administration of the earlier Swimming Pool Fencing Act and the current Swimming Pool Safety Act have already been subjected to scrutiny by this House in a review conducted by my department through two Estimates Committees. As always, information will be available in the department’s annual report. The estimates process, just a few months ago, provided the opportunity for members to examine in detail the costs, and to inquire into any matter relating to the administration that gave them concern. There is nothing to hide, and nothing that has been hidden in the way that this legislation has been administered. I must say that, after six months of the new act, we have achieved a considerable amount and the act is functioning very well.
The government believes that it is important to encourage pool owners to comply with the appropriate standards. The new grants scheme provides pool owners with a significant incentive to ensure their pool complies with the new legislation sooner rather than later. The Northern Territory is the only jurisdiction which provides pool owners with an incentive to upgrade their pools. The government believes that the new grants scheme is the best method to maximise compliance by pool owners with the standards as quickly as possible. Pool owners who have already done the right thing and upgraded their pool will be eligible for the grants scheme upon application. The ongoing education and awareness campaign will encourage people to upgrade their pool to the appropriate standard, and that they maintain compliance.
I receive weekly updates from the Water Safety Branch on progress, and I am more than happy to share this information with this House. A total of 6599 applications for compliance certificates were received under the previous Swimming Pool Fencing Act 2002 between 1 January 2003 and 15 March 2004 when the new Swimming Pool Safety Act came into effect. Since 15 March 2004, there have been a further 1259 applications made for either the new community safety standard or the modified Australian Standard.
Since 1 January 2003, when the original act was introduced, there has been a total of 7646 pools inspected. As of today, there are just 182 inspections outstanding. Since 15 March 2004, when the new legislation came into effect, 919 certificates have been issued for pools that meet the modified Australian Standards. Provisional compliance certificates have been issued in 110 cases. These occur where a purchaser agrees to take on the responsibility of upgrading and enclosing within an agreed time following a sale. A further 302 interim compliance certificates have been issued to property owners who intend to install a new swimming pool. There have been 174 community safety standard acknowledgement notices issued where occupiers have certified their own pools. A further 51 provisional notices have been issued to allow purchasers to take on the responsibility of certification, and 65 temporary notices to allow property transfers in circumstances such as deceased estates or divorces.
There were 1467 grants to a total value of $1 053 285 processed until 15 March 2004. These grants have been made to pool owners, who have been provided with financial assistance to make their pool safer under the Swimming Pool Fencing Act 2002, between 1 January 2003 and 15 March 2004. Since 15 March 2004, there have been 1451 pool owners provided with financial assistance to make their pool safer. These two figures provide a clear indication that the new legislation is working as intended. Almost the same number of people have upgraded their pool fences in the period since 15 March 2004, as occurred in the previous 15 months. The total value of all grants processed since 15 March 2004, including top-up to existing grants, is $1 884 358.
Whilst the member for Macdonnell would have you believe that I am the pool god of the Northern Territory, and that the legislation was designed particularly to make the government not responsible, the statistics speak for themselves. In short, there are 5277 swimming pools that now provide a higher standard of safety for children than they did less than two years ago. Compare that, if you will, with the situation that the opposition presided over when it had the responsibilities. The Northern Territory had the worst drowning in private swimming pools statistics in the southern hemisphere - not Australia, the southern hemisphere. Children under five living in the northern suburbs of Darwin were 30 times more likely to drown in a backyard swimming pool than die from meningococcal.
The Swimming Pool Safety Act is meeting its objectives, and the support of the community for the legislation is clear. On that note, I would like to thank the commercial television and radio stations in the Northern Territory for the number of free advertisements provided by them to promote our water safety awareness program; in particular, the high number of free advertisements provided by Channel 7 during the Olympic Games. It is unfortunate the opposition does not show the same level of community support.
It is not necessary to refer this matter to the Public Accounts Committee. To repeat: the administration of the earlier Swimming Pool Fencing Act and the current Swimming Pool Safety Act have already been subjected to scrutiny by this House in a review conducted by my department and through two Estimates Committees. As always, information will be available in the department’s annual report and there will be another opportunity to scrutinise the scheme as part of the Estimates Committee process this government introduced.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, predictably the minister has said: ‘No, I am not going to do it, I do not want to have a look at this’. He tells us what the cost to government is, but that is not what this motion seeks to achieve. What I want to know is the cost to Territorians, and that is two completely different figures, because the government is not going to pay for many Territorians’ decisions to try and comply with the earlier legislation.
If this legislation was so good, why has the minister absolved himself - and included all his department - from criminal and civil liability? The fact is that the government does not want the Public Accounts Committee to look at these issues. The government does not want the real cost to Territorians to become public knowledge. To say that he has supported swimming pools by spending somewhat over $1m in various grants - fine. However, the thrust of this particular motion is to find the real cost to Territorians, those costs that Territorians have incurred and not been compensated, not have any appeals process put in place where they can seek compensation, and not have any single liability or criminal liability rest on the minister’s head.
The minister has absolved himself from any sort of public inquiry. He says this House has the ability to review this. No. This House had ability to look at the departmental review, by his own words. That is not what I want, and that is not what Territorians want. What I would like to know and what should be known is exactly what - without the departmental filter and the minister’s filter - the cost of this legislation has been to Territorians. That is what this is trying to achieve.
The minister has simply sidestepped by saying: ‘Oh well, we are giving money away to those people who comply with our criteria’. That is good. However, there are all those swimming pools that fall outside the criteria for compensation. The minister has also not spoken about other areas where costs have been incurred by Territorians: those people who have not been able to arrange finance and transfer properties; and the cost of excessive monies due to bridging loans because properties could not be transferred. None of that is compensatable. The cost of those materials purchased prior to the change of legislation is not compensatable because the government decides it is not testable. I think it is testable.
What I am asking the Public Accounts Committee to do is to look at all of these aspects that the government has refused to turn its attention to, and has refused to allow the public have look at, or for the public to get any air to make their grievances known. To swan in here and say: ‘You can contact my office any time’ - people do not want to do that because they do not trust this government and this minister. They would, however, trust a parliamentary committee which is independent of government. But this government is not interested in relation to parliamentary committees and being open, honest and accountable which they promised Territorians. What they are interested in is covering their backsides.
Motion negatived.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Acting Madam Deputy Speaker, I move:
All of us value the environment - particularly here in the Northern Territory where we live - which is recognised worldwide as being one which is almost pristine. From our environment we gain the advantages of good health and spiritual wellbeing from the beauty of it and the places that we can go to which are isolated. We gain from the economics aspects of our environment. Many people in our community have been able to capitalise well on this with regards to fishing and tourism. Of course, one of the most important aspects of the environment for all of us is the fact that it is a legacy which we leave to the children of the Northern Territory, and something that we should take very good care and be very mindful of.
Events in recent times have turned our attention particularly to the issue of the disposal of potentially harmful waste. These issues have included where the Commonwealth, states and territories will store their medium- and low-level radioactive waste. All members would be aware of the situation which has seen the federal government make a decision now that, rather than having one place for storage of radioactive waste material in Australia, all states and territories must now be responsible for storage of their own waste. That is something that we need to be across in the Territory, and we need to plan for the future.
Another issue has been what the impact of a national centre of excellence in pandemic and bio-terrorism containment will mean for the Territory, and Darwin in particular. This has been a Labor promise and there have been details in the NT News on this matter.
These are important issues, and the CLP opposition believes that, as a parliament, we should refer them to the Sessional Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. This is a committee that has the resources to be able to inquire, in a non-partisan way, into these important matters.
With regard to part (a) of the motion, which deals with the disposal of biological material, the Labor promise to set up a research centre in Darwin poses concerns. I am now going to read most of the article on the matter from the NT News of 22 September 2004. Members will see, once I have tabled this, that the candidate for Solomon, Jim Davidson, stands behind and is supportive of Kim Carr, who is a federal member of parliament. I quote:
I will finish my quote there. That article raises a number of serious concerns, including the fact that a centre like this is going to have to have on site a number of serious infections in the media that they use for research. They are listed in the article - SARS, dengue fever, avian flu, anthrax and smallpox - as examples of the type of contaminants that will be housed in the northern suburbs.
There are no details as to how the research will be done; whether there will be lab animals that will be infected in the course of research. The fact that the federal member has to even raise those issues - that we need not worry; that there will be protection from terrorist attacks; and the need to shield nearby residents from possible disease outbreaks – in this article should send shivers down the spines of people living in the northern suburbs. I personally cannot think of anywhere more unsuited for such a place to be located. Of course, the local members who are situated in the northern suburbs, because they are all Labor members, have kept very quiet.
I am quite sure that, if it had been a CLP or Liberal government which had proposed such a place to be established in the northern suburbs of Darwin in the next few years, there would have been an absolute outcry from the surrounding local members. However, at this point, as the member for Greatorex says, they have been mum! Shame on them for being mum, because this is not a responsible promise that is being made, and it is going to raise issues of how the biological waste products from an agency like this are going to be dealt with when the time comes. These are the sort of things that the sessional committee could be looking at.
With regards to item (b), the storage of body parts, I discussed this matter with departmental staff during the briefing, for which I would like to thank the minister for providing. In the not-too-distant future, all Northern Territory body parts and human tissue, such as aborted foetuses and amputated limbs, will be frozen and sent to Adelaide for high temperature incinerator disposal. Personally, I do not have a problem with this. However, there may be Territorians who, for cultural or spiritual reasons, are uncomfortable with this. Such consideration should not be taken lightly and, by referring this matter to the Sessional Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, we would provide an opportunity for individuals and community groups to express their views on this delicate matter if they so choose.
With regard to item (c), radioactive material, we are all aware of the recent decision by the Prime Minister not to build a national repository for low- to medium-level radioactive waste and, instead, due to the refusal of all states and territories to host one, each state and territory must now store their own radioactive material. The question is: where will the Territory store ours? This is a question which the sessional committee should decide. They would have the power to ascertain the current and future demands for such storage. They could be given such resources to inquire into where the best place for such a storage area in the Northern Territory would be. I know that, at the moment, one such storage place is right in the heart of Royal Darwin Hospital. Currently, there is a concrete bunker at the hospital in which sits a safe. Inside the safe are items contaminated by radioactive matter, which will remain radioactive for up to 50 more years.
We have to ask ourselves: is it appropriate to store nuclear radioactive waste at Royal Darwin Hospital year after year? I do not know the answer to this; I am not an expert in the field. This is why sending such concerns to the sessional committee is a good idea. What other radioactive waste is there in the Territory? Is it being stored properly? Is it being transported through the Territory? Are there risks? Is it safe? These are important questions which could be answered by an inquiry of the committee. Because we are now at a situation where the Territory has learnt that we will have to store our own waste, and that is why we need to make very careful decisions about this important matter.
With regard to item (d), chemical products, modern life sees the domestic, commercial and industrial areas of our community using vast quantities of chemicals. Many of these chemicals can be detrimental to the environment unless they are disposed of properly. One example is oil. I wonder how well we are coping with the collection of waste oil and its disposal. Are businesses, such as car service places, storing the waste oil and having it taken away for recycling? How well are they doing? Are they doing the right thing? Is it time for a review of this, given the significant increase in the population of the Top End during the past 20 years? This is the sort of thing the committee could consider.
What about the disposal of a particularly dangerous chemicals? Members will recall the unfortunate spill of cyanide on the Tanami Road recently. It was sad to see all the dead birds at the spill. Perhaps they thought it was water and flew in for a drink. It was a very sad photo to see in the paper. What happens with the disposal of these sorts of chemical in the Territory? Questions such as these are being asked all around Australia at the moment. Here in the Territory we have the added concerns of the imminent establishment by Labor of a centre for pandemic and bio-terrorism containment in our northern suburbs - if Labor should win the election on Saturday. These are important matters, and I urge Territory parliamentarians to support this motion so that these matters can be inquired into and we can be informed as to what is happening and what should be done to keep the Territory safe and beautiful.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Environment and Heritage): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to say first that government is opposing this motion. However, before I go through the opposition spokesperson’s motion, I want to clear up what she was saying about the bio-terrorism unit, which is logistically responding to an outbreak. Let us make it clear that no viruses such as SARS and the avian bird flu will be stored or researched anywhere in Darwin. The Howard government is already researching these viruses through its bio-security CRC. This CRC is based at Queensland University and has sites in Geelong, Sydney and Perth. Again, what it is showing is ill-informed scaremongering, and further proof that they will say anything to try and distract from their appalling stance on nuclear waste.
The fact is that it is an ill-conceived, sloppily put together motion. How sloppy? Well, they have asked us to launch an inquiry into disposal of all biological wastes. All biological wastes? What is that - grass clippings, orange peelings? - you name it. However, more on that later. This is a motion put forward by an opposition that would do anything to throw up a smokescreen to hide the fact that the CLP’s federal member for Solomon wants a nuclear waste dump for the Northern Territory. This is a motion that the CLP is trying to use to justify its opposition to our Nuclear Waste Bill.
This is a bill that bans nuclear waste in the Northern Territory, and all the CLP is speak out against it. You have to ask why. It is a simple test: either the opposition wants a nuclear waste dump or they do not. Before he saw the legislation, the Leader of the Opposition called it a political stunt. However, in recent days, he has decided that the threat is so great that the legislation needs to be strengthened. He has realised just how dangerous the member for Solomon’s obligation comments have been. The Leader of the Opposition has not told us how he would strengthen it. If he has inside word for his Liberal colleagues, then he should tell us how they are planning to get around this legislation, and let us know immediately. Help us protect the Territory from the member for Solomon’s obligations, and protect us from the nation’s nuclear waste.
This motion is a distraction designed to divert attention away from the Howard government, which is doing and saying anything on nuclear waste to try and get re-elected. No amount of backsliding on the part of the member for Solomon can hide the fact that, as late as July of this year, Dave Tollner said and I quote:
And:
They are direct quotes from the member for Solomon.
It was immediately after these comments that the Howard government abandoned its plans to build a site in South Australian. As I said, Dave Tollner must be a very proud man in South Australia - and popular. No amount of backsliding will cover up the fact that the member for Solomon gave the green light for John Howard to dump on the Territory. Now he can seek to twist and turn all he likes, but the fact remains Dave Tollner thinks it is the Territory’s obligation to host John Howard’s nuclear waste.
This government takes the contrary view. If the CLP was serious about waste issues, they would have stood side-by-side with Labor and said no to John Howard’s plans. The opposition, on one hand, says that the bill is not necessary, the Coalition government has ruled out the Territory and, on the other hand, says that it must be strengthened.
However, how can we trust them? Just look at their form. As recently as June this year, the dump was absolutely going to be in South Australia according to Peter McGauran, the federal Science Minister. However, in July of this year, according to the Prime Minister, it was absolutely not going to be in South Australia but could be anywhere else on Commonwealth land. By September, it was not going to be anywhere on the mainland; it would be offshore, according to the federal environment minister. However, still the minister refused to rule out the Northern Territory islands. All this has led me to wonder whether Antarctica would be next on the list of John Howard’s hit list. But Dave Tollner was already one step ahead of us. On 29 July this year, the Sydney Morning Herald quoted the member for Solomon saying John Howard had not ruled out anywhere, including the Antarctica.
What of Mr Campbell, the federal environment minister? Surely we can trust him when he says: ‘No need to worry, the dump will be on an island somewhere’. What kind of island would they be looking at? One off the coast of New South Wales, one in the Barrier Reef? I do not think so. What kind of island will they pick? A remote one and a scarcely populated one? The Territory islands stand out.
What we have here is the bizarre logic of the CLP falsely asserting that we cannot handle our own waste but, at the same time, refusing to join the fight against bringing masses of nuclear waste here. What we get from the opposition is a hastily put together, poorly drafted motion to try to hide from the real issue. This motion is so vague and open-ended in its term of reference as to be completely impractical. As I mentioned, the opposition wants the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee to report on all biological material stored and disposed of by Territory government institutions. Let us just see where this would take the committee.
The term ‘all biological material’ could mean anything from kitchen scraps to garden cuttings to influenza vaccines. Does the opposition seriously think that it is a matter of public importance for this Assembly to be investigating how many chicken bones our public servants throw out after lunch? I think not. I do not believe that even the opposition are that silly. However, it is what their motion suggests, and it is just proof of how little thought and effort they have put into this. It is proof that they hurriedly put this together to try to hide from their appalling stance on the nuclear waste dumps.
Ms Carter: No, ask them about this one.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I listened to you, now you listen to me.
Dr Lim: Well, you are reading it out. Why don’t you just give us a copy and be done with it?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Why don’t you stop bleating?
Dr Lim: Give us a copy and we can read it ourselves.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Greatorex.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: The silliness of this motion runs even deeper. The referral to the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee contained in this motion lacks any purpose other than to report on storage and disposal. The practical benefits of any such inquiry are, therefore, completely obscure. Report on what? Is the committee to determine how much waste is generated by government institutions; how and where it is stored; the method by which it is disposed of; or where it goes? A little clarity here would go along way.
If the opposition exercised their minds a little more and took a little more care when they drafted this motion, it may make a little more sense. Even if we put the sloppiness in the drafting of this motion aside, there is no real issue or problems identified by the opposition that would warrant support of this motion. Where is the environmental catastrophe looming on our doorstep because of the waste produced by government agencies? There are at least eight acts placing controls of storage and disposal of the waste identified in this motion. I will just list them here for the benefit of the opposition: there is the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act, the Water Act, the Public Health Act, the Mining Management Act, the Radioactive Ores and Concentrates (Packaging and Transport Act, the Radiation (Safety Control) Act soon to be replaced by the Radiation Protection Act, the Dangerous Goods Act and the Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act.
Government subjects its own agencies to the controls contained in these acts, just like any private company. If the opposition felt so strongly on waste produced by government agencies, why was the incinerator at the Royal Darwin Hospital not referred to the Environment Committee of this Assembly when the CLP was in government? It is not as if the Environment Committee was overloaded with work. It dealt with three issues in all the years of the CLP government. Why did not the member for Greatorex, who lauds his achievement as chairman of this committee, find time to investigate this issue?
The incinerator at the Royal Darwin Hospital was a risk to the environment, and your government knew this but did nothing. It took the Martin Labor government to commit $1.6m to replace the ageing incinerator with the state-of-the-art autoclave which sterilises the waste by using high temperature steam, and then shreds it to ensure its complete safety. It is then removed to the Darwin City Council’s Shoal Bay waste disposal site. The incinerator will now be removed for a low-load boiler that will supply the clinical areas with steam.
For many years, the diesel-fuelled incinerator was fired up on a daily basis to destroy medical and related waste. Not any more. The incinerator was used for the very last time a fortnight ago. No longer will a fire be deliberately lit within the confines of the main ward block at RDH in equipment that was subject to opening and closing many times each day. As a result of the efforts of this government, the risk and safety profile of RDH will be greatly improved. No longer will toxic gases be emitted to the atmosphere around the hospital campus and surrounding suburbs because of an ageing, shoddy incinerator. In comparison with the incinerator, the emissions from the small diesel boiler will be very small. The low-load boiler will also allow a large boiler in the services building to be shut down each night, resulting in some cost savings, less pollution and more efficient use of hospital resources because less time will be spent on larger machinery maintenance programs.
We have shut the incinerator down, but the opposition still does not get it. We have the opposition and the member for Solomon publicly spruiking this notion that radioactive waste is being incinerated. Where do they get their information – from reports commissioned when they were in government? As recently as 29 July this year, the Leader of the Opposition said on radio:
Wrong! Your shoddy incinerator has now been decommissioned by this government and, while such practices may have occurred under your watch, it is not happening under ours.
The Territory produces a very small quantity of short-lived, low-level waste from the privately-run nuclear medicine facility at Royal Darwin Hospital. This waste is placed in a secure storeroom for several days, where the radiation levels decay to normal backgrounds levels. It is, therefore, considered to be no longer radioactive and is disposed of safely with other clinical waste from Royal Darwin Hospital. No other health facility in the Northern Territory produces radioactive wastes from medicines. Therefore, categorically, no radioactive waste is incinerated.
It is one thing to be living in the past but at least get your facts right. The opposition clearly has a mindset here. They cannot get beyond their own dodgy practices when they were in government. They cannot conceive that a government may actually care about people’s health and the environment and choose to do something about it.
In proposing this motion, the opposition is obviously ignorant of information that is already in the public domain and which, with little effort, they could obtain for themselves. They have also listed chemical waste in this motion. Again, which of the myriad of chemical substances to which they refer, I am not sure. Nevertheless, information on chemical waste disposed of into the environment is already publicly available if the opposition cared to look. The Territory participates in the National Pollutant Inventory, a national program that all states and territories implement. The inventory requires major waste generators to report on their emissions to land, water and air. This information is made available each year on the Internet.
Territory government agencies emitting waste to the environment make their reports to this program just like any private business. The Martin Labor government has made reporting to the National Pollutant Inventory mandatory. It is a legal requirement with penalties for failure to comply. What was the CLP’s approach? Voluntary reporting. You could report if you wanted to, but, hey, no worries if you do not.
If this lazy opposition bothered to log on to the web site, they would see the reports on emission from Royal Darwin Hospital and Power and Water Corporation. Indeed, if the opposition cared to look at reports for the previous years, they would see that the CLP’s dodgy incinerator at Royal Darwin Hospital emitted into the environment, among other pollutants, mercury, lead, carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide - waste which will not pollute our environment under this government.
I have listed the legislation dealing with waste. However, since this motion is really to divert attention from John Howard’s plans for a waste dump, I will reiterate that the Territory has a very comprehensive range of acts that deal with radioactive materials from the mining industry, and our own very small quantities of low-level radioactive waste for non-mining activities. All aspects of mining, including processing of ores, containment, storage and disposal of products and waste materials within a mine site, are controlled through the Mining Management Act. Mining management plans required under this act address the engineering, environmental health and safety aspects of a mining project. The mining management plan provides for the management of any radioactive substances that are subject of, or part of, a mining process. Mining management plans establish the standards for reporting the performance of a mine. They are reviewed, updated and audited on a routine basis.
As members well know, the Ranger uranium mine in Kakadu is the only facility currently operating in the Northern Territory that deals with radioactive materials within the terms of the Mining Management Act. Any waste generated through the mining process, including material that is radioactive, is disposed of on the mine site. Northern Territory WorkSafe regulate the transport and storage of the radioactive products from the Ranger mine, through the controls established in the Radioactive Ores and Concentrates (Packaging and Transport) Act. In order to ensure the necessary standards are maintained, the transport company involved in the transport process have thorough risk assessments and safety procedures in place. Northern Territory WorkSafe undertake safety management inspections. It has implemented safety induction training for employees on the safe handling of uranium, including the use of appropriate personal protective equipment through to implementation of the company’s emergency procedures. As well as the general safe packaging and transport of the materials, NT WorkSafe also issues manager’s occupational licences for these purposes under the same act.
Where deficiencies in legislative controls have been identified, it has been this government that has fixed them, through the new Radiation Protection Act. The current Radiation (Safety Control) Act sat on the books since self-government in 1978. Within three years of coming to government, Labor has completely overhauled these controls, introducing new legislation which reflects modern best practice.
This government has always accepted the need to properly manage our own small quantities of low-level radioactive waste, but we do not accept John Howard’s plans to dump his nuclear waste on the Territory. That is why we are also about to …
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move so much of standing orders be suspended as to allow the minister to conclude her important informative remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: That is why we are also about to have an act that prevents us from having to deal with the nuclear waste of the rest of the nation. In line with this approach, government has had a systematic look at the storage of radioactive materials in the Territory, and we will continue to do so. I can tell you that, unlike the ill-informed scaremongering from the opposition and the member for Solomon, our examination of existing practices indicate that radioactive substances are well managed.
If the opposition have any doubts about this they should go and talk to their federal colleague, Senator Scullion. Last week, at a forum to discuss environmental issues in the lead-up to the federal election, Senator Scullion stated he had been fully briefed, had personally inspected the small amount of radioactive waste stored in the Territory, and he was satisfied that it was safe and well managed. ‘State of the art’, I am told was the term he used.
Current controls require all organisations which use, possess, sell, manufacture, handle, purchase, or dispose of radioactive substances and irradiating apparatus to be licensed. Licences are issued on an annual basis. Non-mining radioactive substances in the Territory are enclosed within scientific equipment. A range of industrial machines utilise radiation sources for purposes such as assessing bores, measuring the density of materials, and even some industrial smoke detectors. These instruments are disposed of overseas by manufacturers, and are no longer accepted by the two licensed secure store facilities in the Territory. Under current legislation, a total of 204 licences were issued during the period of July 2003 to September 2004. This includes both radioactive substances and the apparatus such as the X-ray units that can omit radiation under controlled circumstances, but which are not radioactive substances in themselves.
Of the 61 licensees based in the Northern Territory, the majority are held by the private sector. Thirty-two of the private sector licences relate to the licensing of employees for the handling and use of radioactive substances. Operators of industrial X-ray units are also licensed in this category. The remaining 23 private sector licences are issued to corporate entities. These organisations are responsible for ensuring that all their employees meet the required conditions of the act and regulations. Six licences have been issued to the Northern Territory government departments for utilisation of density gauges, soil moisture gauges and one medical isotope. Specifically, the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development holds three licences; the Department of Health and Community Services holds two; and one is held by the Department of Employment, Education and Training. Only two of the 204 licences issued in the Northern Territory under current controls relate to radioactive waste. One of these is the secure storage facility at RDH; the other is a store utilised and maintained by the Department of Business, Industry and Resource and Development as storage for 15 industrial gauges containing a closed radioactive material. This system of licensing provides control of information about the nature, distribution and management of radioactive materials, including radioactive waste, in the Northern Territory. With the commencement of the Radiation Protection Act, these controls will be strengthened further.
The scaremongering by the opposition is all the more regrettable, given that the Department of Health recently provided the members for Port Darwin and Greatorex a briefing on waste issues for the health sector. The opposition already knows that the NT produces a very small quantity of short-lived low-level waste from nuclear medicine, and that radioactive waste is not incinerated. The opposition already knows that the Northern Territory has the lowest volume of low-level radioactive waste in Australia - about two cubic metres - which is safely and securely stored at Royal Darwin Hospital.
The opposition also knows that general clinical waste from Top End hospitals and a range of private clinical providers is treated at Royal Darwin Hospital in an autoclave unit. Any waste that cannot be autoclaved is centrally collected and transported interstate via refrigerated transport for incineration. This occurs on a monthly basis. All clinical waste from Alice Springs and Tennant Creek is similarly sent to Adelaide. If this government’s vigilant approach turns up a problem, it is fixed. We will have improved legislative controls to assist, and we do not need a committee to do the work already done by government.
Finally, the subject matter of this motion clearly relates to issues that are beyond the responsibilities or concerns of the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee; particularly public health and safety. This motion fails on a number of counts. It is sloppy and poorly drafted as to be of absolutely no use in the important work undertaken by the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee. It seeks to have the committee investigate issues that are beyond its charter. It attempts to divert attention away from the opposition’s failure to stand up to John Howard’s plans to dump on the Territory. Finally, it assumes that this government has simply carried on with the shoddy practices of the past when they were in government when, in fact, the Martin Labor government has instituted real improvements through the Radiation Protection Act and the closing down of the incinerator at Royal Darwin Hospital. For these reasons, the government will not be supporting this motion.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, we will continue the fight against nuclear waste in the Territory and keep the Territory’s environment pristine.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, what diatribe! Thirty minutes of well read out speech written by a public servant quoting all the regulations - the book. That public servant will make a better minister for environment than you, member for Arafura. What a pathetic performance from a minister who is supposed to be in control of the environment. For 30 minutes, you lambasted a member of parliament when he is trying to ensure and reassure Territorians that the Howard government is not going to impose a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory.
That was clearly stated by minister Ian Campbell, the Minister for the Environment. He said it over and over again when he was interviewed on 30 September on 8DDD. He said very clearly that it was not going to happen, and gave an undertaking that it was not going to happen. What happens? The Labor party gets up and starts to scaremonger. I listened to the member for Lingiari on the ABC just recently, and he was hysterical about the whole thing. What is true is that there is not going to be one here.
Then what? On 22 September, there was a Territory Labor Party election advertisement spoken by the NT Chief Minister, Clare Martin, in which she said:
That is the same day when the minister declared, unequivocally, there was not going to be a dump:
And so on and so on and so on.
The same day this article appeared in the paper. The Chief Minister wants a pristine Territory, yet she is prepared to support a bio-terrorism research centre in Darwin right smack in the middle of the northern suburbs. The minister said: ‘Oh, do not worry about that, that centre is not going to be a problem. Not a problem. We are not going to have any toxic viruses housed there’. Won’t there? Read that article:
What is the problem? Are we going to be attacked by terrorists or are we not? Are you worried that those viruses will not escape? If you are going to do research on smallpox, you are going to have smallpox there. If you are going to research anthrax, you are going to have anthrax there. You cannot do research on a computer sitting at a desk; you do not get any results.
Remember the calicivirus and what happened? There were very stringent controls for the calicivirus but it got out. Thank God it was a benign virus against human beings, otherwise we would have had a disaster of humungous proportions. That is where you guys have to start thinking. ‘Bio-terrorism $60m pledge’. That is a lot of money, a lot of research and a lot of viruses. How can you say everything is going to be safe?
This motion talks about sending a reference to the environment committee to look at several issues that need to be closely examined. We talked about disposal of biological material. Obviously, you have to be sensible about it. The minister talked about grass, which is being ridiculous to the extreme. We are talking about hazardous biological material. There are pathology specimens, pus swabs, bacterial swabs, and blood containing pathogens that have been cultured in hospital laboratories. The briefing that I received from officers of Alice Springs Hospital and the Top End assured me, to a large degree, that things are going to be well handled. However, when I asked about blood cultures that are autoclaved and I asked for assurance whether the cultures could be entirely sterilised - remember a blood tube is approximately a centimetre in diameter containing 3 ml, 5 ml or even 10 ml of blood. Being put through a normal autoclave process at 134C under pressure and steam, does not necessarily sterilise that volume of blood.
Sterilising a metal instrument is quite simple. It is metallic and, at worst, it might be coated with a microfilm of bacteria that will be killed by the autoclave process. However, a blood tube may not be. Nobody has bothered to check whether the infection still exists in the post-sterilised blood. That blood, if it is thought to be benign, is buried in a landfill. Minister, you cannot give me a full assurance that the material in the landfill is sterile. You cannot say that. In the Alice Springs Hospital system, some 50% of the waste strain is biological waste, and I assume the same percentage would apply to Royal Darwin Hospital. Many of the waste is just bagged after it has been autoclaved and shoved into the dump in Alice Springs or Shoal Bay in Darwin.
On the second point of storage and disposal of body parts, there are cultural issues involved in that. I do not know how you deal with that; no one spoke to me about that during the briefings. I understand that body parts are triple bagged in plastic bags and stored frozen in plastic containers until there is volume to be transported to Adelaide for incineration in a refrigerated truck. That is because we do not have an incinerator capable of doing it properly. We had to decommission the Alice Springs Hospital’s incinerator, and now this government is decommissioning Royal Darwin Hospital’s incinerator. I hope that you are exploring developing a high temperature incinerator somewhere in the Territory to deal with this waste. You need to look at that. Do not cart it to Adelaide all the time. You are looking at 2000 miles of travel for these body parts. What happens when the trucks break down or the refrigeration breaks down?
Only the third part of the motion deals with radioactive material, and the minister spoke about that. There are two cubic metres of radioactive material in the basement of Royal Darwin Hospital. While she told us it is state-of-the-art technology and we can house it perfectly well, she did not say how long the material will last. I was advised at my briefing that it will last at least four generations of Territorians, if not longer. For the next four generations of Territorians, the Royal Darwin Hospital is going to house at least two cubic metres of radioactive material. Is that a safe? Is a hospital the right place to put it?
Mr Henderson: That is where you used to store it. You had no problems with it when you were in government.
Dr LIM: I am asking you. You are the ones who have decided that you are going to put up such a you-beaut system. Tell us what you are going to do about that.
With regard to chemical product, obviously there is another issue there. The minister for terrorism announced that it was an eco-terrorist who decided to spill or pour all that cyanide on the Tanami Road and then, for 18 months, chased the perpetrator and found that there was no result - absolutely no result. Have you your processing in order nowadays to ensure that we do not have any more such spills and accidents in the Territory that produce so much damage?
The minister spoke about the various acts and regulations that control the handling of waste material of one form or another in the Territory, with responsibility spreading across many departments: DBIRD, WorkSafe, Mines and Energy, Health. I was assured by officers of WorkSafe that the Occupational Health and Safety procedures that they use are similar to those used by other departments, for instance, when they handle radioactive material. Would it not be better if we could have all those departments working under one authority? WorkSafe should be the one to take up all the responsibility and run with that, and be the lead agency to ensure that it is all done properly. That might be a better way to go.
Uranium ore is one issue on which the minister failed to comment. Uranium ore is transported from Ranger uranium mine at least once a month to the port of Darwin. I am advised that the ore is loaded into 44 gallon drums and then loaded into a 40’ container, which is then transferred by road transport to the Port of Darwin where they are then stacked at the port until such time as they can be shipped out of the country. I am not quite sure how well the department is involved with this – it should be Mines and Energy and, hopefully, WorkSafe as well - and how well they police this whole process. You have 44 gallon drums containing oil inside a 40’ container. I ask the question: is there any radiation detectable outside the container?
Mr Henderson: No.
Mr Vatskalis: No, not even outside the drums.
Dr LIM: Do not know the answer - not sure?
Mr Henderson: No, the answer is no.
Dr LIM: The minister was not at the briefing that I was. I can say to the minister, or the ministers who are muttering in the background there, that the answer is: they do not know. No measures have been taken …
Mr Henderson: Wrong! The answer is no.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I think …
Dr LIM: No, I am talking about …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I am speaking now! There has been dialogue across here. Let us talk to the Chair.
Dr LIM: Well, I am talking to the Chair. I am just commenting on the minister’s interjections. He can refute my statement anytime he likes when he speaks. Until then, I maintain that, at my briefing, I was told that no measures have been taken and that they do not know.
I asked another question: when the container are stacked down at the Port of Darwin, side by side, and there will be an aisle in between the containers, what happens to a person who walks through that aisle, surrounded on all sides by the containers of uranium ore? Will the person be irradiated? The answer was: ‘We do not know, no readings have ever been taken’. I asked for readings to be taken specifically and to be reported back to me before this debate took place, but I did not get an answer. That remains unanswered.
I know that some time this month there will be a trial shipment of uranium ore from Roxby Downs to the Port of Darwin. I assume it will be coming on the train - more containers on the train; that is good. I hope that this transhipment by train from Roxby Downs to Darwin goes perfectly normally, and will help in showing that our Port of Darwin is a very useful facility that can cope with such exports also. I look forward to a report from the minister for the environment or transport to tell us how that transhipment was performed and that everything was in order. I look forward to hearing that some time in the November sittings.
The worst part about the whole motion today was listening to the minister responding to the member for Port Darwin. She went through a whole diatribe of getting stuck into the member for Solomon when, indeed, it is the opposition that wants to make sure that we have a good process in place to deal with all the waste that we produce in the Territory - from biological waste to body parts, radioactive materials and chemical products that can prove to be toxic to the environment.
At the end of the day, I suppose we all have to live in this Territory. We are all generators of waste material of one kind or another. Some of the waste material we generate comes from beneficial purposes, whether that be radioisotopes that we use, to having body parts excised or drawn out our bodies for medical reasons. We have to deal with those products very responsibly.
Finally, I would like to close on the matter of the bio-terrorism research centre. It is important to understand that a centre such as this cannot be built in the northern suburbs. This proposition by the federal Labor Party, supported very strongly by the minister of this government, will have it built at the NARU site - the Northern Australian Research Unit - in Tiwi. That is right smack in the middle of the suburbs. That is very close to the Royal Darwin Hospital, where you have a very dense population of people housed in a single building. You do not want to have such facilities so close to people because you are going to expose them to a lot of danger. The Chief Minister said in ad: ‘Oh, we have such a pristine area, we will not have anything that will be detrimental to the Territory’. What were her exact words? ‘The Territory is a great place to live with its clean and unspoilt environment’. Well, if this does not spoil the environment, I do not know what would.
Imagine walking past a centre that says bio-terrorism research centre. You would wonder whether it is safe to walk past the front door. The imagery is enough to say that this is just not on. I suggest to you that, for this Labor government to support the Latham government to build such a facility in the Territory, is just foolish. I look forward to the government saying to the Latham government: ‘No, we cannot have that, or else you put it way out in the boondocks where it will be safe for Northern Territorians. We do not want to have such a facility in our suburbs’.
With those few remarks, I will conclude. It is worthwhile having a reference to the environment committee to look at the whole thing closely. Some of us have had briefings from the officers of various departments to get information that will help us to make up our minds. A select committee would be able to delve into it a lot more closely and be able to institute investigations.
As I said earlier, I was waiting for some responses from officers who gave me the briefing about irradiation of persons who walk down between containers of uranium ore, and that still has to come. A reference to the environment committee would allow the committee to conduct research on this. It would be able to come back to us with appropriate recommendations in parliament, which can then be put to the government for action.
Obviously, one of them will be the development of a high-temperature incinerator somewhere in the Territory that would deal with a lot of our biological waste and, perhaps, even body parts which are now being sent by road to Adelaide in a refrigerated container. Travelling 2000 miles is a long way, and the potential for something happening during transport is obviously higher, the longer the distance you have to travel.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, needless to say, I am disappointed to learn that the government will not support this motion. Instead, the minister has provided us with a speech which essentially said: ‘Trust us, everything is all right and you are very wrong to be quizzing the government and the parliament on what is happening in regards to this issue’.
As far as I and the opposition is concerned, there was value in having a bipartisan look at the issues of waste disposal here in the Northern Territory because, for example with regards to biohazards, we Territorians have had dropped on us this Labor proposal to build a bio-terrorism laboratory in the northern suburbs of Darwin. This will be bang smack in the middle of the suburbs. One of the minor things that will occur, of course, is that property values in the vicinity of that laboratory will plummet, because who on earth is going to want to have their house or property against something like that?
The other thing, of course, is that Darwin - in case you have forgotten - is subject to cyclones. How is that going to cope when we get a whopping great cyclone coming through the place and you have a lab full of petri dishes and the like swarming with bugs and things like SARS, dengue – what else have we here? - anthrax and the like. Oh, that will be nice. It is disappointing that we cannot have a look at that.
The minister has given us a response of ‘Look, do not worry’, pat on the head, there is going to be no problems with regard to this laboratory and the fact that it might cause some problems with infecting the local inhabitants. Well, if that is the case, why on earth did your Labor person, Kim Carr, make the comment that ‘residents would be shielded from possible disease outbreaks’? That is handy. On one side we have Kim Carr saying: ‘You will be shielded from disease outbreaks’ and, on the other side we have the minister assuring us that there will be no such things kept in this laboratory.
Well, I have to wonder how on earth do you study something like bio-terrorism with - I quote - ‘80 top scientists’. What on earth are 80 top scientists going to be doing in there – playing dominoes or something like that? They are going to be looking through their microscopes. They are going to be injecting small furry animals with diseases. These things are going to be here in Darwin in the northern suburbs and, quite frankly, it is beyond me to understand why this Labor government even cooked up this idea, let alone supported it. I seek leave to table this newspaper article.
Leave granted.
Ms CARTER: That is that particular issue and that one should be going to the environment committee to be looked at and ticked off. Maybe it is true. Maybe they are going to have this lab in the middle of the northern suburbs that will not have any infective organisms in it. I doubt it. I cannot trust the minister on that statement. Prove it to us. Put it to the committee and see what happens. Maybe all my dreams come true and Labor will not win on Saturday and we will not have to worry about it.
On another matter; the issue of waste things like body parts. I do not recall the minister really touching on the issue of how Territorians feel about body parts, foetuses or things like that, being transported interstate for disposal. There is an opportunity there to ask them about that and even to let them know about it.
Nuclear we have discussed. The Australian Prime Minister and his government have given assurance that the Northern Territory is not going to house a site for national nuclear disposal, and CLP support that, just as I am sure you do. You should cease this furphy. You get very upset about politicking and people doing things like that to issues like this coming up to elections, and here you are doing it. You should be ashamed of yourself because you carry yourself as though you are holier than thou on these sorts of things. You know it is not going to happen, but you keep trying to frighten Territorians into believing something otherwise. The CLP does not support such a site. You do not support such a site. The Prime Minister said there will not be such a site. So, move on.
This is why we have asked for this issue to go to the committee because the Territory is going to have to look at the issue. The Territory is going to have to decide where we are going to put our waste, and you should let it go to the committee so we can have a bipartisan look at it.
The minister also pooh-poohs the issues of chemicals. I guess it is just this ‘trust me’ attitude. Once again, I cannot believe that this lab is not going to have any sort of organisms that we should be frightened or concerned about. With regards to chemicals, the minister says that is fine too. My view still stands that it would not hurt to put this to the environment committee. Given the huge increase in population in the northern suburbs and Darwin over the last 20-odd years and the development of Palmerston, let us make sure everybody is doing the right thing. Let us make sure that the systems are in place.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this motion was put on the Notice Paper in an effort to examine these issues. Instead of a sensible contribution from the minister, we got her scare tactics speech. She knows there will be no national nuclear dump in the Territory but keeps on with the furphy for political reasons. We asked about the bio-terrorism lab because it is your idea. On behalf of Territorians, we should be given the details. This is the sort of thing the committee should look at.
I would like to thank the member for Greatorex for his valuable contribution. Again, I seek the support of all members in this motion.
Motion negatived.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move postponement of debate on the Sentencing Amendment Bill (Serial 126) to a later date.
I would like to make a few remarks. I understand that government intends to introduce an alternate bill which appears to address my concerns and those of many groups and individuals who have supported the aims of my amendment. At the outset, I should say that I am disappointed that the government does not support the bill as it is; it was designed to extend a basic human right to Aboriginal girls in the Northern Territory to be free of sexual interference from men who are often in domineering or authoritative positions.
To remind members, my bill was quite straightforward: in sentencing a man convicted of sexual assault against a minor, matters of Aboriginal customary law could not be taken into account. When I first announced I would act to offer legal protection over young Aboriginal girls, I was staggered by the immediate response and unconditional support for my bill. The strongest backing came from ATSIC when it decided not to fund the Pascoe appeal in the High Court as it conflicted with its policy supporting families. Naturally, ATSIC promotes customary law, but it also maintains the rights of women and children should always come first. This was upheld by ATSIC’s Family Violence Strategy, the ATSIC National Social and Physical Wellbeing Committee and the ATSIC National Women’s Committee. As well, the ATSIC Acting Chairman, Lionel Quartermaine, and Commissioner Alison Anderson publicly supported this position.
The NPY (Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara) Women’s Council, comprising women from across border communities in the Territory, South Australia and Western Australia, commented that they were:
They also said one of the main objectives of their council’s Domestic Violence Service was to ensure that the Australian legal system protected Aboriginal women and children from violence.
Last year, the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee inquired into Aboriginal customary law. The committee noted that promised marriages were usually between senior men and girls under 16, raising policy issues of fully informed consent and the imbalance in power relationships.
The Chief Minister’s own Domestic Violence and Aboriginal Family Violence Advisory Council has discussed customary law with regard to the protection of women and children. Council members were concerned that NT courts appeared willing to accept evidence from Aboriginal male defendants and their lawyers on aspects of customary law that mitigated sexual offences against children. Members believe this sends a negative message to children, young women and police officers involved in such matters.
Alongside those organisations, many individuals approached me claiming it was critical to uphold the various United Nations conventions on human rights and those of the child.
When I first introduced the bill, there was criticism that I was seeking to outlaw customary law marriages, and this could not be further from the truth. I was merely aiming to protect Aboriginal girls from exploitation. I believe that many aspects of customary law are flexible and can accommodate the wider law. As I understand it, the government’s bill will allow members of Aboriginal communities, including women and girls, the opportunity to place their views on customary law before the court if customary law is to be used by the defence. This should encourage Aboriginal girls to speak up in circumstances where they are in fear, with the knowledge that their rights will not be devalued to those of the man.
I hope the instances where the need to enforce the government’s bill will be rare, although there does appear to be anecdotal evidence that exploitation of young girls by senior men through customary law institutions is quite common.
When the government’s amendment is passed, I call on the government for a concerted awareness campaign directed towards Aboriginal men, women and children to ensure that they are aware that all societies must protect their young, no matter what may be other cultural traditions. This is not an attack on Aboriginal culture because many Aboriginal people, particularly woman, have been quite vocal on this point.
In its response to the Law Reform Committee’s report, the government said it would explain government policy to those communities in which Aboriginal customary law, in this regard, is still strong. I look forward to this government honouring that commitment. I hope the government bill addresses the issues and concerns raised by the Pascoe case and those of the organisations I have cited. If it does not, I will bring on my bill. I cannot stand by as a mute witness to the abuse of children, irrespective of their ethnicity.
I move to defer consideration of the Sentencing Amendment Bill until such time as the government passes its amendments, and there is time for feedback from organisations.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 19 May 2004.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the bill provides for the inclusion of examples and notes, where appearing in legislation, be considered as part of the legislation for interpretive purposes. It is a tradition in other Australian jurisdictions that the Attorney-General bring forward portfolio-wide or issues-focussed miscellaneous legislation to provide clarity, amendment and update to the laws within the administration of this portfolio.
For example, the New South Wales Attorney-General brings forward a crimes miscellaneous amendment) bill in each of their parliamentary sessions, and a court legislation amendment bill as needed. This mechanism is useful in that it means minor changes do not get left behind. It also saves time and resources by updating legislation through a process of omnibus legislation, rather than requiring individual amending bills.
Changes to the interpretive process for legislation fit well into this category. The government will soon bring forward the Miscellaneous Justice Portfolio Bill, which will include a range of minor changes to legislation within the Justice portfolio. It will include the necessary changes to the Interpretation Act.
The government has discussed this with the member for Nelson in light of the bill he has brought forward today. The member for Nelson rightly points out that the practice in other jurisdictions is to make greater use of explanatory notes and examples in legislation. The intention of the parliament must be as clear as possible. The Department of Justice is finalising the Justice legislation for debate early in the coming year, and I will be only too happy to discuss the proposed bill with the member for Nelson prior to its introduction. We suggest this is the best course of action in order to pick up the issues that have been brought forward by the member. I offer very much a spirit of collaboration in making sure that your concerns are picked up in the finalisation of the bill we will be bringing forward.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, in light of the Attorney-General’s comments, it is appropriate that we wait to see what the government’s proposed bill contains. On the basis of that, it is not necessary for me to make any further comment.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his comments. I should say at the outset that I know the Parliamentary Counsel will be very much looking forward to this bill being passed tonight, as they have put a fair bit of effort into it, and they believe it was a piece of legislation that was certainly needed.
It is about trying to make the intent of law clearer, as the minister said. I suppose it sits comfortably with the idea of having explanatory notes as well. Once again, even though these were what you might say minor matters – although I do not say that they are not important - in the light of some of the bigger issues we deal with, you would probably regard this as minor. However, it is important if we are to make our legislation clearer to those people who use it, like ourselves, those people who try to understand what we are doing in this parliament, or who have to access this legislation - anyone from members of the public to lawyers, to all sorts of people who require to go through the acts that we pass in this parliament.
I am happy that the government is looking at presenting its own legislation. I suppose I would have been happier if, once again, people on this side of parliament could introduce their own legislation without always having to have that ring of confidence behind it by the government. However, in this case, the minister has said he will introduce something similar. I would support that as well, and just let the public know that, due to our concerted efforts, in consultation with Parliamentary Counsel, we have done our best and it looks like we will achieve something, but perhaps under another name.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 19 May 2004.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, the member for Nelson proposes a range of new measures to regulate the sale of residential property in the Territory. The government has given consideration to the measures proposed, and is aware of the measures to regulate, to varying degrees, vendors and the sale of property in other jurisdictions.
The government will always support measures that provide consumer protection, so long as they are workable and have broad community support. A balanced approach to the regulation of sale of property is required, and the government takes the view that the bill proposed by the member for Nelson certainly goes some way towards achieving that. The Department of Justice will shortly complete a discussion paper concerning the issues of vendor disclosure that I foreshadowed last year. The government proposes this discussion paper be developed and circulated for public comment. The member for Nelson has undertaken consultation of his own, some of which has been forwarded to my office.
The comment I received convinces me that we must tread this path carefully in order to achieve the right balance. For example, we do not want to compromise affordability for new home buyers. Territory Housing has examined the proposed legislation and advised the additional reports required regarding bore status and septic tanks will increase purchase costs further, and may make home ownership not affordable for some low or middle income owners. The Real Estate Institute has also provided comment which, I understand, has resulted in some redrafting on the part of the member for Nelson.
The government will not rush into regulations before considering all the issues further. The proposed discussion paper is well placed to canvass issues that are involved, such as whether we move to separate legislation. The member’s proposal to amend the Law of Property Act which deals with standard law regarding property, needs further consideration. It may be determined that vendor disclosure legislation, or legislation dealing generally with the sale of residential property, needs to be considered in a consumer protection framework as a stand-alone act.
The cooling-off period and whether one is desirable is another issue to consider. Whilst cooling-off is a beneficial component of this type of consumer protection legislation, the original bill provided for a cooling-off period of five business days - which I note is to be three days on the basis of the submission from the REINT. The bill provides for a penalty equal to 0.25% of the purchase price if the purchaser exercises the right to rescind during the cooling-off period. I understand that REINT does not support the imposition of a penalty for exercising the right to rescind during the cooling-off period.
Another question to consider is whether the legislation should apply whether or not the property is listed for sale with an agent.
Given the issues I briefly outlined here, the government has determined that it is not justified to support the bill before the House, even if we were to amend it. Further public consultation and discussion needs to be finalised before we take this important step. I propose that the legislation introduced by the member for Nelson become part of that process. The government’s discussion paper could incorporate the comments this bill has already received from bodies such as the Real Estate Institute. It would also benefit from a review of the impact any similar legislation has had in other jurisdictions. The reason for this approach is to ensure that we get it right.
Madam Speaker, the government cannot support the bill. I urge the member to withdraw his bill in order for the consultation to be undertaken using his model as a focal point, along with a discussion paper to be completed and released within the coming few months.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, it is the case, as the Attorney-General said, that some concerns have been expressed by the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory. We also have been provided with the copies of the same correspondence, as I understand, that was provided to various ministers’ offices. We share not only some of the concerns of the Real Estate Institute, but also some of those raised by the Attorney-General this evening. In fact, we would go one step further and say that not only do we share concerns, but we have a number of objections.
It is not necessary to outline them all, but one the Attorney-General touched upon was the possibility of housing prices increasing for purchasers. That is not a situation that any government or prospective government should contemplate, and it is objected to on that basis.
It is also objected to on the basis that there are difficulties with the cooling-off period. In particular, the cooling-off period should apply to corporations in the same way as it applies to individuals. The member’s advice to the Real Estate Institute is that corporations should have obtained legal advice. What the member fails to appreciate is that cooling-off periods were not designed for individuals or corporations specifically for the purpose to obtain legal advice. There are a variety of reasons why a corporation may not wish to proceed with a sale and they are factors that the member, obviously, has elected not to consider, or he does not understand them. In any event, we object on that basis.
Thirdly, the insistence of requiring that a purchaser forfeit 0.25% of the purchase for simply not exercising his or her legal right to withdraw from a sale is bizarre, and it continues to take many of us by surprise. Notwithstanding, as I understand it, submissions put to the member to urge him to reconsider his position, for reasons best known to him, he has elected not to. It certainly is the case that lawyers and conveyancers, as well as the Real Estate Institute, have expressed dismay about this yet the member has marched on regardless. They are some but not all of the objections we have to the bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): I heard it all then, Madam Speaker! If the member for Araluen had bothered just to ask I would have told her, the conveyancing people support it 100% …
Ms Carney: Sorry? What was that?
Mr WOOD: … and they support the 0.25% …
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Nelson is lying. I have a letter …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Ms CARNEY: … from a conveyancer in the Northern Territory who does not support it. The member for Nelson should withdraw his remark …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Ms CARNEY: … that 100% of the conveyancers in the Northern Territory support this because it is wrong …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen!
Ms CARNEY: … quite wrong!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I want you to withdraw that accusation of lying. You know that is unparliamentary.
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw the accusation.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I said the conveyancing association, which is represented by Trevor Tschirpig …
Ms Carney: He did not actually say the association.
Mr WOOD: It is sometimes difficult, Madam Speaker, but we shall march on.
This piece of legislation has taken nearly three months to prepare and it is obvious, from listening to some comments, that people do not understand what we have put here and why we have put these things in.
Ms Carney interjecting.
Mr WOOD: The member for Araluen can laugh but you will find, member for Araluen, that penalties for recision during cooling-off period apply to at least three states in Australia: Queensland, New South Wales and the ACT. We have not just thought of that off the top of our heads.
The reason that it is there is partially to protect real estate agents from having people sign contracts for several houses so that they can lock up the potential sale of those houses by say, signing off on five houses. This tries to stop that happening, because you could have people who could not sell their house for three days, and then the real estate agent will say ‘I am not interested’, or the purchaser can say: ‘I am not interested in buying that house’. That is one reason that 0.25% is in there.
The other reason that 0.25% is in there is because we feel there is a carrot-and-stick approach: ‘If you are going to sign a contract, we want you to sign it knowing that you are serious about what you do and there is a small penalty’. It is not a large penalty. It is 0.25% of the purchase price, so it is not a large cost.
When you get that advice from the conveyancing association, which represents conveyancers of the Northern Territory, you listen to that advice and take it into account. Amongst the Real Estate Institute people, there were some people who queried it. We also got support from the Real Estate Institute on that matter.
The other issue which the minister and the member for Araluen mentioned was in relation to the affordability for new home buyers. In the case of the Northern Territory Housing Commission, they do have a special loan you can get - I think, up to $10 000 - for things such as the certificates you need. The bores and septics would be part of that, as they are covered under the HomeNorth scheme and they are not increasing the price of a house.
You have to remember that this is to protect the purchaser, the one who is buying the property. If you say to get a bore certificate will increase the price of the house and they go along and find the bore is stuffed and they have no water, they are not going to be very happy $15 000 later for a new bore. I would rather be paying for the cost of a certificate to prove that the bore pumps water and it is drinkable, rather than find out you have to install a new bore.
The same applies to a septic tank. Septic tanks cost between $4000 to $6000. If you find you have to pump it out every two weeks because no one checked to see whether it works, you have a higher cost on the first home owner.
If, in the first year, the house goes under water – and I can tell you a good story about a place in Howard Springs where a purchaser from Nightcliff bought a beautiful home and, two weeks later at Christmas, he had water about two foot deep right through his sunken lounge room. So did the house next door. They were told that it was all okay. In fact, one of them sued the conveyancer. These things would have been up-front. What was the cost of damage to the house? It certainly would have been cheaper to have a certificate to prove that the house would not be flooded.
Whilst it may increase the price of a house marginally, a bore certificate to say how much water the bore pumps is not going to cost much money; it will protect the buyer from high costs they could incur if things go wrong. If they know that the bore is not too good, at least they know up-front and they accept that. That is what this bill is about: telling people before they purchase a property that a list of checks has or has not been done. It does not mean a house has to comply with the Cyclone Code; if you do not have any certificates, you tell people so that they know when they purchase it. If the chook shed out the back was constructed by the owner, they need to know that it was built without any approvals – as long as they know. That is what it is about: vendor disclosure to get rid of buyer beware.
If there are problems with the HomeNorth scheme, let us adjust it. The whole idea of this bill is to protect the consumer. For what you might call a fairly small issue affecting a relatively small part of the market, let us see if we can get the HomeNorth scheme adapt to what we are trying to do today.
There are a few issues that are relatively minor. We looked at the cooling-off period and changed it. Originally, we had five working days; it is now three working days. We did that in consultation with the Real Estate Institute. We had long consultation with the conveyancing industry. We took on many of the issues that they raised. We took it back to Parliamentary Counsel and worked through those issues. We did not make it up as we went along; we used other legislation and tried to adapt it to Northern Territory circumstances. We used people in the industry and we had a lot of support from the community that this is well overdue.
One of the other things that this bill would practically made redundant is gazumping. You may have signed an intent to purchase a house and someone else, under existing laws, can come along and make a higher offer. You are gazumped unless you are willing to make a higher counter-offer. Because you have no contract until you sign, you cannot be gazumped. You go to the vendor and ask for copies of the certificates, then you can check their accuracy and your finances, and then you sign documents. That is when the contract occurs. There is no intent to purchase and no gazumping.
A number of people contacted me when we were originally looking at this bill from the gazumping perspective because they were pleased that something like this was going to occur. This started because I received representations from a lady who had been gazumped. She went to buy a house or a property in Humpty Doo, had shaken hands with the real estate agent, gone to the bank to get the money out of a trust account and, basically, the real estate agent said to her: ‘Oh, a great purchase, madam, you really have a good buy here’. She really had a good buy, because his boss came in and said: ‘We have just had another offer over that’, and she lost the property. I felt that something had to be done.
I had a phone call from Roper River, from a family who was trying to buy a small cattle station. At the very last minute, someone came in with a bid and they could not outbid them.
Of course, that also takes away some of the bad taste that is left in people’s mouths with real estate agents, because when real estate agents gazump someone, they are certainly not going to get the business from the person they gazumped. They are never going to go back to them ever again. It takes that away, so it helps the real estate industry have a better relationship with people they are dealing with.
I will read a few things. This is from a real estate agent in Humpty Doo. In fact, he probably will not mind me saying he is probably the cause of me actually looking at this bill in the first place. He said:
O’Brien Conveyancers:
I believe this bill is good enough to go forward as it is. If the government felt that those minor issues like the 0.25% need more discussion - and they have had this bill for nearly three months, and so has the opposition - why did they not raise some amendments tonight? Why did they not put forward their objections in the form of amendments? I am not going to die over the 0.25%, but it was an issue that was put forward to us, especially by the conveyancing industry, that it had a role to play. I discussed with the HomeNorth people, or the Northern Territory Housing Commission, about these particular issues, and they can be adjusted to suit this legislation.
I believe it is important legislation. People are going to spend their life savings on a house. If the cost of that means we have to pay some money out for certificates, so be it. However, in the end, the money spent on those certificates would certainly be saved by a long way if some of the things they get were not as they thought. That is the real essence of what we are trying to do with this legislation.
I would like to thank the people who have helped with this bill over this long period of time, especially Arthur Keates from Parliamentary Counsel. He has worked on this bill tirelessly over that period and put a lot of effort into the first draft, and then the amendments, based on comments of the Australian Institute of Conveyancers and the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory.
Even though the Real Estate Institute may have had some doubts about certain things, we are bringing legislation in not just for them, but for the consumer. Therefore, it does not mean we have to necessarily entirely agree with every point that the industry makes. This legislation is about trying to do the best for the community. Sometimes, industry might have their particular reasons, and I might not agree with them, but that does not make it bad legislation.
I will put this legislation to the vote. I have laid on the table some amendments with which I will not be going to the committee stage. They included, basically, a couple of extra points. One was an occupancy permit - again an issue brought up by the industry - which we put in. Another one was matters regarding the Swimming Pool Safety Act - again, from the industry – which we included. We took up the issue the minister mentioned regarding when it was listed and who it was listed with in the amendments. Clause 4 talks about omitting ‘advertised for sale listed by an agent’ and substituting ‘listed for sale by an agent or first advertised for sale’. That was, again, from the Real Estate Institute. Also in clause 4, from the Real Estate Institute, was where we changed from five days to three days and tightened up on some wording in the legislation.
I believe the bill as prepared is a good bill; it should be supported. I will be telling people that it was not supported, because it is a bill that will protect the consumer. Surely that is good in its own right? Just because it comes as Independent, I do not believe is a reason to knock it back. If you look at the minor technicalities people have said that they think we need to look at again, I say really is an excuse to bring forth their own bill. They want the gold medal; I get the silver or bronze. I am happy with that. I suppose in the end, if this legislation comes up in another form I will be happy with that, as I said on the previous bill. I certainly tell people that is what we tried to promote. It is a bit like the hoon legislation, which took a while - nearly nine months after I first introduced that legislation to parliament.
The sad thing is that, by the time the government presents its own legislation, a number of people will not be protected by that law. They are going to have to wait until legislation drags itself through this parliament again. It is going to be another nine months before we see legislation. If this legislation is so good, as the minister said, why is there not a first reading next week? I am sure the issues that we are talking about here are so minor it can just do with a little tinkering around the ends. We could have this out before Christmas. If it is that good, let us bring it out before Christmas. Let us put it on the Notice Paper before the end of this sittings. I believe it is important. If we really care for the people who are buying houses, let us protect them from throwing their money down the drain if they buy a dud house full of white ants, the bore does not work, and the septic tank is stuffed. Let us do the right thing by those people and, if the government says this is good legislation, introduce theirs now. Let us prove to people that what has been said by the government today will really happen quickly.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 19 May 2004.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, before I get to the specifics of this bill that we are now to consider, I want to make a few remarks about the process members are engaged in tonight on this General Business Day. There is a pattern to all of the legislation that members have brought forward, in that each and every one of them has received very serious consideration from government. We have tried to give you a serious response and have acknowledged the input that each of you had to the response that the government is formulating. Quite often, there is a kernel of a really good idea, and we have certainly acknowledged that in each case. Three years ago, when I first spoke in this House as the Attorney-General, I invited members to contribute as a parliament to the formulation of legislation. We have stuck to our approach all the way through - I have certainly tried to. I want to acknowledge that this process is a valued process in the parliament as a whole.
I now turn to the bill. The bill introduced by member for Araluen would require evidence from vulnerable witnesses to be heard in closed court. The bill is only a partial response to a multifaceted and difficult problem. The government has a bill before the House that deals with vulnerable witnesses in sexual assault cases. The government bill provides a better range of measures for protection of our most vulnerable witnesses in these types of cases. In conjunction with the work being undertaken by the sexual assault task force, the government bill indicates our commitment to improving the position for vulnerable witnesses, and creating a better court process for those types of offences to be heard.
Whilst I do not intend to canvass it here as we will have that opportunity in the current sittings, it should be noted that the government bill does provide for children and other vulnerable witnesses to give evidence by pre-recorded statement. It introduces time limits for the prosecution of sexual offences; abolishes oral examination of children at commital proceedings for sexual offences; and also introduces new provisions into the Evidence Act regarding the questioning of witnesses - and child witnesses, in particular. In saying this, clearly the government bill goes further than the bill we are discussing today, and provides for a range of responses. I note the member for Araluen welcomed the government measures by media release on 9 August 2004.
The member noted her bill provided for courts to be closed when sexual assault victims give evidence, and that this is part of the government bill. Both the member for Araluen and I acknowledge this is an issue that all members of this House are dedicated to improving. The member said in her media release:
On the basis of her praise of the government bill, it is clear that there is no need to support the member’s bill.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I say this with respect. I understand the Attorney-General is quoting from a media release I issued. I did not praise the government’s bill. I remind the Attorney-General that my final paragraph was ‘often the devil is in the detail’. In fact, I had not seen the bill at the time I issued that press release.
Dr TOYNE: Oh, you did a little bit. You did a little bit. Come on.
Ms CARNEY: Do not be cheeky.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order, but you can rebut in your summing up.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, on the basis of what the Attorney-General has said, he invites me, I guess, to not press this bill because his view is that the amendment I sought has, for all intents and purposes, been achieved in the Evidence Reform Children and Sexual Offences Bill which will be debated later this week. While I am flattered again that the government has agreed with another bill I introduced, it is worth mentioning that it only has half of my bill correct.
I remind members that I sought to ensure that a court is closed when vulnerable witnesses give their evidence by amending section 21A(2A) of the Evidence Act. The amendment proposed by government in the evidence reform bill to which I have just referred, will have the effect of ensuring that vulnerable witnesses can give their evidence in a closed court; and that I welcome. However, the amendment proposed in this bill would have improved things further for vulnerable witnesses. The government has fallen short of agreeing to this, and I will outline why shortly.
It is appropriate, to that extent, that I explain to Territorians and members why it was that the amendment that I sought in its entirety was required. Section 21A(2A) of the Evidence Act provides that, notwithstanding the protective arrangements a vulnerable witness could use outlined in Section 21(2) such as sitting behind a screen, using CCTV or having a support person sit with them, the court may make an order that a vulnerable witness is not to give evidence using that arrangement if it is satisfied that it is not in the interest of justice for the witnesses evidence to be given using that arrangement. Hence, special or protective measures are available, but they do not exist as of right because the court can say - usually upon application by the defence - that it is not in the interests of justice. The factors that the court needs to consider are outlined in section 21A(2B).
I note with great interest the Attorney-General’s reference to what he said three years ago. I did not catch all of what he said, but it was something along the lines of if he receives good ideas, he will act on them. The government does not want to agree to my amendment to provide special measures to vulnerable witnesses as of right, which is a good idea. I invite the Attorney-General, if he wishes, to come up with his own bill. Certainly, he may base it on mine. He likes to do what I suggest on occasion, but in a different way, so I invite him to amend it.
Instead of borrowing my wording, he could look around the country and to jurisdictions outside Australia. However, there is one close to home, and that is the Victorian Evidence (Audio Visual and Audio Linking) Act. The government could amend section 21A(2A) of the Evidence Act by coming up with this, which is a suggestion that he and his staff may wish to consider in due course; that is, the definition referred to in the Victorian act:
That seems to me to get a very nice balance of ensuring that the interests of justice are maintained but, at the same time, requiring that the best interests of the child. Or, if the Attorney-General wanted to be more flexible, he could say ‘of other vulnerable witnesses’. It is the balance that is not contained, in my view, in the existing section 21A(2A) of the Evidence Act. While I am flattered that he likes to borrow from me in the normal course of events, I repeat that I invite him to feel very free to borrow from the Victorians.
When I introduced this bill, I referred to the fact that sexual assaults under Labor are on the increase in the NT. I referred to the fact that the Attorney-General created a Sexual Assault Task Force in December. In a media release by the Attorney-General on 17 December, he said:
I also said in my second reading speech that this is not a major bill; however the protection should be provided without the fettering of defence counsel and the decisions of the court.
I have been consistent on this issue. By the time I am an old woman, this section of the Evidence Act will be changed. I take the liberty of quoting from my maiden speech on 16 October 2001. Members may or may not recall that I came up with what I would describe as my wish list; the things I would change if I could. This was one of them. The Attorney-General referred to his comment three years ago that, if he heard reasonable ideas, he would act on them. He has not; that is why I introduced the bill. He was given enough time, with all of the resources available to government to look into this, and he still has not come up with a sensible explanation or an excuse as to why this section of the Evidence Act is not being amended, in light of the increasing research that supports the view that the justice system should be improved.
In that regard, before I get to my maiden speech, I will refer the Attorney-General to a relatively recent publication from the Victorian Law Reform Commission about sexual offences - the final report. The Chairperson of the inquiry was Professor Marcia Neave, a lecturer of mine at the University of Melbourne some years ago. I refer the Attorney-General to page 262 of that report, in which she states:
Professor Marcia Neave is well respected, as is the work she undertakes for and on behalf of the Victorian Law Reform Commission. If the Attorney-General does not believe me, he should believe the likes of Marcia Neave and others. In any event, I now go back to my maiden speech, when I said:
In the overall scheme of things, it is not considered, I suppose, terribly significant by others. However, I can tell you that, for a number of victims and other vulnerable witnesses in the Northern Territory, it is an important issue. I have met them; I have acted for them; they still continue to speak to me about these issues. I say to the Attorney-General it is not just the member for Araluen or the CLP saying this; it is real. Again, I urge him to consider his position. With those comments I will conclude, Madam Speaker.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 19 May 2004.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, the member for Macdonnell has two bills before the House relating to assaults upon emergency workers. The member’s bills are, unfortunately, deficient as they fail to capture a full range of conduct that could interfere with the work required to respond to an emergency situation.
The real focus of the legislation that aims to provide better protection for those in our community performing an emergency response, and providing all necessary assistance to a person in need, must be a focus on the act of the assistance itself. Assaults that occur in the context of an emergency or a response to a life-threatening situation, have the potential to endanger not just the person responding to the situation but also the victim and other persons.
An assault provision, as framed by the member for Macdonnell, will only capture the act of conduct and not omissions. It does not cover conduct that may impede a person carrying out a response to an emergency situation. The proposed creation of the summary offence of obstruction may attempt to fill that gap, but will be insufficient to deal with the serious case of obstruction, particularly where real harm eventuates as a result of that obstruction.
While we already have a section in the Criminal Code requiring the provision of assistance in a situation where a person has opportunity to render such assistance, the government proposes to extend the law. The government has examined the member for Macdonnell’s proposal, as well as assault provisions available in criminal law in all Australian jurisdictions. None of the existing law does more than pick or choose professions where an assault on a member of that profession provides an element of aggravation. This piecemeal approach is an inadequate approach to the problem.
I inform the House today that the government will soon be introducing legislation that provides a penalty of imprisonment for up to five years for any person who unlawfully assaults, obstructs, hinders or otherwise prevents a person providing rescue, resuscitation, medial assistance or succour of any kind. The legislation will cover assistance to people in situations where an emergency may be affecting property such as in the case of a fire. There will be a further level of aggravation where the unlawful act results in endangering the life of, or causes actual harm, to the person subject to the rescue or the assistance with the penalty of seven years. The government’s proposal provides for appropriately strong penalties for these new offences.
It is clear that the creation of a summary offence only of obstruction, as proposed by the member opposite, is not strong enough. I look forward to presenting the government’s legislation shortly. In the meantime, the government cannot support the bills before the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, it is not like I did not know this response of the government was not coming. However, I have to say I am pretty disappointed. Simply because this could have been a law by the end of the week. Ambulance officers and emergency workers could have been protected by the end of the week if you had presented an amendment to this bill - that simple.
You could have done the same thing that you did with the censure motion amendment today. You could have said: ‘We amend it by removing all words after that’, and bring forward your package. However, you have chosen not to do that. You have chosen to come in here and sell a pup to the emergency services workers and to the …
Mr Henderson: Rubbish!
Mr ELFERINK: Not, it is not. The Leader of Government Business says: ‘Rubbish’. The fact is that you are going to have to introduce a bill. We have no time frame as to when this bill is going to occur. I remind honourable members that, when I had before this House a bill dealing with habitual drunks, I was convinced by the Treasurer to allow that bill to be defeated. They were going to reintroduce it and find a practical way to do it because they could not agree with the details of what I had suggested. The result is that - I do not know - 18 months down the track, two years down the track, there is not a skerrick, not a sausage - nothing, nyada, nyet! That is the point with this government: they are not to be trusted.
The minister now says: ‘Oh, we are going to reintroduce a better, stronger bill’ Good! However, the problem is that, in the meantime, between now and whenever you choose to do it - and then it sits on the Notice Paper for however long. I note there is a bill sitting on the Notice Paper now that has been there since 2002 …
Dr Toyne: Your bill just will not work.
Mr ELFERINK: Then bring in an amendment. Come and get a briefing. Never do you have the right ever to come in - and any other minister of this House - and say: ‘You blokes did not get a briefing’. You have not made one phone call; you have made no communication. You said at the beginning of the last second reading speech: ‘Oh, I appreciate the hard work that members put into this and we want to acknowledge their effort’. Rubbish! You have no intention of acknowledging anybody’s efforts. You have no intention of doing anything decent in relation to this sort of stuff. You are playing politics with it.
So, do not sit in here and say: ‘I am going to do all the right things all the time’, because what you are saying and what you are doing are two different things. What you are saying is that you are going to introduce your own bill, but what you are doing is leaving ambulance officers, emergency workers and those people they try to rescue, exposed for a longer period of time. You are going to come in and introduce your own bill - whenever that may be - and you are going to call it the Good Samaritan Bill and cast a wider net. I actually think that the wider net is a good idea, but that does nothing for ambulance officers, emergency workers and those other people in the meantime. Without a time frame, the position you have taken is a pup - is a total pup. Ambulance officers and emergency workers throughout the Northern Territory are going to be very disappointed in your response because they deserve better.
The reason I am raising this issue with a little passion, I suppose, is because this happens on a daily basis. I used to do volunteer ambulance work in Alice Springs for quite a few years. Quite recently, I jumped into a back of the car, with the assistance of the kind folk at St John Ambulance who were kind enough to take me along for a ride. They told me stories and I learned of things that were of great concern to me. This does not happen once in a blue moon; these officers are hindered regularly.
Therefore, in the six months, a year, or however long it is going to take the Attorney-General to get his stuff together and get himself organised, it is going to continue occurring, and there is going to be no protection for the people who are doing the job or the people who are tyring to help. That is the frustrating thing. I would even accept, if the Attorney-General would condescend to contact me and talk to me about this particular issue, the stuff going though on urgency because it is happening on a daily basis.
What really is occurring is this government has been caught napping. I will tell you why it has been caught napping. On repeated occasions, such as when the member for Araluen presented the fire bill, the minister realised he was caught napping so he brought in his own improved bill; as he did with the hooning legislation from the member for Nelson. I have already proposed a bail amendment bill today and, when I announced that publicly, what was the response from government? ‘Oh, we are going to do that anyhow’. That fact is that this government has already run out of ideas. It is two or three years old and it has run out of ideas.
Every single time that a bill comes before this House, you guys have taken it. You re-jig the edges but, at the end of the day, you are already flat. At the end of the day, you guys have already run out of juice. That is the problem here. These guys are being grabbed by the nose peg and being led to the edge of the river, and then they are saying: ‘Oh this is not ours, we cannot look at this because you are suggesting it. We will introduce our own bill and it will be better and brighter than what you have shown us’. Well, at the end of the day, they have failed Territorians miserably and, in this instance, they are failing to supply proper succour to those ambulance officers and emergency service workers who are going to be left swinging in the breeze while this government gets itself organised.
The government’s response to this bill has been nothing shy of disgrace. The government’s contempt for ambulance officers and emergency workers, through their churlish political games, have left them exposed. Believe me, I will be letting them know - and letting them know thoroughly and completely - about the government’s pigheaded approach in relation to this legislation.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 19 May 2004.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, in response to the member for Macdonnell’s proposed legislation, I do not think he is going to be happy again, I am sorry to say. There is merit in this proposal by the member for Macdonnell. The government will be moving to adopt the sentiment of what he is trying to achieve here because there is an anomaly in the current legislation governing the laws on how a civil legal action can be brought against the police - an anomaly inherited by this government.
However, it is not just an issue isolated to the Northern Territory. Indeed, I am advised that it also has been a problem in other jurisdictions around Australia. However, whilst well intentioned, the member for Macdonnell’s bill does not provide a solution to the problem it seeks to address. Let me explain.
The Northern Territory Police, as an organisation, is responsible for the action of its officers when they are acting in good faith. Under existing legislation such as the Northern Territory Police Administration Act - and reflected in similar legislation in other parts of Australia - when a person is seeking punitive damages and wants to sue the NT Police, legal action must be against the NT Police as an organisation. However, in somewhat of an anomaly, the legislation also dictates that the complainant is compelled to also bring a civil action against the police officer as an individual to this legal action.
This is where the problem lies; not least the weight of pressure it can put on an individual officer who is required to provide his or her own legal representation. Other jurisdictions with this legislative anomaly have moved to fix it by requiring that civil legal actions be brought against the police force as an organisation. New South Wales, for example, has put in place changes aimed at fixing the problem, and the approach that they have adopted will help guide the way forward for the NT.
During this year, NT police and government have been in discussions about a range of issues relating to the Police Administration Act, and work is under way to modernise this legislation. I am optimistic that a range of amendments to the act, including amendments to address the legal anomaly under discussion today, will be ready early next year.
Legal advice provided to government through the NT Police is that the suggestions proposed by the member for Macdonnell would not achieve the goal of overcoming the legislative anomaly. The proposed changes would not overcome the problem now faced and, in fact, would still see individual police officers requiring separate legal representation in the circumstances I have outlined.
I am pleased that there is an apparent consensus that the problem needs to be addressed. I acknowledge the work of police management, NT Police Association, and the sentiments of the opposition. It is a complex area. There has been a lot of work to look at reform of the Police Administration Act. I am hoping to bring the amendments to the act that will address this issue to parliament in November. That is not a cast iron commitment, but that is the timetable to which I am working to see passage early in the new year, so that this issue will be picked up as well as a range of other issues in that act. The clear advice I have received from the legal people within the police force is that this bill does not fully clear the issues and the anomaly that the member for Macdonnell has foreshadowed. I can say that when we present the legislation not only will this be resolved, but a number of other workability issues will also be picked up.
In a spirit of cooperation, I commend the shadow minister for proposing this bill. He will be pleased to see that the intent of what he is trying to achieve will be picked up by the government. At the end of the day, it is the outcome that is important, which is the change to legislation, and that will be achieved early in the new year.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): A miracle, Madam Speaker, on the grounds that, yet again, it seems to be a marvellous accident of history that, as the opposition raises the issue, the government has an answer just around the corner; just a moment away. It seems that they are only inches behind us sometimes.
The intent of this bill was simply to protect individual police officers from being sued. The minister read the advice from the department and talked about punitive damages. That is one type of damages. There are nominal damages; normal damages for loss. Punitive damages are, quite specifically, punishment damages that are awarded by a court for certain types of behaviour. The information about punitive damages is all very interesting, but there are other forms of damages that can be awarded. The minister seems not to have turned his attention to that. He also has not explained what the anomalies are.
The bill is very straightforward in what it does, and is a reproduction of what you find in the swimming pool act and God knows how many other items of legislation. It simply says that police officers are not individually civilly liable for acts in good faith. An act in bad faith means that, if a police officer acts with malice or, in one fashion or another, with contempt or villainy in his heart, this bill does nothing to protect such a police officer. All this really does is make the police officer a much smaller target for a vexatious type of action by somebody who is seeking to pursue a police officer. If you are subject to the normal laws of negligence, then there are a whole raft of different tests that apply and standards that have to be met. In good faith, all it does is create a much smaller window for people to pursue an individual police officer.
In my second reading speech, I made it quite clear that I would fully expect that the vicarious liability of the police department would continue to apply - and the minister agreed with that position. However, sadly, to be so dismissive in terms of giving me a lecture on punitive damages - well, what other damages are contemplated that he had not discussed? My bill covered punitive damages and the other types of damages that are available. He has been given this briefing, but I am a little concerned if he understands the differences between the different types of damages for which police officers could be pursued.
The second thing is the anomalies that he talked about. Well, what are they? What are these anomalies? I have no idea. He has not telephoned me. He has not sought a briefing, or in some way tried to communicate to me in any fashion that he has a problem with this bill. Once again, he has an opportunity, by bringing an amendment to this bill, to be able to bring this succour to police officers in a very short period of time. But no, he chooses to reject this bill and reintroduce something in November. How long is it going to take to go through? When is the next election?
Let us say the next election comes in May, March, or November - who knows? It could happen at any time, and the Police Association, in my opinion, has been sold a pup as well. The pup that they have been sold is simply that the police minister said: ‘Yes, we are going to go and look at this and we are going to fix all this’. When he presents it, it will sit on the Notice Paper for a few months, and then drops off the Notice Paper because the parliament is prorogued. How would that protect police officers? Then there is a new government, and that might be a CLP government, an ALP government, or a Greens government - who knows? However, that government starts with a clean Notice Paper. What happens? The opportunity that has been presented to police officers tonight to protect them from this sort of action failed, and police officers are not protected; they go back to the old system. That is the concern with the minister’s approach here tonight; that the government has not taken an opportunity to correct something that the minister has acknowledged as a problem. That is sad; these things sometimes happen
However, I would really like to think that if the Attorney-General, the government as a whole, and the minister for Police believe the bills have merit, then they should endeavour to contact members who bring those bills before this House and try to find a way through it. I am not doing this to be funny or cute; I am doing this to try and correct a situation that I see is wrong. I am told that there is a problem with my bill. If that was the case, the minister could have telephoned me or said: ‘Come in for a briefing. This is the reason there is a problem with your bill. If you do this, this, and this, it can be corrected, and then that problem can be resolved and we can have the thing set as law by the end of this week’. That is the sad thing: that the government chooses not to go down the path because the government needs to be seen to be governing. Woe betide them if there is anything so much as hint of supporting a bill presented by any other person than the government itself. That is the politics of it.
However, while the government is playing politics, police officers and - in the case of the bill just dealt with - ambulance officers and emergency workers are left swinging in the breeze. That is the shame; that, as this government plays politics, other people suffer.
Motion negatived.
SUMMARY OFFENCES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 214)
Continued from 19 May 2004.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thought the bills were cognate and we had been dealing with the two together. Well, if they are not cognate, the government has already indicated it is not supporting the bills. This is the second of the two bills. We are not supporting this bill.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): That is it, hey? Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this is very frustrating because the government clearly is not organised at all. This stands as a separate bill; it has a different serial number. As the Attorney-General should well know, if something has a separate serial number and there is no motion before this House for it to be heard as cognate, then it is a separate bill; it stands by itself. It stands there for the same reason that I reintroduced the Criminal Code Amendment Bill. The minister gave a reply which was basically two lines long. ‘I do not care’, says the government, ‘You are not getting your way and you can all stick it up your nose. We do not care about those people who work in the field of emergency services and bringing succour to those people in the Northern Territory who are injured’.
This is an attempt to stop people hindering those ambulance officers and emergency workers in the course of their duties. The government dismisses it with two lines. I am disappointed in the government’s attitude. As I said before, I will certainly be letting people know what this government’s attitude is. As I pointed out in the last debate in relation to the police, once again, ambulance officers and emergency workers have been sold a pup for exactly the same reason. What have they been sold a pup on? Quite simply this: this government says, ‘At some point in the future, in a time frame we have not announced, we will introduce a bill which will effectively do the same things this particular bill does’. By the time it gets through, this government will probably have gone to an election and it has dropped off the Notice Paper. The bill is lost into the ether of history and nothing happens for those workers out there in the community.
It is interesting for this government to be so dismissive of those workers because, as a Labor government, you would expect that occupational health and safety issues and the rights of people who go about doing their occupations unhindered, would be something this government would warm to very quickly. Indeed not, because of the politics of refusal and bloody-mindedness is the politics of this government. Whilst they are fiddling, Rome is burning and, as far as they are concerned …
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: I hear the minister sigh. ‘It is all dreadful. We all have to go home and go to bed’. Well, I do not care if it is 10 pm - at the moment 10.30 pm - or 2 am. I care enough to bring a bill into this House to at least be treated with some sort of dignity. The minister himself said, not two hours ago in this place, that he always was concerned about approaching opposition bills with an attitude of concern and understanding that they are trying to do the right thing. Now he is treating these bills with contempt because it does not suit him; it is getting late and he wants to go to bed.
Well, there are ambulance officers out there tonight who will not be going to bed tonight. They will be driving into places which are downright unpleasant - some of the town camps in Alice Springs, for example. Whilst they are on duty tonight they going to be hindered, interfered with, yelled and screamed at, spat at and dealt with, with contempt. They are going to go to places like the Keith Lawrie Flats and are going to have to sit out on the front driveway. Do you know why they sit on the front driveway and say: ‘Bring that injured little girl with a stake through her foot out to the front’? It is because the last time that they were there, or the time prior to that, somebody broke in and stole their ambulance, and the ambulance was damaged.
These people have a right to be able to go about their business and do their job unhindered, and that is what this bill attempts to do. It attempts to help those people in those situations. As the minister yawns and sucks air through his teeth tonight saying: ‘Oh my God, it is 10.30; it is late’, at 3 am he is going to be in bed, and is not going to care what is happening on the streets of Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin. What is going to happen is that those ambulance officers are going to have to put up with more rubbish.
This bill has been sitting on the Notice Paper since August this year – August. Since that time, an ambulance has been stolen in Alice Springs, and people have failed to get proper medical attention delivered to them. Why? Because ambulance officers have been stuffed around by some of the people they even try to help. And this minister has the audacity to try to dismiss this piece of legislation with two lines: ‘Oh, I thought the bill was going to be cognate …
Members interjecting.
Mr Baldwin: If you are tired, go home!
Mr ELFERINK: And the government interjects before the member for Daly.
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Absolutely! You had a chance to …
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: … try to govern the Northern Territory …
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Macdonnell, direct your comments through the Chair, please.
Mr ELFERINK: Absolutely, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. If the minister and the Labor Party are too tired to do their job, then perhaps they should stop thinking about being here. I have a great deal of sympathy for those emergency workers. Where are the contributions of the other members? The whole of government’s contribution in relation to this bill has been two lines. Where are the other members? What about the …
Mr Baldwin: Where is your contribution?
Mr ELFERINK: … the member for Barkly, who has ambulance officers in his electorate stuck with the same problems …
Mr Baldwin: The police minister, emergency services - where is your contribution? You are woeful.
Mr ELFERINK: That takes me to a very good point: where is the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services’ contribution …
Mr Baldwin: You do not care about the emergency services. That is your problem. You do not care, and if you are tired, then why don’t you go home?
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Daly, could we please hear the member for Macdonnell’s comments on the matter.
Mr ELFERINK: The government has been …
Mr Henderson: More ambulances on the road when the CLP were in power?
Mr Baldwin: You do not care about them otherwise you would have contributed. You are weak and woeful! Weak and woeful; that is what you are!
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, when I brought this bill to the House, I laid on the table a copy of Outback Ambulance. I forget the issue number, but it spoke about an ambulance which had also been attacked in a town camp in Alice Springs. If you read the article, it is hair raising. People use the term ‘war zone’, and that is exactly how ambulance officers describe the environment they work in. I know because I have seen it. I have seen it when I was a policeman, and I saw it the other month when I was out with these ambulance officers.
These ambulance officers deserve better than us playing politics in this House. That is what this is about; it is protecting them. I know full well that this bill will not go all the way; it will not dress them in a suit of armour that makes them impervious. However, it will give them a sense of reassurance that we, as a parliament, have the courage to protect those who protect us whilst we sleep in our beds. This bill will go some way of changing policy in the ambulance service so that ambulance officers no longer stand off about making complaints. I can tell you, they put up with so much and so few complaints are made. I would like to see a policy change in the ambulance service where complaints are far more regular, and where people go to gaol for hindering ambulance officers. However, you need to create the legislative environment for that to occur.
It exists in part with the assault provisions under the Criminal Code and in other parts. To create a general offence of hindering an ambulance officer is not that hard. We do it for police officers. It is a simple section in the Police Administration Act which says: ‘It is an offence to hinder a police officer in the course of his duty’. That is not too hard. There is no major impediment to that occurring. You can do exactly the same thing through the Summary Offences Act for ambulance officers. It is that simple!
It could have been easily fixed by the government bringing an amendment into the House tonight if there was a problem with it …
Mr Baldwin: It is a dereliction of duty.
Mr ELFERINK: I would have accepted their amendment, as I indicated quite publicly recently. They have become derelict - and I thank the member for Daly for the word - in their duty to protect the workers that the Labor Party traditionally says it wants to protect - the blokes and girls at the coalface. They are the ones the Labor Party is supposed to be protecting. To their eternal shame and disgrace, they are too busy refusing to allow a CLP bill to go through and are leaving these people exposed. Tonight, those ambulance officers are going to be out on the streets while these guys are in their beds, and they have failed them.
Motion negatived.
Mr Baldwin: Totally derelict!
Mr Stirling: Get back on your green cans; it is getting warm.
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I ask the member for Nhulunbuy, who has had a drinking offence against him, to withdraw that mark.
Mr Stirling: Why? It is out there getting warm, mate. What is unparliamentary about that?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, would you withdraw any comments on whether or not a member …
Mr STIRLING: It might be a can of lemonade. I withdraw, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Mr BALDWIN: No! Totally misrepresented …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Daly, it has been withdrawn. Please sit down.
Mr Baldwin: I should hope so. A member who has had a drinking offence against him …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please sit down. Member for Daly, please sit down; let us move on.
Members interjecting.
Mr Baldwin: You mob are derelict and tired! That is your problem. You cannot go out at night. One way …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Daly! Member for Johnston! It is General Business. Let us continue, please.
Continued from 19 May 2004.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Family and Community Services): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, although the opposition shadow Justice and Corrections minister introduced this bill, the government believes that petrol sniffing is a social problem and should not be treated as a crime.
The government will not be supporting this bill, and to outline our reasons for this, it is easiest if I read from the bill, clause 8:
That extract alone makes our opposition to this bill self-evident. That they came up with a proposed solution that involves prison sentences speaks volumes. I simply do not believe that this bill has the support of the community.
In establishing the government’s policy, I have talked to the police, health professionals, lawyers and, more importantly, the wider community. They are not saying to me: ‘Send petrol sniffers to prison’. I have received a couple of papers put together by Alice Springs Youth Services. They are fantastic papers; they were compiled by the Alice Springs Youth Accommodation and Support Services in conjunction with the Reconnect program in Alice Springs and the Safe Families project at Tangentyere Council. It has been endorsed by the Community Harmony project, the Alice Springs Safe Communities Regional Committee and Alice in 10. They are all very well regarded organisations in Alice Springs that deal with the curse of petrol sniffing on a daily basis. I met with most of them last week in Alice Springs.
In this paper, they conclude that criminal sanctions should not be applied to problems that are of a medical or social nature. If the member for Araluen claims that this bill is not about sending sniffers to prison, why put it in there? Why would you put a two-year prison sentence into a bill you say is not about sending people to prison? She did not have to put it in there but she did.
Last week, I outlined the Labor government’s plan to tackle petrol sniffing. We are banning petrol sniffing, and I heard the belittling comments from the member for Araluen earlier today making light of that comment. However, we are giving police the powers that they need to combat petrol sniffing. They can seize petrol if it is being abused. They can apprehend sniffers and take them to a place of safety. We are giving courts the powers to order compulsory treatment programs for chronic sniffers. We are empowering communities. Communities will work with the police to come up with places of safety in each community, and will be involved in treatment programs. We have immediately allocated an extra $2m this year, and we will be funding the programs, services and facilities necessary to support this legislation into the future.
Many years have been spent talking about petrol sniffing and what to do about it. For years, nothing was done. I am delighted that, finally, we have a government that is doing something about it, and I do not mind saying that it makes me very proud.
Prior to becoming minister, I was the chair of the substance abuse committee. Last year, I tabled that committee’s interim report. The final report is about to be tabled by the current chair, the member for Nightcliff. The government takes this report so seriously that we have already allocated money towards implementing its recommendations on programs and services. As soon as it is tabled, we will look at the recommendations and how they can be implemented and complement our legislation.
I am aware that the member for Nelson has made comments that he thinks we should have waited for the substance abuse committee to table its report before we considered a policy like this. I can see his point. As I have said, it is a very important report, and that is why we have pre-emptively allocated money towards implementing its recommendations on programs and services.
Ms Carney: Oh, that is too cute. That is so creative: ‘We have pre-emptively decided’.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You can laugh, but what did you do?
I can say that I did not really need to wait for this report to make the announcement we did last week. The things we announced were obvious; they should have been done years ago. I had to respond to this bill today, and I was not simply going to say that we would wait and consider the report before stating that prison for sniffers was wrong. I also point out that we were looking at everything we announced last week back in May, and I detailed it in a parliamentary report.
Our package is about banning petrol sniffing and getting sniffers on track. Banning it certainly goes some way towards discouraging petrol sniffing being taken up in the first place, but we do not pretend that this alone will stop it occurring. Prevention is the key …
Mr Dunham: Like a cotton ban; it does not really exist does it? It is all gammon.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! The member for Drysdale continues to interject against standing orders.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not think there is any point of order, member for Karama.
Ms Lawrie: There is. There is a standing order on it.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Look, he can interject all he wants. The hypocrisy with you and members on your side calling for a bipartisan approach on this issue, and then you make light of what we are trying to do. The hypocrisy is all on his side.
Mr Baldwin interjecting.
Mr Dunham: You call it a ban on petrol sniffing and it is just a gammon ban. It does not exist.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Your legacy stands for itself. I would not even talk about it. Your legacy stands for itself. We will have a whole-of-government approach towards prevention …
Mr Baldwin: Similar to the cotton ban? You were pretty good on that one. No law against it, but it is a ban.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Daly, please! Let us hear the minister’s comments.
Mr Baldwin: Tell us how the ban works. Come on, you are on your feet.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You are an insignificant little parasite, you are.
Police, schools and health clinics will be involved. Our approach is to do all we can to prevent substance abuse being taken up in the first place and, when it does, we will do all we can to stop it becoming a chronic problem.
The shadow minister for Corrections has claimed that we copied her policy. I cannot think of two policies that are further apart. Her bill today is about sending our kids to prison; our policy is about keeping kids out of prison and getting them back on track. Many people, including many working within the community sector, may or have expressed reservations about our youth policy being too harsh or punitive. I believe the great majority who are working at the coalface ...
Mr Baldwin: Explain how you have banned it, while you are on your feet.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Look, talk about something you know about. You know nothing about this, so I would be quiet, if I was you. In respect of the crisis ...
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister for Family and Community Services, could you just grab a seat until there is quiet in the House.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Well, I am trying to deal with this. If you could stop them on the other side from interjecting.
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister for Family and Community Services, could you be seated please. Member for Daly, if you continue to interrupt, you leave me no other option but to name you. Could we just have a bit of quiet at this late hour.
Mr BALDWIN: Sorry, could I have a clarification, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I am not allowed to interject, is that what you are saying?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Daly, at the moment, you are on a warning.
Mr BALDWIN: I am on a warning?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are on a warning.
Mr BALDWIN: Could I ask what for?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: For continual interjections, member for Daly.
Mr BALDWIN: Point of clarification. Could you tell me am I not allowed to interject?
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Daly, your constant interjections are interrupting the minister’s opportunity to speak. I ask you to refrain from doing that, otherwise you give me no other option but to name you.
Mr Baldwin: Okay.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Members interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. They did ask us if we were responding, and I am trying to respond to this bill. I believe that the great majority working at the coalface in respect of the crises we are trying to deal with are now very supportive of the path we are travelling on.
There is a further period of weeks between now and the next sitting when consultation will take place, through which suggestions for finetuning of the initiative can be made. Those from the community sector who maintain their criticism tend to be people who are one or more steps removed from the coalface. They raise objections framed in individual rights and the need to treat the whole community as the patient, rather than just the individual petrol sniffer. This approach, which has basically been the status quo approach for many years, implicitly characterises petrol sniffing addicts as rational and responsible citizens and the communities they are living in as safe and socially functional. The reality is that petrol sniffers in communities where it is endemic and rampant are not susceptible to any softly, softly holistic therapy.
The provision of better recreational facilities and education and employment opportunities alone will do nothing to fix the problem, which is not to say that those things are not an important component of any global strategy. Of course they are but, without a change in the law enabling the police to step in to stop the actual practice of petrol sniffing, and the courts to mandate detoxification and rehabilitation regimes, nothing is going to change.
When the pendulum swings the other way, it eventually reaches the extreme position as outlined by the shadow Attorney-General. They want petrol sniffing to be made a criminal offence, with prison sentences for convicted offenders. The proposition only has to be stated for it to be rejected out of hand. The problem we are facing needs tough and effective measures to be taken immediately, backed up by specifically focussed and targeted policing and judicially machinery. Throwing more indigenous people in gaol is no answer at all and would, indeed, constitute an excessive undermining of the human rights and dignities of individual volatile substance abusers. In this country, interference with the personal liberty and freedom of individuals who have not committed any crime is unacceptable unless it has some permissible social purpose such as the temporary detention of a mentally-ill person at the risk of harming himself or herself or others. Where the real underlying purpose of the detention of such persons is to punish them, the detention is legal. You cannot get around that fundamental principle which is one of the cornerstones of our democratic society, by simply labelling an illness a crime and sending people to prison as a punishment for being sick.
I am absolutely delighted with the approach that we have taken, and the reception that we have received. It has been widely welcomed by the media throughout Australia. However, I am most heartened by the reception it has received from people who are currently working with petrol sniffers in the Northern Territory at the moment. We have received numerous comments and the overriding sentiment can be summed up by one e-mail I received: ‘Great, about time too!’.
The announcement that I made last week was the most important initiative ever undertaken towards tackling petrol sniffing and other volatile substance abuse in the Northern Territory. It is for that reason that we do not support the bill that we have before us today.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, first things first. Well read, minister. You are getting exceptionally good at reading these things out. I would actually like to know what you think one day, because all I am hearing at the moment is the opinions of whoever writes this out stuff out and the occasional piece of common abuse. I would like to actually know what the minister thinks, rather than what the ministerial advisor thinks.
I am also fascinated by this term ‘banning’. This is an extraordinary thing. I would like to put it into some sort of context ...
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: You can interject to your heart’s content; it does not bother me.
I am curious as to what the mechanics of ‘banning’ are going to be. To ban something means that you are going to stop it from happening; you prohibit it. If you prohibit something then you must apply some sort of sanction. The sanction they are applying is not clear. In fact, there is no sanction. What they are going to do is say: ‘You should not do that’. And that is it; it stops. That is what happens when you ban something without actually building it into legislation, without creating a mechanism for banning something.
Let us have a look at smoking legislation in relation to restaurants. Smoking is banned in a restaurant, by law. If I was going to light up a cigarette in a restaurant and puff away, the restaurateur would walk up to me and say: ‘Sorry, you cannot do that, it is against the law. You are banned from doing it’. I would say to the restaurateur: ‘Well, you can get nicked, Sonny Jim, because I am going to smoke away to my heart’s content’. The restaurateur then takes some action, notifies the authority and guess what? There is a sanction. You can get fined, and if you do not pay your fine, you go to gaol. All sorts of sanctions apply to that.
If I do not wear a bicycle helmet in the right circumstances and I am riding my bicycle down the street, the act of riding a bicycle without a bicycle helmet is banned. There are all sorts of things that can apply after you actually put a sanction in place. The first thing that can apply is that a police officer, or the authority that has the responsibility of looking after that piece of legislation, has the ability to apply a common law power of discretion. Not every person who rides a bicycle down the street without a helmet necessarily needs to be apprehended and given a ticket, because police can apply a discretionary power. Indeed, it is quite possible for a police officer to pull a person over who is speeding for instance - which is banned. How do I know it is banned? Because it is in legislation that says you cannot speed.
Mr Baldwin: It is actually called a law.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, that is it; it is called a law.
If the police officer sees somebody speeding they can pull them over and say: ‘Excuse me, sir, do you know that you are travelling at 60 km/h in a 50 km zone. That is against the law and you should not be doing it?’ Then the police officer has several options. And guess what? The first one is a verbal caution; the second one is do nothing at all. It is perfectly lawful. It is called the common law power of discretion. Then you follow it through. Let us say the police officer thinks: ‘Oh well, I better do something about it’. So, he gives him a ticket. The guy in the car says: ‘Well, I am pleading not guilty. I am disputing the fact that you caught me speeding’. The police officer says: ‘Well, I will summons you’. You then go to a court. Then the court adjudicates and decides. I am sure you are aware of all of this, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. The court can only look at the issue because of an actual unlawful act.
There is no such things being half pregnant. That is exactly what this minister is arguing: that if you are banning something without actually creating any sort of defence, sanction, penalty or whatever - the minister is saying that the government is only half pregnant on this issue. Well you cannot be; it is an absolute. The law either exists or it does not.
There is no offence to be drunk in public in the Northern Territory. There is a power of apprehension but there is no sanction that applies. In fact, the law is very specific in protecting people’s rights. You cannot be photographed, fingerprinted, questioned in relation to an offence, or have DNA taken whilst you are under that protective custody. If you resist arrest in those circumstances, and you smack a policeman in the face, that is an offence and for that you can go to court.
What sanction does the minister suggest that banning will have? None. The best she can offer is the deprivation of the liberty of an individual while they are intoxicated. That is not a sanction. The second thing she could say is that an order can be made by the court for a compulsory treatment program. How are you going to get that person to court? There is no offence. It is curious how the mechanics of this are going to work.
The opposition’s bill suggests that there is an offence – shock, horror! – and that people might be placed in custody. The minister talked about people’s rights and dignities. In my experience, I have yet to clap eyes on a dignified petrol sniffer. There is no such thing. It is a disgusting condition to be in. It turns your brain to mush. I have seen it. I saw it a week ago. I reported it to a police officer! Do you know what the police officer said to me? ‘I cannot do anything’. This government, which says it has been a problem for years, has been in power for years. It had the ability to do something. However, it is not until the CLP brings legislation into this House that this government decides to respond. Once again, they are off the boil and off their case.
When the police officer said he could not do anything, I said: ‘What about the Community Welfare Act?’. This was an ACPO and perhaps the training was not quite to level, but I got a blank look …
Mr Kiely: Oh, so, it was not a police officer, it was an ACPO now.
Mr ELFERINK: I fulfilled my obligations, as I always do ...
Mr Kiely: You are making this up.
Mr ELFERINK: … unlike the member for Sanderson.
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: I informed the authorities. The problem with the Community Welfare Act - and it is interesting that the minister for community services still has not fixed this, despite the fact that she identified it - is that there is a phrase in that act that says: ‘… by the standards of the community to which the child belongs’. It seems all too common that the standards of some Aboriginal communities is the yardstick that is applied, and when children are not being stopped from sniffing by their parents because it causes too much humbug, it seems to be the standard that is accepted. Not good enough - just not good enough.
We can talk about dignity, yet all I can see is things that disgust me. The minister has seen it; the minister knows that substance abuse in the communities is not easy to control. God knows the minister knows that. The minister knows how hard it is to control substance abuse in community, whether they are lawful or not.
What the CLP is proposing is a method by which you create a sanction. Shock, horror! We are not automatically saying to courts: ‘You will put this person in gaol’. The court knows it is not required to do that. However, there are instances where gaol would be better than …
Mr Dunham: Death.
Mr ELFERINK: … death, and that is the logic of what we are talking about.
If you look at the Bail Act, it allows bail to be refused for the protection of the person who is applying for bail. That is extraordinary. The Bail Act even contemplates removing a person’s liberty for their protection. It is the same philosophical position. That is before they are convicted of anything. What we are suggesting is that we create an offence, which means that police officers can intervene.
If I had walked up to this police officer under our regime and said: ‘Look, there is a kid over there petrol sniffing’, the police officer could not have replied that there was nothing he could do about it. He could have said: ‘There is something I can do about it. I am taking him into custody’. What happens when a person goes into custody? All of a sudden, there is a whole bunch of responsibilities on the part of the state to look after that person in custody.
You have this 14-year-old kid with a tin can under his nose, sniffing away, doing the Darth Vader impersonation: ‘Luke, come to the dark side’ and all that sort of thing. All of a sudden, they are in custody; the petrol is removed. That is a step in the right direction. Guess what? It is lawful for the police to do that. What do the police do when they arrest a person? Police are legally obliged to bring that person – where? Before a court. We now say to the police officer: ‘If you are going to refuse bail for this person to have health their health looked after, you can give them bail’. They can be released a short time later into the care and custody of the person. But you then bring that person in front of the court.
What if the Sentencing Act allowed for it to occur? Assuming that person is found guilty - and we will not suggest for a second that they are guilty until such time as the due process of the law is followed - a whole raft of options open up to the court. They can do, at the lowest level, nothing. They can say: ‘The facts are proved, I am not going to proceed to a conviction - out you go, you are an innocent man’. That is the lowest level. The court can actually say, not hearing the charge: ‘Bye. You are an innocent man, you should not be here’. It goes all the way up to: ‘You are going to gaol’.
It has been my experience that the courts use sentencing not in punitive ways - especially in the cases of juveniles - unless it is absolutely necessary. In fact, it is clearly the policy of the courts to try to keep kids out of incarceration. However, there are times when incarceration has to occur. Sometimes it is because the kid is just woefully out of control and breaks in to all the places and causes mayhem. However, there may be other reasons to incarcerate a person, and (a) is because they have broken the law, and (b) it is for their own good. A court can also sentence a person to a good behaviour bond, and give conditions to that person whilst they are in custody. That could mean those conditions might be a compulsory rehab program.
However, there is a mechanical process to what the CLP is arguing for. There is a process in place, and there is a finding of guilt - shock, horror! - on the petrol sniffer. What the government is suggesting is that we ban it and bring these people in front of the courts for orders. Well, how are you going to do that? Are you going to arrest that kid and then take them into custody in Papunya? When is the court next sitting at Papunya? Next month? Therefore, what we are going to have to do - says the government – is we are going to have to take the kid out of Papunya to Alice Springs. Really, in the mind’s eye of a kid in the back of the police van trundling down a dirt road, does he really care whether or not he is banned and is under some sort of protective custody? Does he really care if he has been charged with an offence? I would suggest that a person under the influence of petrol, and who has a petrol sniffing habit, is not going to be concerned about those sorts of niceties. What they are going to know is that they are in custody, because what the government is proposing means custody.
Let us be realistic about it. If they are taken into protective custody to be brought before a court for a court to determine an order, it is no different from arresting him and bringing him before a court. That is what you are doing. What the government is suggesting is that they have some general power of apprehension; a little like section 128 of the Police Administration Act. They are really bending the wheel when they are doing this sort of thing, so that they can exercise administrative power. The government is going to use custody in the same way that we are suggesting custody is used. There is a perfectly acceptable and structured system in place which already works. It is a system that we have used for hundreds and hundreds of years.
There is one other aspect to this. We, as a parliament, like the other parliaments, have made all sorts of substance abuse illegal. In fact, out of all the chemicals that are available out there, most of them are illegal for the purpose of consumption: tobacco is illegal in a limited way nowadays; alcohol is heavily regulated; heroin, cannabis, amphetamines - all those uppers, downers and sideways movers - hallucinogens, and God knows what else. They are all illegal. And guess what? You can buy ganga at school in Papunya, apparently - very easily. You can buy it at Port Keats, apparently. I can certainly tell you, from the rumours that I have heard and passed on to the police, that you can buy it in Mutitjulu. It is out there. And guess what? Kids are using it. Guess what? It is against the law, and they are getting arrested and they are going to court. I am just confused as to what is so special about petrol that makes it a different type of offence.
There is a general expectation in the public arena outside of those kids who are seen as victims - and I agree to a large extent they are - that the government intervenes and does something. There is a general expectation of people I have spoken to in places like Alice Springs, where this is actually a criminal offence. People have been asking me why it is not a criminal offence. I believe it should be for all of the reasons that I have outlined.
The Attorney-General’s response to paint sniffing so far is to buy all the paint in Mad Harry’s in Alice Springs. That is his answer to it. Then we are going to paint some pictures at Yuendumu. Well, that is good. I am glad that the kids at Yuendumu are getting the opportunity to express themselves through art. However, that is not the way to fix these things; that is a political stunt: ‘I am going to go down to Mad Harry’s and buy all the paint’. Well, you missed Mitre 10 and Big O home wares and God knows where else you can buy paint - K-Mart and all those places. It is a bizarre response. What is the minister’s response going to be to petrol sniffing? Is he going to buy all the petrol at BP in Alice Springs? Or perhaps he should buy the big fuel tanks from Sadadeen Petroleum in Alice Springs? Well, knowing the minister, he would probably think wind-powered cars are the way to go.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this is a genuine attempt to use the processes that are available without dressing them up for political niceties or for people’s sensibilities. It is a genuine attempt to do something about it, and this government is worried about stepping on people’s toes. My response to this government in relation to this issue is: for God’s sakes, govern!
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it sometimes makes me feel ashamed to be a politician because in this parliament we are debating a very important issue, petrol sniffing, and doing so just when the select committee was about to put its recommendations to parliament on this very same issue. It makes me ashamed because I believe all members of the committee - and I hope that all members of this parliament - would have agreed that we should have looked at the recommendations first, and then developed some actions. It makes me ashamed that party politics could get in the way of what should have been a bipartisan or tri-partisan approach to the scourge of some of our young people petrol sniffing.
Can someone please tell me why we are debating this legislation instead of waiting for the report next week? Was it politics? Was it too good a chance to win some brownie points? Was it to impress the voters with the usual ‘my law was tougher than your law’ approach? Did it really have the welfare of our young people at heart? Were they really the pawns of a political game? You answer for yourselves. Regardless of the good points in the legislation, could we have not held this debate up until next week? Could the government not have mounted a reasonable argument that, as you set up the committee, you could have delayed your comments also until the report was delivered to this parliament? No wonder people think we are a strange bunch. Nevertheless, I will make some comments on the task before us.
This bill has two key parts: making it an offence to administer to oneself or allowing another to administer, or allowing the sale or supply of restricted substances; and giving power to police to empty out petrol or dispose of containers in various circumstances. The purpose behind this bill is to give powers to the police to arrest people who are committing an offence under this bill.
Could I first ask: has anyone asked those police, especially the ones out there in the firing line, what they think? From my contacts, I do not believe they want to be locking up people for petrol sniffing. They do not want to be arresting people for what is a social problem, not a criminal problem. Anyway, as one policeman said to me the other day: ‘Where are you going to find a safe place to put people, say, on a place like Papunya?’. It is no use saying there will be juvenile diversionary programs because not all petrol sniffers are juveniles. They will go to gaol or pay a fine. If you can be arrested for sniffing petrol, why not reintroduce drunkenness as a crime?
Has anyone read the response to the arresting of petrol sniffers by Dr d’Abbs, who appeared before the substance abuse committee in April? Dr d’Abbs is an Associate Professor at the School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine at James Cook University. At that meeting, I asked the following question:
Dr d’Abbs:
I believe the bill that is being put forward has merit but it needs to be approached from the way Dr D’Abbs spoke about; that is, the civilian apprehension model. We should amend section 128 of the Police Administration Act which is used to apprehend someone to put them into protective custody, as long as that is not used to cover up other criminal behaviour. I take the point from the member for Macdonnell: it may, in its present state, not be the perfect tool to do what we are trying to do, but we should certainly be looking at it.
Of course, this particular idea should have gone to this select committee and we should have debated it. We could have come back here with some recommendations we all could have agreed on. As it is, I now have to debate an issue that I would rather have done at the committee stage and come back, hopefully, with something we all agreed on.
Following on from section 128 of the Police Administration Act, perhaps then a court order could be issued involving family - I know that was an issue mentioned in our trips around the communities - which would order a person to be sent to a safe house or a safe place, as Dr D’Abbs said, such as a Mt Theo for a period of time. That could even include a juvenile diversionary program, if applicable. However, we would have to make sure that, before we allowed such a law to come into being there was a lot of work done talking with police, families and communities, and health workers, to ensure there were facilities for safe places in place.
Petrol sniffing has its own difficulties for people who have to handle these situations. They can become very aggressive as though they were possessed. Once again, I will refer to Dr D’Abbs’ report. He mentioned a matter in relation to that as well. The member for Port Darwin asked Dr D’Abbs what some of the dos and don’ts were, referring to people intoxicated with petrol. Dr D’Abbs said:
There are some issues just with dealing with people who are intoxicated from petrol. Dealing with these people involves understanding and knowledge of how to deal with them. We all want solutions to the problem, but I do not believe arresting people is the way to go. What is ‘funny’ in this debate is that some could accuse the substance abuse committee of being too slow in releasing its report, so by bringing this legislation on, it has pushed the government into making a response and the substance abuse committee to get its report together a bit quicker. There may be some element of truth in that, but one has to realise that this committee was looking at three substances, not just one, and we had a change in the chair as we were coming into the final lap.
What is forgotten by the sponsor of the bill is that a Coroner’s report was released in September 1998. This report dealt with the death of a young boy on 17 October on the Stuart Highway, approximately 102 km south of Alice Springs. He died from loss of blood after a young man forced his arm through a window. He was a petrol sniffer. In his findings, the Coroner, WL Donald, recommended the following:
And he went into some detail on how those facilities should be set up:
Finally, in summary:
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that report was presented six years ago. Did the previous government or the new government ever act on these recommendations? Petrol sniffing is not a new practice. Why are we rushing through a piece of legislation based on one government being slow to act? Where was the action the Coroner required? It did not occur. These things have been around a long time. Why could we not wait for the recommendations of this committee to come out? That is why I say this whole debate is more about politics than looking after the kids who are being affected by petrol sniffing.
I am not saying that all of this particular law is bad. I agree with most of it – about tipping out petrol and taking that off people. I just have my doubts that arresting people is the way to go. This whole issue of arrest by apprehension should have been better left to a bipartisan or tri-partisan committee to look at and not set by party policy.
Now CLP members of the substance abuse committee are bound to support their party policy, instead of being given a free hand to work things out on the committee and then consult with their party. As it is now, we have an unfortunate mess. I hope something can develop out of this that we can all agree on but, sadly, it will not be this bill which unifies our efforts.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the member for Araluen’s legislation with regards to petrol sniffing, and I hope that this Assembly can also support it. Everybody in the Northern Territory is well aware of the scourge of petrol sniffing across our wonderful area.
As a member of the substance abuse committee, I have had the unfortunate opportunity to have witnessed petrol sniffing at first-hand on, in particular, one Aboriginal community that we visited. Tackling petrol sniffing is something that we all want to do and our heart is in.
The CLP does have a policy with regards to petrol sniffing, and it is titled ‘Tackling Sniffing in the Territory’. The reason we have this policy - and I particularly point this out for the interest of the member for Nelson - is that the substance abuse committee has now been running for nearly three-and-a-half years. For quite some time now, a number of us have been calling for this committee to actually wrap things up and come out with a report. As the member for Nelson knows, it has been hard getting some of these reports. With regards to alcohol, the government itself had to step in, with the Treasurer formulating his own alcohol committee which released its own report.
With regards to petrol sniffing, the CLP got sick and tired of waiting in the face of the tragedy that it is causing in the Northern Territory and many months ago, earlier this year, the member for Araluen put forward in this House during a General Business Day her legislation with regards to petrol sniffing. Not surprisingly, after that occurred, the substance abuse committee, under the new chair, decided to wrap things up with regards to petrol sniffing and come to some sort of conclusion. That was the reason why we did it; because we sick of waiting for something to happen. We needed a policy and, by golly, we have done it.
I am going to read into Hansard the five points of our policy to educate members of this House who may not have taken the time to read our policy, who can gain an understanding of the holistic nature of this policy. The first dot point is that the CLP, in government, would make the sniffing of petrol and other toxic substances illegal. Secondly, we would give the police the power to dispose of petrol and other toxic substances, similar to pouring out of alcohol that is being illegally consumed. The third point is that we would develop, in conjunction with existing health services, state-of-the-art treatment programs targeting substance abuse, including sniffing.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! We have three members on the government side all reading newspapers. My understanding is that that is most unparliamentary and you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, should direct them not to do so.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I do not think there is any point of order at all. Please continue, you are only interrupting your own member.
Mr Kiely: You cannot even count, Jodeen.
Ms Carney: Well, you are the only one not reading a newspaper because your reading is not very good, is it?
Mr Kiely: You are a fool! A silly, spoilt fool.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! The phrase ‘fool’ in connection to a member should not be used, and he should withdraw it in relation to the member for Araluen.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, if I was to rule that unparliamentary, we would be here all night, where people often, unfortunately on both sides, call each other a fool. I am not going to rule that unparliamentary.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! What about the words ‘idiot’ and ‘cretin’?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, member for Araluen, you threw abuse to begin with. All you are doing is interrupting, at this late hour at 11.30 pm, your own member, who is trying to read into parliament your own policy. I ask you to sit down and the member for Port Darwin to have the opportunity to continue. Thank you.
Ms CARNEY: A further point of clarification. I asked you for clarification in respect of the words ‘idiot’ and ‘cretin’. You have ruled that it is not ...
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I have not ruled on any matter, so please do not put words into my mouth.
Ms CARNEY: Well, you did. You ruled that ‘fool’ was not unparliamentary. I asked whether ‘idiot’ and ‘cretin’ are unparliamentary.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I ask you to sit down. I ruled that in terms of use of the word ‘fool’ in this parliament. From what I have seen over the three years that I have been involved, I would be stopping every debate every two minutes. I must admit I did not hear the member for Sanderson use those words, so I cannot rule on those. I ask the member for Port Darwin to continue her comments and be allowed to continue in peace.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I am reading from House of Representatives Practice at page 193. It says:
Mr Ah Kit: I was only reading about this CLP man in more strife.
Mr DUNHAM: If this practice continues, it is a departure from the practice of the House of the Reps, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I ask that you rule that they desist from reading newspapers.
Mr Ah Kit: Well, have we got it in front of us? Idiot!
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, I will get the advice from the Clerk on that. However, I believe the use of the word ‘discretion’ – and at this stage I am going to use the word ‘discretion’ and I rule there is no point of order. Again, at this late hour, if the member for Port Darwin could please continue with the CLP policy uninterrupted, if she is capable of reading that into the Hansard, because I believe this is an important matter. Thank you, member for Port Darwin.
Ms CARNEY: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, a further point of clarification. You said two things in the same sentence. One was that you would seek advice, then you went on to continue to say that it was a matter for your discretion?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: On advice from the Clerk of the Assembly, I would ask all members of both government and opposition to refrain from reading any material in relation to the newspapers, as it is not considered good etiquette. I ask them to go into the lobby and continue if they wish to do so. If there are no more points of order, I ask the member for Port Darwin to be allowed to continue with her comments.
Ms CARTER: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I return in order to repeat point three, which is that the CLP will develop, in conjunction with the existing health services, state-of-the-art treatment programs targeting substance abuse including sniffing, and investigate the benefits of establishing a residential rehabilitation facility.
Point four is that we will legislate to give courts the power to order sniffers to attend detoxification programs, the resources for which a CLP government will provide.
Point five is that we will legislate so that the children who are sniffing can be taken into care for their own protection, and so that they can undergo treatment.
You can see that there are quite a number of similarities between the CLP policy and the Labor policy. The only significant difference is that we plan to make sniffing illegal which we are trying to do tonight with this bill, as opposed to Labor’s plan to ‘ban’ sniffing. We all know what the term ‘illegal’ means, but what does the word ‘banned’ mean? I call on the Attorney-General tonight to explain the term ‘ban’ used by the Labor government. We will be very interested to see how much notice sniffers will take of the word ‘ban’. How much will this ‘banning’ be able to be enforced if it is not illegal? What sort of sanctions are attached to ‘banning’ if someone does not take any notice of the ‘ban’? This is why we call on the Attorney-General and those opposite to explain it to us.
The member for Nelson has raised the issue of civil apprehension models which have been introduced recently in some other jurisdictions in this country. These models, although they sound wonderful, have yet to be assessed. They may have no effect at all, just like the word ‘ban’ may have no effect. However, we on this side of the House look forward to seeing the effect of these civil apprehension models. If they do work, there is no reason why we cannot use a civil apprehension model in the future. However, at this point there is nothing to indicate that they will have any effect whatsoever. Particularly we ask: what does ‘banning’ mean and could the government please explain it?
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, unlike the minister, who I note is not here, similarly …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! The member for Araluen is aware. Standing Orders …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, the member for Araluen has been in this parliament for three years. Surely she must know she cannot comment on whether a member of parliament is in this House or absent. I would ask her to withdraw.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Mr Ah Kit: Did she withdraw?
Ms CARNEY: In fact …
Mr Kiely: Withdraw! Far too cute.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I did not catch whether you withdrew the comment.
Ms CARNEY: Yes, I withdraw it, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Unlike the minister, I do not have a prepared speech. Might I say that the reading, collectively, on the government side is really coming on. The pronunciation of some words is still somewhat pedestrian, however.
There are a number of things I can say …
Mr Stirling: You are elitist!
Ms CARNEY: … when the member for Nhulunbuy gives me the courtesy of allowing me to do so. The members for Macdonnell and Port Darwin endorsed with that publication …
Dr Burns: You are so clever.
Mr Stirling: Because you did law, what gives you the right to scumbag everybody in this place?
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I wonder if your call to desist with interjections for the member for Daly also applies to government members who are interjecting? If so, could you afford my colleague some protection from the constant interjections?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, Member for Drysdale …
Mr Stirling: It is a bit rich coming from this grub over here who has been at it all night.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy!
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker!
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, could you just refrain for a second. Member for Macdonnell, just have a seat for a second please.
Mr Stirling: You have to keep an eye on these blokes, Terry. They have been disgraceful tonight.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the point of order of the member for Drysdale, for the last hour everyone who has been sitting in this House is obviously aware that there have been consistent interruptions. I urge all members in this House at 11.40 pm to refrain from interjecting, and allow the member for Araluen to continue with her comments.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I would like still to hear the withdrawal of the word ‘grub’ as used, which has been ruled to be unparliamentary.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the member for Nhulunbuy to withdraw the use of the word ‘grub’.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I withdraw.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, please continue.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. There are a number of definitions of the word ‘ban’ but the one that interests me most is according to the Macquarie Dictionary: ‘informal denunciation or prohibition’. That is what the government’s proposal is. The word ‘gammon’ was used earlier. It is a gammon proposal to ban petrol sniffing. It is an informal proposal. This government lacks the collective balls - and that is a word that has been allowed earlier today - to stand up and say: ‘We will make petrol sniffing illegal’.
What the government does not lack is any form of embarrassment when it comes to copying our policies. We have seen it numerous times tonight where we lead, they follow; we lead, they follow. Thank God for us introducing much legislation on General Business Days because, without that, instead of the 87 items of legislation that the Leader of Government Business referred to earlier today, there probably would be about half of them because what we are able to do in opposition, of course, is give the government some good ideas, perhaps in the nave hope that they might accept what we say.
We will take whatever we can, and we take heart again. Personally, I am flattered that the two ministers, B1 and B2, have uplifted the CLPs paper on petrol sniffing. The member for Port Darwin went through them and there is no need for me to repeat them. However, when the Minister for Family and Community Services said that none of our policy was any good and they independently got stuck into their own - what garbage! If that is not misleading the House, I do not know what is.
Four out of five of our solutions were picked up by this government. It was an uplift; as simple as that. Without even feeling embarrassed about it, they say: ‘Thank you, Country Liberal Party, for leading us again. What we will do is wrap it up and call it our own’.
The history of this matter is nothing short of extraordinary. Preempting the findings of a parliamentary committee, as the minister did on Friday, is probably unprecedented. What she did is make an announcement for the sake of making an announcement. We heard that the substance abuse committee was not producing any results for three years. We introduce a bill. Of course, we would have given notice of it in probably about February; I introduced it in May. Here we are, Tuesday, the first sitting day, 5 October and, on Friday, the minister went to Alice Springs and announced her policy.
What makes it even more embarrassing for them, however, is that on ABC radio, the minister was asked questions about rumblings within youth and other organisations who had only heard about the trip that day or late the day before. The minister, in her pathetic reply, said that she was engaging all of the community organisations and she had received submissions. She did not give them even the courtesy of a phone call to say: ‘I am coming down there to make an announcement’. The level of hostility within some of these organisations is palpable. They have been treated like fools and they should never have been put in that position.
Preempting the findings of a parliamentary committee because we were debating this on Tuesday was not a coincidence; it was deliberate. I reckon the minister and some of her staffers must have woken up next Monday and thought: ‘Oh, my God. What is in parliament next week? It is petrol sniffing’ …
Mr Elferink: She is doing a Vatskalis.
Ms CARNEY: It is a bushfires one, that is what it is: ‘Oh, my God. What is on the Notice Paper? Ah!’ Accordingly, it would be very interesting to find out when the plane trip was booked, because I reckon it would have been late Thursday.
It was political opportunism; nothing more, nothing less. These people on the other side who say that they are as white as the driven snow when it comes to things like parliamentary democracy, are treating this parliament and the people of the Northern Territory with contempt. The people of the Northern Territory are a wake-up to them.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it gets even worse. This rabble on the other side is in disarray about petrol sniffing. The cretin, the member for Sanderson, said in parliament on …
Ms MARTIN: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I do not think the word ‘cretin’ is parliamentary.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I ask you to withdraw the word ‘cretin’.
Ms CARNEY: Sorry?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The use of the word ‘cretin’ – could you withdraw it please?
Ms CARNEY: Can I use ‘fool’? I will withdraw ‘cretin’.
Ms MARTIN: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I think withdraw is withdraw.
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could the Chief Minister …
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order! Order! Members of the opposition, and for the benefit of the Chief Minister, I did hear the member for Araluen withdraw the word ‘cretin’. We said earlier - probably about 45 minutes ago - that the word ‘fool’, unfortunately, has been often used in this House. If the member for Araluen wants to continue to use the word ‘fool’, she may.
Ms MARTIN: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I just think it is the offensive way that the member for Araluen used it.
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order! I ask the member for Araluen to sit down, please. I ask members to be quiet so we can listen to the continued address by the member for Araluen.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. The idiotic fool, the member for Sanderson, said in this parliament on this debate …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I ask her to withdraw that comment. This is very provocative. Either …
Dr Lim: You were the one who started it.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, sit down! Member for Araluen, I ask you to withdraw the use of the word ‘idiotic’, please.
Ms CARNEY: I do withdraw.
The member for Sanderson, fool that he is, said in parliament on 2 April:
Ironically, I do not think that was foolish. I agree, completely, with what the member for Sanderson said. I expect that some of his colleagues may have even called him a fool after he said it, because he has created, as he usually does, a great deal of embarrassment for them.
We had the foolish member for Sanderson saying: ‘We want petrol sniffing to be made illegal’. In April this year, the Attorney-General was quoted in the Northern Territory News as ruling out a ban on petrol sniffing. Indeed, he said it would be counter-productive. On Friday last week, the Minister for Family and Community Services, on her quick trip to Alice Springs, announced a ban on petrol sniffing. Are you not embarrassed? Do you not all feel like fools? Where are you coming from? We are consistent. What is your story?
Mr Ah Kit interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: He wants it …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, direct your comments through the Chair, please.
Ms CARNEY: The first Health Minister ruled out a ban and, yet, his mate B2, the other health minister, wanted a ban. It is extraordinary. We are happy, and flattered that the government nicks our ideas. If it means getting the job done; so be it. However, against a backdrop of disunity and disarray within the government, it is not only noteworthy, but it is really quite funny.
A number of other things need to be said about sniffing and the Minister for Family and Community Services’ response tonight. She showed a very shallow pedestrian understanding of the law. I know that the Attorney-General is learning, and that is good, but the other health minister should speak with him, or certainly his staffers, so that she can learn a little about the Territory’s justice system.
As I said in the second reading speech, the CLP’s proposal to make sniffing of petrol and other substances illegal is not about putting people in gaol. I outlined, at length, the Territory’s juvenile diversion program, and made it very clear - and I quoted from police documents, which I tabled, I think, from memory. Some of the material was police documents that said such as the aim of the scheme - that is, juvenile diversion - is to divert juveniles away from the formal justice system and the courts. The principles of the scheme are to treat young people fairly, reduce youth crime, support and involve victims, encourage parental responsibility and so on.
Under the CLP’s proposal, it will be an offence to sniff petrol. You can then be apprehended. In reality, you probably get a warning. However, if you are apprehended you are then diverted, like so many other juveniles. In fact, there are so few juveniles in custody – much to the consternation, I must say, of some of my constituents - illustrates the point, even to the fools on the other side, that the courts of the Northern Territory do not like sending young people to gaol. This proposal is about getting them early. Hands up those who do not think petrol sniffers are on a collision course with the criminal justice system. It gets them early and it diverts them. It puts them into the very programs that we outlined in our policy, which were picked up almost in its entirety by the Northern Territory Branch of the Australian Labor Party.
I also said in my second reading speech that we considered all of the research; we spoke to a number of individuals and organisations including Aboriginal organisations and Aboriginal people. They told us that they want sniffing made illegal. I do not know what people say to this mob on the other side, but I have been to a few communities in the last couple of weeks. All of us were at a community not so long ago where the issue of petrol sniffing came up. What did the people out there want? They wanted it to be made illegal. They know that their young people are dying before their very eyes and, unless very serious action is undertaken, a generation of predominantly young Aboriginal men will die. Is it not better, even though gaol or imprisonment is an option of last resort, for those people to be in gaol, albeit for some form of drying out period …
Mr Elferink: To end up in a body bag.
Ms CARNEY: … than to die or, as the member Macdonnell says, in a body bag. We do not want to put up with that. Members on the other side might say that it impinges upon their civil liberties to arrest them. We say it is not something that, in consciences, can be tolerated.
Over the years, much has been done by almost everybody when it comes to petrol sniffing. Governments are putting ad campaigns on communities with various programs - the list is endless. Organisations whose representatives probably vote Labor, have been to hell and back to do what they can to remedy the effects of petrol sniffing and try to stop it. It has not worked; it is getting worse. More people will die unless bold corrective action is taken.
I stress again that juvenile diversion diverts juvenile away from the courts. In fact, juvenile diversion is well suited for petrol sniffers. What is so interesting is that, in the announcement that was issued by the minister on Friday there was, in essence, what the CLP proposed in rehabilitation facilities, treatment programs, etcetera. The difference is this: the Northern Territory Branch of the Australian Labor Party says that government will work with families and communities to encourage voluntary treatment for chronic users. Well, has that not been tried before? Then it says:
How dare you! How dare you come up with this rubbish! People have been encouraging sniffers to stop sniffing for a very long time. Encouraging compliance does not work – it just does not. This comes from a government that has as an Attorney-General a bloke who, only a few months ago - politely I might say - asked the criminals of the Northern Territory to stop committing crime. Sorry, but it does not work. Encouraging sniffers to comply with orders will not do anything and it will not save their lives.
The question has to be asked: what if the sniffer says: ‘Nah, nah, I am not doing this’? I wonder what both Health ministers envisage happening. I believe I know what will happen. The sniffer goes back to the community and gets himself or herself into the sort of trouble that they usually do, and they continue to sniff. This is why the Labor Party’s proposal is flawed. It is flawed as a matter of logic.
Mr Elferink: If they are a government, they should govern.
Ms CARNEY: Yes, thank you, member for Macdonnell. They should govern, but they do not have the intestinal fortitude to do so. They say: ‘If we ask sniffers to stop, they will’. Well, organisations have been trying every way they possibly can to get people off sniffing for years. It does not work; it has not worked. There is a point at which we, as legislators, need to nail the colours to the mast and say: ‘Enough is enough’. It is like domestic violence, ‘Enough is enough; it has to stop’. Under Labor’s proposal, they have gone three-quarters of the way; I will grant them that. Coincidentally, the three-quarters is that which they have uplifted from the CLP policy. However, the one quarter that they have not grabbed is making it illegal.
Do we want to send young people to gaol? No. Is it possible? No. Do the courts want to do it? No. What do we want to do? We want to make sure that a generation of Aboriginal young men do not die before our very eyes. If the people on the other side of the House want to tolerate that, that is their right and they are entitled to do so.
Dr Burns: Did not worry you for 27 years. How many deaths were there - 50? Fifty at least.
Ms CARNEY: Three years - well, the member for Johnston can say 27 years. I wish he would come up with something a bit different.
It is getting worse. Most of the people I have spoken to - organisations and individuals including Aboriginal organisations and Aboriginal people - told me it is getting worse. Something is happening. I never used to see a petrol sniffer around Alice Springs. Now I see them everywhere. I went to a town camp in Alice Springs …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, could you direct your comments through the Chair, please.
Ms CARNEY: … about five weeks ago. I went to the same town camp about four years ago. Five weeks ago, sniffers were everywhere - little kids walking around doing the full bit. Unbelievable; it is getting worse. So don’t you come in here, member for Johnston, and say: ‘What about the last 27 years’. What about the last three. It was not until we introduced this bill that your committee even got its act together and came up with some recommendations. Then you lot even said: ‘Oh, we are going to take pretty serious measures; we are going to ban it’.
Members might be interested to know that, although I no longer practice law, I still have most of my law books. I looked up on Friday afternoon Osborn’s Concise Legal Dictionary. I was not surprised I could not find the word ‘ban’. The word ‘ban’ was not in the Osborn’s Concise Legal Dictionary. It is not a concept known to the justice system because it does not, as the member for Macdonnell was saying earlier, provide a sanction. You make something illegal, there is a sanction. You say ‘banned’. What does it mean? And there have been …
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member of Araluen, take your seat. Members of government and opposition, I have asked you to refrain from yelling out across the Chamber. We are attempting to listen to the member for Araluen’s contribution to this matter. Member for Araluen, could you please continue.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I will say again, the word ‘ban’ according to the Macquarie Dictionary, is an informal prohibition. The word ‘ban’ was not in my legal dictionary. I do not know why it is that the government cannot bring itself to make petrol sniffing illegal. It has gone three-quarters of the way by very kindly picking up most of our proposals, for which I thank them. There are some positives there.
However, why does not the government go one step further? There are a couple of reasons for that in my view. We have seen it today and every other General Business Day. They cannot quite bring themselves to agree with everything we say. ‘We will go three-quarters of the way’. With the Bushfires Bill, we were quibbling over, from memory, our fine of $2000 for something and the government’s fine was $5000. The minister did not agree. There is a point of principle with this government. They are entirely unprincipled in every other respect: in the way they conduct themselves and the way they treat this parliament and Territorians. However, they follow, as a matter of principle, the fact that they will never agree with everything we say, because that would mean saying that the CLP is right. They cannot quite bring themselves to do it.
There is another reason why they will not agree to making sniffing illegal; that is, in the Australian Labor Party, particularly the Northern Territory Branch, they have this funny knee-jerk reaction to people being put in gaol. They just do not like it. Under our proposal, we would make it illegal because you must have a sanction. Imprisonment is an option of last resort. Does the Country Liberal Party step away, ever, from sending people to gaol should it be warranted or, in this case, to protect them? No. But there is something in the water that these people drink that says: ‘Gaol, gaol, gaol! No, no, no!’
The Attorney-General, probably a year or so ago, was contemplating how to let more people out of gaol. I note he has gone silent on that. He probably knows that Territorians are not averse to putting people in gaol, and the Country Liberal Party is always happy to put either criminals in gaol or, in the context of the sniffing debate, people in gaol as an option of last resort when it might save their lives. We will never step away from that, and we feel very strongly about.
This garbage about encouraging compliance - what a patronising way to treat Aboriginal people and their families. What do you say to a mother whose son is so close to being …
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, would you resume your seat, please. Again, members on both sides of the Chamber, could you please refrain from interjecting. We are in, possibly, the last five minutes of this contribution, and I would like everyone in this House to allow the member for Araluen to continue her comments without interruption. Thank you.
Ms CARNEY: What do you say to a mother whose son is so close to being dead it really is not funny: that we encouraged him to comply with his treatment order? Will the minister go around to that mother and say: ‘We encouraged him’? I defy the ministers - either of them, B1 or B2 - to do that. If they have the courage to do that, I will take my hat off to them, because I will bet London to a brick that the mother is likely to take a physical swipe at the minister. That mother came to us - and she is only one of them - and said: ‘Please save my children. Please do whatever you can to make sure that my son does not die. Please make it illegal’. We said: ‘Yes, we agree. That is what we will do for you’.
However, this government: no! So this …
Mr Elferink: Gutless!
Ms CARNEY: … gutless garbage about encouraging compliance - where you do you get off? How dare you put that in this propaganda that you disseminate! You should be embarrassed - very embarrassed - that you have uplifted most our policy, but you stop at making it illegal. You spin this garbage about the CLP just wanting to send people to gaol. What rubbish! How do you sleep at night?
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, please address the Chair.
Ms CARNEY: You say all we want to do is send people to gaol!
Sorry, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will direct my comments to you.
I do not know how they sleep at night. Maybe they do not, which is why they are looking, after three years, like such a tired and arrogant government. They are looking so tired. Thank God for the Country Liberal Party, because we will continue to introduce legislation. We are happy to give them our ideas.
Look at the energy that is here tonight. Over there, what a pathetic bunch of people. A couple of hours ago, the Leader of Government Business was getting tired. A couple other members just wanted to go home. If I had another four hours, I could get going, but I have probably said all that needs to be said. Let me recap. These people over here …
Dr Burns: You are a political impersonator.
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, would you sit down please. Members, please, let us refrain from making any comments across the Chamber. It is now five past 12. This has been going on for a good hour-and-a-half, and people are just behaving ridiculously. Member for Araluen, please continue your remarks.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. To recap, these lovers of democracy on my left have pre-empted the findings of the parliamentary committee. They are desperate to be seen to be doing something, and we see that in everything they do. They are even rehashing the rehashes of the rehashes. They were desperate to make an announcement just for the sake of it. Tuesday 5 October, we are talking about petrol sniffing. On Friday, the minister went to Alice Springs; that is extraordinary. It was political opportunism. I refer again to the fact that most of the interested stakeholders that she referred to in her reply, did not even know she was there. If that is not arrogant and patronising, I do not know what is. I refer again, and …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: You can yell all you like, sport, because I cannot hear you. I cannot hear what you are saying, and I can get even louder. I have, okay, 30 seconds. If you want to scream for the next 30 seconds, then you do so.
The fool, the member for Sanderson, wants to make petrol sniffing illegal. That is about the only thing I have ever agreed with him on. So do we! The Minister for Health said that he does not want to ban it, because that would be counter-productive. Now we are in a position where the other health minister says: ‘No, bugger it, we will ban it’. I do not know what is happening to you lot but, if the election was held this Saturday, on listening to you lot, you would all be voted out.
Motion negatived.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am sitting here across from this lot of rabble here tonight. It is midnight and they are all groaning and yawning, and stretching and wanting to go home. I remember a time in this House when Mr Bailey, the former member for Wanguri, Mr Stirling, and several of the other opposition members would keep us here quite regularly …
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! He can refer to me by my electorate.
Mr ELFERINK: The former opposition member, the Treasurer, would keep us here until the early hours of the morning, because they believed passionately in what they were doing, and they thought it was their job to deliver opposition. To see this lot groan, weary and tired, aching at the end of the day, because their family-friendly parliament is actually keeping them up, tells me that something has gone. Some of its vigour has gone. Some of the passion, some of the love for the job that they used to have, is gone. Government has not treated this lot well.
The reason I speak tonight is actually quite a different issue. It is in relation to the community of Maryvale, which is otherwise known as Titjakala, and it is under the governance of the Tapatjatjaka Community Government Council. It is in my electorate. I will tell you a little story about Tapatjatjaka. There is freehold land which belongs to the Tapatjatjaka Sports and Social Club, which means it is not a land trust. Guess what has happened on this piece of non-land trust which is privately owned by a social club? They have now a set of tourist tents on their place. For a large amount of money, you, as a very executive sort of person, can come into the place and hire the tents for a couple of nights and go out with the local traditional people who will show you experiences like hunting and where to find bush tucker. They tell you stories and give you a really good tourist experience in this particular community government council. And guess what? This community is doing this all on its own. It is doing it in tandem with a private company from Sydney.
In the last few weeks, I know that one of the directors of a very large and well-known bank in this country dropped by this particular tourist venture and dropped a couple of grand in the place. That couple of grand was for a few days there. Then, on the way out, he stopped by the arts centre and dropped $2500 more there buying up art.
If you drive into Titjakala, there is a little list on the board that advertises jobs. There are private sector jobs available for several people in Maryvale. Hallelujah! It is being done because the Aboriginal people in that community have suddenly become participants in the general economy. They are doing it by themselves. They have set this whole thing up themselves, and the only thing I really hope and pray is that no government department goes near them and sees this as a great opportunity to educate people. I hope and pray no government department or statutory authority tries to go and assist these people, because they are going to do it on their own and they do not need government help.
In fact, I have seen what government helps does to other projects - it kills them. They try to turn it into a three-ring circus to become a training project for this and a something else project for that, and it has to be a model community for indigenous employment. The whole thing gets weighed down with government expectations. I really hope that these people can be left alone to achieve what they have set out to achieve. I am sure that, without our help, they will achieve it.
However, there is one thing that the government can do. I can tell you that now this is a commitment by me as the member for Macdonnell and future minister in the next Territory government: this business is a real tangible working, living, breathing business, and it deserves support in one fashion. It is a duty of government to provide a safe, civil society to anywhere people go about their daily lives. It is the first duty of government. Before health, before education, before anything else, government must provide a civil society. That means you need a police presence. What Titjakala is lacking is a constant police presence. They are ready for one. They have already identified a place for a police station, but they do not have a local police aide.
The minister for Police went to Titjakala recently. They asked him about it and he said: ‘No’. Well, that is just simply not good enough because those communities which do really start to move in the right direction should be rewarded with the normal processes of support which are provided in the other towns and cities throughout the rest of the Northern Territory. Businesses are protected in Darwin, Alice Springs, and in all the other communities in the Northern Territory where they exist. This is a community that has a business, and that business needs a certain amount of protection. The local community is so much behind it, I would suggest that this business is not under any sort of threat. Nevertheless, the community government council has come to me and said: ‘We would like to have a police aide stationed here in our community’. Guess what? I agree with them.
As a commitment from me - if this government is not prepared to make the commitment, I am - after the next Territory election, should the CLP be returned and I am the member for Macdonnell, I will ensure that Titjakala will get an Aboriginal community police officer - or two, if that is the departmental policy to not have single-man stations. I will make certain that they will get a police officer stationed at Titjakala, not only to protect the interests of the business but to protect the community as a whole. These people are now going to be working people, and they have a right to protection from the state like every other Territorian. I am going to ensure that that occurs.
I point out one other thing. I started not five minutes ago saying how tired this government was looking. And guess what? They are so tired there is not one of them left in the Chamber - not a single sausage. Not one. There is nobody in the Chamber from the government at all because they are so tired that they have abandoned ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker!
Dr Lim: No, you cannot! She was not here. You cannot have a point of order.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, sit down please. Member for Macdonnell, you have been in this House long enough to know that you cannot make any reference or otherwise in respect to the attendance or non-attendance of anyone in this House, be it from your side or from the government side. Will you withdraw, please?
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this government is looking tired, haggard and, on one late night, and they fall apart. They are just woeful. In the good old days when they were in opposition, we would have been here every night - and we were here every night - well past midnight. To see this government asked to do it once and fall apart, is just shocking.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to …
Mr Vatskalis: Not the cotton again!
Mr BALDWIN: Cotton? You want to talk about cotton? No worries, get on your feet, talk about cotton.
I would like to read an e-mail that has been sent to me today concerning the minister for the environment. Because it has been sent to me I feel it is my obligation to bring it to the attention of the minister for environment, the member for Arafura. I will read the e-mail:
Ms Lawrie: Wrong!
Mr BALDWIN: I will just reiterate the point, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that I am reading an e-mail that was sent to me, verbatim:
Ms Scrymgour: Why don’t you table it? Table the e-mail.
Mr BALDWIN: I am happy to.
Ms Scrymgour: If that is from Tristan Mungatopi, that is so wrong.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes. I am just reading an e-mail, I reiterate again …
Ms Scrymgour: Oh, do not try and play that!
Mr BALDWIN: I reiterate again, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that I am reading an e-mail which I am happy to table …
Ms Scrymgour: Yes, from Tristan Mungatopi. Why don’t you say it?
Mr BALDWIN: … that I received on my computer when I opened it up today. To continue:
I am happy to table that, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Leave granted.
Mr BALDWIN: All I am doing by reading that into Hansard and bringing it to the attention of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and the local member for the Tiwi Islands, is carrying out my obligations. I have been asked to help relieve this person’s anxiety. I do not know this person. I know the family name is a very important one in the Tiwi Islands. I recognise the name, but I do not know Tristan personally. I have now fulfilled my obligation and I will respond by e-mail that I brought this matter to the attention of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage.
I do not have a personal view on the allegations that this person is making, except to say that I agree that if he has had the run-around from the local member in terms of getting back to him, then it is unacceptable. I now bring it to your attention for you to deal with it in a proper manner.
Ms Scrymgour: It is being dealt with.
Mr BALDWIN: Well, get up and say it. I have to reply, which I am about to do right now.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
MESSAGE FROM ADMINISTRATOR
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have message No 25 from His Honour the Administrator notifying assent to bills passed in August 2004.
OPPOSITION OFFICE HOLDER
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I advise the Assembly that the CLP parliamentary Whip is Mr John Elferink, member for Macdonnell.
RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that responses to petitions Nos 61, 62 and 63 have been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of the responses will be included in the Parliamentary Record.
- Petition Nos 61 and 62
Proposed closure of Northern Territory Open
Education Centre
Date presented: 18 August 2004
Presented by: Ms Martin and Mr Wood
Referred to: Chief Minister
Date response due: 1 December 2004
Date response received: 14 September 2004
Date response presented: 5 October 2004
Response:
The Secondary Education Report was released to the public on 15 April 2004,
and an independent consultant, Ms Sheila O’Sullivan from SOCOM NT, was appointed
to consult with the community about the report. The parents, teachers and students of the
NTOEC community were actively involved throughout the consultation process, which has
recently been completed. Two students from the student representative council participated
in a student forum hosted by the Chief Executive of the Department of Employment, Education
and Training (DEET) and on public education discussion forum panels in Darwin and Palmerston.
There was a great deal of discussion in the community during the consultation process about the
future of the NTOEC, with views ranging from strong support for the centre at one end of the spectrum
to affirmation of the report’s findings about its services at the other, and a variety of positions in between.
The NTOEC ran a campaign to promote their services and to protest against the findings of the report
and its recommendations. The issue also received significant media coverage.
SOCOM NT have analysed all of the extensive feedback received from a wide range of stakeholders,
including those from NTOEC, to use in the preparation of the community consultation report. This
report is due for completion in September 2004.
The government will not be making any decisions about any of the proposals in the Secondary Education
Report, including the proposal to close the NT Open Education Centre, until we have given the community
consultation report very careful consideration.
I trust this information addresses the concerns of the petitioners.
Petition No 63
House lot sizes Defence Housing Authority Lee Point
Date presented: 18 August 2004
Presented by: Mr Burke
Referred to: Minister for Lands and Planning
Date response due: 1 December 2004
Date response received: 4 October 2004
Date response presented: 5 October 2004
Response:
Concerns with respect to Defence Housing Authority proposals for development at Lee Point:
The Territory government has signed a memorandum of understanding with the Defence Housing Authority
to guide the development at Lee Point. The intention of this memorandum is to promote cooperation and to
articulate joint planning goals.
On 30 June 2004, I approved exhibition of a proposed amendment to the NT Planning Scheme to rezone land
owned by the Defence Housing Authority near Lee Point to an SU zone to facilitate a residential subdivision
The proposed SU zone was intended to provide flexibility for the future development of this ‘green field’
site with requirements that the future development application to subdivide the land be accompanied by a
drawing indicating proposed land use and zoning.
The proposed amendment to the Planning Scheme was exhibited from 9 July 2004 to 6 August 2004 and
five submissions were received including four from PLAN (the Planing Action Network).
While the Darwin Town Plan establishes a minimum lot size of 800 m2 in the R1 zone, it also includes the R0 zone
which was specifically introduced to accommodate detached dwellings on lots less than 800 m2 in new estates where
the dwellings and the estate are integrated in terms of design.
The Development Consent Authority conducted a public hearing of the submissions on 1 September 2004.
Once I receive a report from the Development Consent Authority and the Department of Infrastructure,
Planning and Environment, I will have the opportunity to make the necessary policy decision on minimum lot sizes.
In making that decision I will have regard to all aspects of the issue of minimum lot size including dwelling
orientation, outdoor living, affordability, sustainability and housing choice.
The need for new community facilities will be considered in the context of the availability of such facilities in the
surrounding locality.
The normal planning process provides the most appropriate forum for consideration of these issues,
particularly as the exhibition of the subdivision design will provide a further opportunity for public comment.
It is the government’s intention to facilitate the creation of a community at Lee Point that is well served by open
space, is public transport and pedestrian friendly, integrated with existing infrastructure, environmentally
responsive and energy efficient.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Alice Springs Hospital
Alice Springs Hospital
Dr TOYNE (Health): Madam Speaker, today I provide an update for members on the status of the Intensive Care/High Dependency Unit at Alice Springs Hospital, part of our commitment to building healthy communities. Before I commence, I would like to highlight the excellence service provided by the staff during the recent outbreak of Roper River Virus and pneumonia. I applaud the staff at Alice Springs, and across the Territory, for their dedication and hard work during this challenging situation.
Over the last week, Alice Springs Hospital has set up a temporary 20-bed ward in the Day Procedure Unit and has maintained full emergency surgery capabilities. I understand that the elective surgery patients may have been inconvenienced by cancellations, and I thank them for their understanding. I can reassure them that the hospital is working to return to normal service as quickly as possible.
I recently announced that, in the 2004-05 budget, $11m was provided over four years for additional staff and equipment in the Intensive Care/High Dependency Unit of Alice Springs Hospital. Alice Springs Hospital will receive an additional $2m this financial year, and $3m annually for the next three years, to bring the level of service able to provided to the highest standard possible.
The additional funding will allow for the recruitment of an extra 33 full-time equivalent staff in the hospital. This is provided for an additional 20.5 full-time equivalent nursing positions, bringing the total nursing staff for the Intensive Care/High Dependency Unit to 44.6 FTE. Nursing staff recruitment has been fast-tracked and the current staffing levels are 31 FTE - an additional seven FTE so far this financial year. Additional nursing staff are being engaged as skilled staff become available.
Additional funding is also allocated for the recruitment of senior specialist medical staff, allied health and other specialist staff. We have committed to increasing the staff for Intensive Care/High Dependency Unit to five full-time equivalent medical staff for 2004-05. The consultant intensivist position is currently covered by locums who have been sourced across the country. The recruitment process for the intensivist is well advanced, and interviews have been held and discussions are in progress with the applicant to establish if the person is suitable to run the service. Negotiations are continuing for the recruitment of anaesthetists. We are working hard to recruit these specialist’s positions within the terms of the recently negotiated EBA.
There is a high demand for these specialists in hospitals throughout Australia and, indeed, throughout the world. Against this background, we are doing all a responsible government should do: we have committed to the funding so our hospitals can work to get the right staff on board. As part of our strategy to get the right staff on board, I have granted approval for two senior members of my department to travel to Britain to recruit junior medical officers to the Northern Territory hospital network. We will continue to pursue these specialists and junior medical officers and promote Alice Springs Hospital as a personally and professionally rewarding and exciting hospital to work in.
This additional funding allocation will also allow for an additional two FTE allied health workers comprising 0.5 dieticians, 0.5 pharmacists and one FTE physiotherapist, as well as a FTE equipment officer to support the expansion of the Intensive Care/High Dependency Unit.
The Intensive Care/High Dependency Units will be receiving equipment to allow the staff to be able to provide the highest standard of care possible. Equipment ordering is completed and almost all equipment is now on site. The additional funding allocated will mean an increase of five new funded beds to make a total of four Intensive Care Unit and four High Dependency Unit beds. The hospital is on track to have these beds fully operational by the beginning of November 2004. In fact, with the additional nursing staff that have been engaged and the locum intensivist, we have already, on occasions, operated ICU/HDU to full capacity. These specific budget initiatives aim to improve the level of service by providing a level 2 ICU/High Dependency Unit. It is envisaged that this enhanced unit will attract highly specialised staff. I look forward to the time when we announce the names of our senior clinical staff to provide the leadership to this new and much higher level of service within our hospital.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report this morning. Like many Territorians, I have been concerned for some time about the situation with intensive care at Alice Springs Hospital and also, as you know, the fact that only a week or so ago, elective surgery had to be cancelled at the hospital. I am also concerned about staff and the morale at the hospital. I wish the staff, on behalf of the opposition, all the very best during these trying times.
It is disappointing to note that the bed state for Alice Springs Hospital currently sits at 135 beds when, in fact, it is not long ago that it was 160 beds. We have to wonder why there has been a significant decrease in the number of beds available for the admission of the patients. My concern is that the lack of staff is causing problems. Currently, there are about 50 patients who have been admitted on and off with the rota virus when, in fact, the hospital in the past has been able to cope with 100 admissions of rota virus cases. What is going on?
My concern is that the budget of the Alice Springs Hospital is currently down by $1.1 m and that the new CEO has been given the brief to come in on budget or else. The minister speaks very widely with regards to full-time equivalent staffing. When I met with the CEO of the department 18 months or so ago to discuss staffing levels in the department, I was advised that we do not talk about FTEs any more; we just talk about money and patients into budgets. The reasons that they do that is because, instead of actually employing individual people for positions, they employ agency people to fill in the gaps. It will be very interesting to find out in the future whether we really do get extra staff, or whether, in fact, all we are getting is extra agency staff and locums.
This morning I had a phone call from a nurse who raised the issued that apparently at Alice Springs Hospital the feeling is that the ICU may close in the not-too-distant future because of the lack of anaesthetic staff, the lack of an intensivist, and the fact that patients who require that type of service may have to be moved somewhere else.
Minister, it is good to hear your report and I hope we do not hear in the future that ICU is closed.
Dr Lim: You are cheating Alice Springs. That is what you are doing; 160 beds to 130.
Dr TOYNE: Madam Speaker, if I can be heard above the hypocrite over there who did not have any ICU unit in the Alice Springs Hospital in the time that he was in government …
Mr Dunham: Hypocrite! You are a hypocrite. You are shutting beds.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Drysdale!
Dr TOYNE: To deal with the bed numbers …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member opposite used the word hypocrite. I believe that has been ruled as unparliamentary …
Dr Lim: He was the first one who used it.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The member for Macdonnell has the floor.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, speaking to the point of order …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: May I say both members should withdraw that word. Let us not get personal and use unseemly language first up. Member for Drysdale, withdraw.
Mr DUNHAM: I am quite happy to withdraw the word ‘hypocrite’, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister.
Dr TOYNE: I am more than happy to withdraw, Madam Speaker. To deal with the matter of bed numbers throughout the system, I have reported previously in this House 52 extra beds, under our government, over the numbers that we inherited from yours, from 567 hospital beds in 2001 up to 619 - 52 extra beds under our government. Do not talk to me about lack of bed numbers around our hospitals. We are doing it properly and we will continue to work to build our hospitals’ capacities.
Ms CARTER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister knows that the 12 beds for the hospice have not been built. He should include them in that number …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, there is no point of order; you know that.
Mineral Exploration Expenditure
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I report on an Australian Bureau of Statistics’ report released on 15 September 2004 that indicated that mineral exploration expenditure in the Northern Territory fell from $49m in 2002-03 to $42.4m in 2003-04. Specifically, I will respond to claims by the NT Minerals Council that the decline is attributable to land access issues. I will also respond to claims by the Chief Executive of the Minerals Council that the fall was because global mining companies were no longer finding the Northern Territory an attractive option for exploration investment.
Exploration is the foundation for future mining activity, and is essential if the industry is to continue to develop and generate employment and revenue opportunities. Globally, there is intense competition to attract exploration expenditure. The Northern Territory’s share of Australian mineral exploration expenditure has varied over the years between 6.1% and 10.1%. In fact, the level of overall mineral exploration in the Northern Territory follows a similar pattern to the rest of Australia.
Exploration activity increased rapidly for gold in 1987-88, base metals in 1989-90, and diamonds in 199697, but exploration has declined steadily since 1995-96 before stabilising around 1999-2000. The fact is that mineral exploration expenditure in the Northern Territory fell steadily from $93.8m in 1995-96 to $47.6m in 2000-01. Nationally, there has been a similar trend. Exploration across Australia fell from $960m in 1995-96 to $640m in 2001-02. This Australia-wide fall in exploration expenditure resulted in numerous inquiries at both Commonwealth and state levels, with virtually every jurisdiction embarking on exploration incentive packages of one sort or another.
Commonwealth inquiries have resulted in the National Mineral Exploration Action Agenda, whose recommendations cover such thing as pre-competitive data acquisition, land access and taxation, and other fiscal measures.
In the Northern Territory, we have had successive incentive packages, including this government’s Building the Territory’s Resource Base. The package was announced in May 2003, and subsequently commenced on 1 July 2003. It provides for an additional $15.2m over four years to support development in the mining industry.
These latest ABS figures are disappointing and fly in the face of increasing number of exploration licence grants and the significant outputs that have been generated through our package, such as STRIKE, an online geological mapping system. Importantly, the available statistics and data do not support the view that either land access or the attractiveness of the Northern Territory are major contributing factors to the decline of exploration expenditure.
We took 470 granted exploration licences in the 2002-03 financial year and we had exploration expenditure of $49m. We took 734 granted exploration licences in the 2003-04 financial year and we had $42.4m in expenditure; so a 56% rise in exploration licences numbers with a 13% expenditure decline.
In 2003-04, a mining industry survey conducted by Canada’s respected Fraser Institute rated the Northern Territory eighth overall for its investment attractiveness out of 53 global jurisdictions. Against that background, my department is currently conducting a thorough examination of its database to compare committed exploration expenditure against actual exploration expenditure. We are determined to identify the real reasons behind the decline, and will continue to work with industry through regular joint forums to enhance the attractiveness of the Territory.
Finally, it is worth noting that one of the issues that industry has been calling for at a national level is more incentives through the taxation system, such as the flow-through share scheme. I am delighted to note that a Latham Labor government will implement a flow-through share scheme in order to address the decline in exploration investment.
Earlier this year, federal Labor recognised the impact of the 50% reduction in national exploration expenditure over the past decade and announced that it would implement a flow-through share scheme specifically targeted at small independent exploration companies that will encourage investment in regional economies and jobs, not just for Territorians, but for all Australians.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the minister has chosen to borrow from the Treasurer’s book of blaming ABS if its statistics do not accord with what you want. The ABS statistics in this area are telling government something to which it is refusing to listen: land access is a major issue in the Territory because of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. It is a federal act that only applies here and, if the minister is not hearing that from the mining industry, he is not talking to them. If he thinks that the mining industry is out there exploring, I suggest he pick up the Yellow Pages of a couple of years ago and start ringing them because they are not here any more; they have left. There are only a couple of explorers left in this place; most of the exploration is on existing tenements.
If he is very pleased with the prospect of a Labor government, I will quote from The Australian newspaper of 16 April this year:
- The mining industry has warned it will lose its competitive edge if a future federal Labor government stands
by its commitment to abolish individual workplace contracts.
You have two problems with an incoming Labor government. The first is that it is quite happy to say here the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act should stand only in this jurisdiction. Let us run a national campaign; let us see if Queenslanders and Western Australians are keen to have an Aboriginal land rights act put in their place. It is easy to do; all you have to do is amend ‘Northern Territory’ - take it out and call it an ‘Australian’ land rights act.
We have had it since 1976. It has had a major impact on exploration. It appears in countless Treasury documents as having that impediment. For the minister to stand here and plead that it has nothing to do with land access; he is not talking to the industry. I suggest he starts to talk to the industry, look at the ABS figures, look at the fact that it has been relegated to some minor branch in a department that even the Chief Minister, when she was on radio, could not recall the name of, and look to the fact that this produces something like 22% of our GDP. It is an important industry. It is in decline because, as he pointed out, exploration is in decline. I suggest the minister start taking this matter seriously.
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his comments. I remind him that the amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act have been sitting with the federal government for a long time, and they have been brought into parliament ...
Mr Dunham: Through the Senate because of your party.
Mr VATSKALIS: I wonder if the member for Solomon has done anything to push it through, but I have not heard anything.
As for the exploration activities, let me tell you that it is not a phenomenon for the Northern Territory. Western Australia actually has the biggest area of exploration expenditure. In the past few years, exploration has dropped from $640m to $300m. Things have changed; mining companies are now playing in a global area, not in areas like the Territory or even Australia. Now there is exploration from small companies, not the big companies like Rio Tinto and BHP, who used to spend a lot of money exploring. We are going to encourage these small and medium companies to explore the Territory, and we are currently reviewing the Mining Act to further encourage and enhance exploration in the Northern Territory.
Rapid Creek Conservation Corridor
Dr BURNS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, it has been a commitment of this government from day one to acquire a conservation corridor along Rapid Creek. The health and protection of the creek is an important issue for the Darwin community. I wish to inform the House of the great progress we have made in achieving that conservation corridor.
Under the previous government, locals believed the pressure of proposed medium density subdivision of the large rural-type blocks along the Jingili side was a real threat to the future of the creek. The rest of the creek flows through the airport and the Water Gardens and is not subject to the same pressures.
After a number of well-attended and vocal public meetings, the previous government commissioned and endorsed what became known as the Rapid Creek Planning Concepts and Land Use Objectives. A central element of this plan was the establishment of a conservation corridor 50 m wide on each side of the mid point of the creek, in the area between McMillans Road and the Water Gardens. As part of the land use objectives for Rapid Creek, the previous government rezoned the land fronting Freshwater Road from rural living to specific use, with the corridor strip rezoned to open space conservation. This amendment allowed for subdivision of the residential lots on condition that the conservation corridor to the rear of the lots was transferred to Darwin City Council. Indeed, the member for Daly signed off on the town plan to this intent on 23 February 2000, clearly showing this 50 m conservation corridor being in public hands; that is, in Darwin City Council hands.
Unfortunately, at the time, the Development Consent Authority took the decision, which was supported by the previous government, to allow some O3 (open space) zoned land to be retained by the owners rather than transferring it to public ownership. It was a disgraceful show of contempt for the importance of Rapid Creek and for the priorities of the community.
This government intends giving full effect to the intention of conserving that 50 m public corridor along Rapid Creek. My predecessor in this role made the excellent decision to acquire the O3 zone land to establish the corridor.
There are six blocks of land involved, and we commenced negotiations with all six owners to acquire the land by agreement. This has been a lengthy process. A number of issues such as water supply, disturbance, fencing and removal of fill were resolved with each landowner. The amount of monetary compensation was, naturally, a major part in these negotiations. As agreement was reached with individual owners, the O3 zone portion of their land was excised and the title transferred to the government …
Mr Dunham: How much was paid? $43 a square metre, was it?
Dr BURNS: For the record, all six owners were offered the same value per square metre for the acquired land, which was well above the Valuer-General’s valuation. Five have accepted. I would like to place on record my appreciation of the cooperative and reasonable attitude adopted by most of the landowners. On the whole, they supported the need to protect the creek.
The government has now purchased five of the six parcels of land making up the corridor. Despite every effort on my part to reach agreement, there is one outstanding acquisition not yet complete. I have bent over backwards, including meeting a significant number of this one landowner’s demands …
Members interjecting.
Mr Dunham: The ABC told him. You did not even tell him; the ABC told him.
Dr BURNS: Listen up, you might learn something. … including relocation of boundary fencing, provision of extra internal fencing, decrease in the area acquired, relocation of sand back into the horse yards from the acquired portion, and drainage rectification. Acquisition by agreement has, unfortunately, not proved possible in this case. It was only after I received a letter from this particular landowner saying that he would not accept the conditions - the money was the outstanding one - I have commenced action to compulsorily acquire this remaining 509 m2 of land. However, negotiations with this particular one landowner can still continue while the compulsory acquisition process takes place. This piece of land will be the last piece of the puzzle - the final piece necessary to achieve the conservation corridor along Rapid Creek.
Relocation and construction of fencing is already under way along the corridor, and the corridor is taking shape. Management of the corridor will initially rest with government, but will be handed over to the Darwin City Council in the longer term. It will become a treasure in the northern suburbs; a wonderful open space resource for the people to enjoy while also protecting the health and vitality of Rapid Creek.
This is a government that delivers on its promises.
I challenge him to bring in here and table the details of all of the payments he has made to those land-holders, and give us a description of per-metre price for all of them. He reckons he has paid the same money, but I challenge that. I want him to lay on the table how much he paid to the Paspaleys and all the rest of them; and why Col Cordingly is saying no to your offer; and why now you have to use your powers as a minister to compulsorily acquire. There is something wrong here, minister, and you know it. You have stuffed the whole thing up. He is the one who has stuffed this up and, at the end of the day, you have six land-holders who are not happy.
I am surprised that some of those land-holders have not taken him on, apart from Col Cordingley. I congratulate Col for sticking up for his rights as a land-holder. This minister has done nothing to appease his issues, and is now using his powers to rip off his land that could have remained as O3 protected land in his ownership. There is nothing wrong with private owners owning O3 land – cannot be built on, has to be preserved as a corridor. However, he has decided to go and rip off the land-holders and they ain’t happy! I challenge him to bring in those figures. You want me to believe you; you want Col Cordingley to believe you - table all of the figures and how much it has cost the Territory taxpayer to achieve what you used as an election platform that you did not need to. Bring the figures in.
Dr BURNS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, we are not allowed to use the word ‘hypocrite’ but let us just have a look at the record of the member for Daly, who signed off on the town plan. Here it is, his signature, on 23 February 2000, ‘T Baldwin’. You can see here the open space conservation all the way down there. T Baldwin signed off on this saying that all the O3 land …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Listen up! … all the O3 land would be in the hands of the Darwin City Council; handed Col Cordingly his hatched little map here. What a con man!
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! For a start, he cannot call me a con man. The other thing is …
Madam SPEAKER: I do not think he did.
Mr BALDWIN: … he is misrepresenting me as the minister, because I never said it would be owned by the Darwin City Council; it would remain as the private owners’ land. He is misrepresenting me and if he wants to do it he can do it by substantive motion.
Madam SPEAKER: You have made your point.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I seek permission to table this set of documents here …
Madam SPEAKER: You do not need permission, minister, you can just table.
Mr Baldwin: I have the document.
Madam SPEAKER: Let us settle down.
Mr Dunham: Are you going to withdraw the comment?
Mr Baldwin: ‘Con man’. What about ‘con man’?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Through the two ministerial reports so far, the member for Drysdale has consistently interrupted. It is hard to hear them.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask if the minister will withdraw the phrase ‘con man’.
Dr BURNS: I will withdraw, Madam Speaker. Maybe ‘spiv’ is the word.
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He has to withdraw that. The minister, if he wants to make these allegations, knows that he can do it by substantive motion. If he is too gutless to do that, then go outside and say it. I ask for him to withdraw it.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, would you withdraw?
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Without further comment. Can we all settle down a bit?
Jabiru Town Council
Mr AH KIT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, there has been a serious breakdown of local government in Jabiru. On 10 September 2004, the Jabiru Town Development Authority removed the powers and functions from the elected members of the Jabiru Town Council and decided to continue an investigation into allegations of harassment, breaches of codes of conduct …
Mr Dunham: You want to look at Royal Darwin Hospital next, Jack. Start there next.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, order!
Mr AH KIT: … breaches of codes of conduct and, according to the local government inspectors, serious problems with the elected membership of the council.
The Jabiru Town Development Authority operates pursuant to the Jabiru Town Development Act. Under the act, the authority has the function of delivery of local government to the town of Jabiru. The authority delivers this function by its delegation of powers and functions to the Jabiru Town Council. The authority has received a series of complaints and allegations about the operation of the council, the activities of the chief executive officer and the actions of individual councillors, both prior to council elections in May 2004 and since the election.
Following a walk-out of council members from a meeting and a call by the chair for intervention to resolve issues of concern, the authority launched an investigation. It called on the assistance of the local government inspectors to carry out this investigation. An urgent interim report was provided to the authority indicating that, whilst the council administration was operating effectively, there were serious concerns about a number of matters. The inspectors reported that evidence suggests that there have been decisions made where a conflict of interest was present, also that harassment of staff by some councillors had occurred, and that the conflict in the council appeared to be fuelled by an agenda on the part of some councillors to remove the CEO.
The authority moved immediately to ensure that local government services are continued, and to remove the threat of any continuation of the harassment of staff. Over 100 people attended a public meeting which was held in Jabiru on Wednesday, 15 September, following the removal of powers and functions of the council. The chairman and other members of the authority made themselves available for extensive questioning. The aim of the public meeting was to advise the Jabiru community of the results of the urgent investigation, to make sure that everyone knew exactly what had gone on and what the process was, and to make sure people were aware where this is at and where to go from here. Reports suggest that, whilst there were a number of people who had concerns about the actions of the authority, the overwhelming majority of participants in the meeting supported the actions of the authority.
The full investigation of all matters required to be investigated by local government inspectors is proceeding. This investigation will not be rushed. The interim report was provided following 50 interviews. There may very well be many more people who wish to put their views. A detailed examination of minutes of meetings, financial statements and operating procedures will also be carried out. In the course of the inquiry, contracts let will be examined, as will the process followed by the council in letting contracts. The serious allegations of harassment and abuse of staff will require detailed investigation, along with matters related to the role of the CEO. Further decisions by the authority will await the full report by the inspectors.
Madam Speaker, the authority has made it clear that, at that time, it believed the new election should be held. Under the act as it stands, a new election cannot be ordered. Advice from the department has been sought on the options available on this issue. Part of the reason that the authority took the action it did was to effectively give the council and the town a breather, to ensure that services and administration were continued so that residents of the town were not disadvantaged, and the community of Jabiru has an opportunity to make a decision about its future.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Six to seven months, Madam Speaker, is how long the people at Jabiru have to wait before they have elected representation again. The minister says the people of Jabiru need a breather from the democratic process. This is the stuff of African politics, not Australian politics. As far as the CLP is concerned, the minister should be expediting this investigation.
When I was briefed on this issue nearly a month ago, there was only a handful of statements that needed to be obtained. I cannot see how an investigation of this nature needs to take six months.
The minister must intervene and find a way - and if he needs to bring in bills on urgency, then we will look at that – and must make available to the people of Jabiru an elected local government authority.
This is indicative of the general policy position this government has taken in relation to local government throughout the whole of the Northern Territory, and it is becoming increasingly invasive and penetrative into the operation of local government. I have had CEOs from small community government …
Ms Martin: You abolished it at Yulara!
Mr Dunham: There would not be a Yulara if you were in government!
Mr Stirling: Timmy’s first decision as minister.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I have had representations from CEOs at several small government organisations and they are telling me that they are being assessed by the department, so they are more answerable to the minister than they are to their own elected bodies. I have concerns about that.
This government still has not advised many communities as to what their budgets are this year. We are fully into the first quarter of this year and they still do not know how much they are going to spend. I have some deep concerns about the way this government is approaching local government issues, and this minister saying: ‘We merely need to take a breather from the democratic processes’ is a matter of some concern for the CLP.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I hear Yulara ringing in my ears. You supported my objections to Yulara being closed down, minister, and you have done something similar. These people from whom you have taken powers away were democratically elected.
If you were to apply this principle to Darwin City Council or Alice Springs Town Council, I imagine there would be a huge uproar. Because there were concerns does not necessarily mean you close down a council. The people duly elected their council by a democratic means and they should be allowed to retain it. This is stepping in to stage manage an issue that should be resolved by the council.
What I find difficult to understand is that the councillors lost their power, but was any action taken against the Town Clerk, who was the centre of many of the concerns of the councillors? This whole thing needs a proper investigation. The council should still operate as a council and, if the government wants to look at the concerns they have; allow the council to continue and run the review at the same time.
The people voted for their councillors; the council was set up according to democratic principles. To take that right away is big government trying to tell little government what to do.
Madam SPEAKER: Sorry, minister, time has expired for ministerial reports.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Routine of Business - Matter of Public Importance
Routine of Business - Matter of Public Importance
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the routine of business of the Assembly being postponed until after consideration of the routine of business matter of public importance proposed by me pursuant to Standing Order 94. The reason I move this motion is that, I believe, with five days to go before the federal election and only three sitting days of this parliament, there is no more important issue of interest to Territorians to debate in this House than the prospect of a change in the federal government, which could occur as early as next Saturday - which could result in not only a federal Labor government, but also each state and territory of this federation being ruled by the Labor Party. The implications of that are worrying for Territorians.
These are issues that, I believe, particularly need to be debated in this House and given priority this morning. The reason I believe this motion is a worthwhile motion to move is because today is the General Business Day of this Assembly. It is the one day where the opposition and the Independents have the opportunity to bring forward their own business in this Assembly, and to order that business in the priority that they would like.
I have talked to the Independent member for Nelson, who has agreed that the priority of this MPI could take precedence, and he would agree to that taking precedence over his motion which stands as the first motion to be debated today on the Notice Paper. In that context, I see no reason why the government would not accede to this motion being given the priority that I ask.
It is our business day; it is the day that we order the business that we want to see as the priority for debate. I see no reason why the government would not accede to that particular motion. In my conversations with the Leader of Government Business, he has said that the government indicates that it will not support this motion …
Mr Stirling: Yes.
Mr BURKE: … and the Treasurer just says ‘yes’. Well, if that is the case, you know you have the numbers in this House, and no one can stop you from that. However, I want to put on the record now that this is nothing but a spineless government. This government does not have the balls to stand up for Territorians and debate issues …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Unparliamentary language.
Madam SPEAKER: I believe the comment was made against the government as a group, not an individual. Member for Brennan, you know that was unparliamentary.
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: It is a colloquial term and could apply equally to anyone, unless anyone on the other side of the House feels particularly diminished in that particular way.
This is the MPI, and this is the motion that Territorians need to understand. Firstly, the fact that there are public statements by the Labor leader, Mr Latham, which clearly shows that he believes the methodology that is used by the Grants Commission …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member should confine his remarks to the motion, which is to reorder the business paper, and not to debate the content of the MPI.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, there is a point of order. You are debating whether we should suspend standing orders to bring on the MPI, and you should keep your remarks to that without going in to the MPI debate that you wish to bring on.
Mr BURKE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I ask the Treasurer and the Chief Minister in particular, who have sat in COAG meetings at the Commonwealth level, who know the campaign that is continually being run against the Northern Territory, and the funding arrangements the Northern Territory government currently receives …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Again, the member is digressing from the motion before the Chair, which is to reorder the notice paper.
Ms MARTIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! My point of order …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan, I just advised you to keep your remarks to your motion, which is to change the order of business. I believe you have done it very well to date, but do not get into the debate; that is a separate issue.
Mr BURKE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am, firstly, trying to argue why the motion should get the priority that I ask for and, secondly, giving the reasons as to why it should get the priority that I ask for; that is, because there are three sitting days of this Assembly before the federal election. We have a situation where, if the government has its way, this MPI, given the current business that is on the paper today, will not be called on until the late hours of this evening.
Any government that would want to see that happen has to answer this question: why? You have the numbers in this House; if you are confident in a Labor Latham government being the best thing for the Northern Territory, stand up and debate it. Stand up and debate it at times when Territorians can listen to you. Stand up and debate it when they are not in bed asleep and they will not hear what was said. That is what you want to do; you want to make sure that this MPI does not come on until Territorians are not listening to this broadcast. If that is the case, this is a spineless government …
Mr Stirling: It is a full House.
Mr BURKE: The Treasurer should be the first one to stand up and back what I am saying. The Treasurer should and does know. This is the Treasurer who stood in this House and talked about the fact that we need more money for the Northern Territory. He talked about the modelling and funding arrangements at the moment are not being fair to Territorians …
Mr Stirling: Your lot knocked off $48m! You were pretty quiet about that last year. $250m over five years and you ran quiet; you never said a word!
Mr BURKE: You are, Treasurer, the Ramsey McDonald of Territory politics …
Mr Dunham: You got more than you anticipated.
Members interjecting.
Mr Stirling: Where were you last year when they knocked off $48m?
Mr Baldwin: Oh, go and take your pills! Outrageous behaviour!
Madam SPEAKER: Treasurer! Enough! I need to give a warning to all of you. If you are going to start behaving in this manner, shouting and screaming at each other, then you will not be in the Chamber to debate anything. Be warned.
Mr BURKE: I ask the question: why would not a government that is confident that Australians and Territorians will be led to a bright and better future by this Labor Latham government, be prepared to stand up and debate the words and actions of their own leader - the words and actions of the leader they want Australians and Territorians to put as our Prime Minister? Stand up and debate why this is the Labor leader who says it is absurd to suggest that the Grants Commission, as it does every year - the community needs in Hobart …
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I again ask the member to confine his remarks to the motion which is in regard to the position of this MPI on the Notice Paper. He is digressing and I urge him to confine his comments to the content.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan, you have been advised. Keep your remarks to your motion. I know it is difficult but that is the motion that you put ...
Mr BURKE: The motion, Madam Speaker, is to suspend standing orders today where the business of the day of this House is ordered in priority according to the opposition and the Independent. It should be given that simple logical arrangement; that is, that the opposition and the Independent have agreed that this MPI should come on as the first matter of priority this morning. That is what the motion calls for, and the reasons I say it is so important is that Territorians have a right to know what a Latham Labor federal government will mean for Territorians. Territorians also have a right to know where their Chief Minister and Treasurer stand on these matters. How can a Chief Minister and a Treasurer, who can sit in COAG and argue for more money for the Northern Territory, stand and cop the garbage that is coming out of Mr Latham that says that the Grants Commission process is stupid; that the current amount of money that goes to the Northern Territory is too much; that suburbs in Blacktown, Campbelltown and Sydney deserve more? How can he? This is the …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Again, the member is continuing to ignore your ruling to confine his remarks. It is almost in contempt of the Chair.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, what is clear is that we have a spineless government in the Northern Territory. What is clear from what you have said today is that I have more respect for Premier Lennon in Tasmania. At least he has the gumption to stand up and talk about what is good for Tasmanians. At least he is good enough to go on to PM last night when that fool Latham runs out a policy on logging forests in Tasmania and says: ‘This is not good for Tasmanians. I might support him in other things, but I do not support him on this’. Where is the Territory government …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I do not know what the forestry industry in Tasmania has to do with the motion before the Chair …
Members interjecting.
Mr Burke: It shows he has balls; that is what it shows! It shows he is a Premier who has some balls!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan! Just cease for a moment! You have been advised three times to keep your remarks to that. If the MPI comes on later this evening, then you will have an opportunity to put your thoughts and reasons why you think it is a matter of public importance. However, at the moment, I am being very lenient with you. You know the rules …
Mr Burke: And I accept that, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: … and you probably nearly are able to say what you want to say without transgressing into the argument of the debate.
Mr BURKE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I assume that this House allows me to speak to my motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, to your motion.
Mr BURKE: That is all I am attempting to do. I am attempting to say to Territorians that, if this government does not support this motion today, they stand condemned. If this government wants an MPI brought on after midnight this evening because it suits their political purposes - well, you are no good for Territorians. Worse than that, what sort of fools do you think Territorians are? What sort of fools does Mark Latham think Territorians are? What sort of government do Territorians have if they are going to cop this sort of garbage; that you do not have the gumption on a General Business Day, where you have control of this House every day of the sitting year - on the one day when the opposition and Independents can move motions that they believe are a priority of this House - you will not even allow it. Worse than that, you do not even have the strength of conviction to stand up and argue for your own Labor leader.
That is what Territorians should understand out there: that this government is hoping that Mark Latham becomes Prime Minister of the country, but does not have the gumption to stand up and argue for him or against him. They would rather wait until the early hours of the morning so that no Territorians are listening.
If that is the case, they stand condemned. I ask this parliament to support my motion to bring on the MPI forthwith.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, what hysterics and histrionics from the member for Brennan. If this motion and this MPI that the opposition is seeking to bring on forthwith was so important in the context of the current election campaign, why is the Leader of the Opposition not running this motion? Why is it left to the Liberal member for Brennan to run the primary issue of importance? Why is it left to the Liberal member for Brennan, not the Leader of the Opposition? If the opposition really thought …
Ms Martin: Or the deputy leader.
Mr HENDERSON: Or the deputy leader. If they thought that, of all of the some 15 items of business on the Notice Paper today, this was the most important, you would think that the Leader of the Opposition would be running the argument. We know that the member for Brennan has leadership aspirations today and will not and cannot trust the Leader of the Opposition to run what is, supposedly, the single most important issue for the opposition on General Business Day. The fact that the Leader of the Opposition is not running this, does not show the government that this is anything other than a political stunt.
The member for Brennan said Territorians have a right to listen to this debate. Well, this debate is not being broadcast; Question Time is broadcast. We will debate this issue later this evening when it comes on as routine of business. Matters of public importance are a vehicle for the parliament to consider issues of public importance of which notice has not been given to members to prepare to consider the content of debate on the preceding day. It is deliberately a vehicle to allow members to consider matters of public importance and to participate and prepare for the debate.
The fact is that the reason that the standing orders and the routine of business have been ordered - and have so been ordered since 16 October 2001 - is so that his House can have informed debate. The first we saw of this motion was at 8 o’clock this morning. There is such a myriad of inaccuracies and blatant politics that we, in having a constructive debate on this, will prepare for a constructive debate when this comes on, to rebut each and every one of the allegations that are raised in that particular matter of public importance. It will be debated; it is not being gagged. Territorians will have an opportunity to read the Hansard. Those who are interested in this will be able to read the Hansard of the debate tomorrow morning. Tomorrow morning they will be able to log on to the Internet and read the content of the debate, which will be a considered and informed debate by this House.
This is a General Business Day for all members of this House, not just for the opposition and the Independents - for all members of this parliament. The very fact that, for the sake of political grandstanding, trapezing in here with an MPI that is barely worth the paper that it is written on, in terms of the inaccuracies that are contained …
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: … in that content …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! My colleague was unable to talk about the content of it and, in the same way, the current speaker should refrain from reflecting on it unless he wants to debate it. Then we will talk about the content.
Madam SPEAKER: The same rule applies. You cannot enter into a debate on the MPI. We are talking purely about the suspension of standing orders.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We will debate the MPI. We will debate it today. Territorians who will not get to hear the broadcast of the debate either today or tonight will be able to see the content of the debate on the Internet tomorrow morning, in plenty of time for consideration in the lead-up to polling day on Saturday.
This is nothing but a political stunt from the opposition, an opposition that is so weak and divided they cannot even trust the Leader of the Opposition to run this debate; it has to be left to the member for Brennan. Madam Speaker, we do not support this motion, and I move that the motion be put.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that standing orders be suspended.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 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 Wood Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Environment and Sustainable Development Committee – Reference re Cotton Industry
Environment and Sustainable Development Committee – Reference re Cotton Industry
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that:-
- 1. The Environment and Sustainable Development Committee inquire into a report on:
- (a) the economic and environmental issues surrounding the cotton industry in Australia;
(b) the environmental, economic and community issues surrounding the cotton trial in Katherine;
(c) the existing status and future potential of irrigated cropping in the Top End of the Northern Territory,
including the Ord River irrigation district; and
2. The committee report back to the Legislative Assembly by July 2005.
One hopes that those who take on political life do so for the benefit of the Territory: creating wealth by creating opportunities and looking at ways to grow the economy. If the Territory is to grow then we need to look at every opportunity. Agriculture is one of those opportunities. For many years, agriculture has been part of our economy. It has had many ups and downs, from Humpty Doo rice to Tipperary sorghum.
However, much of that was due to lack of knowledge. We are now increasing our knowledge through trial and error, experimentation, science and hard work. For instance, we now have a successful live cattle industry, supported by significant hay production - we are breeding better cattle and we are producing better hay crops.
What we are doing is only part of great opportunities in the north, especially with the opening of Ord River Stage 2. Unfortunately, we have a government whose vision for an agricultural economy goes about as far as Bagot Road. The issue I raise today is an attempt to move past Bagot Road, past 17 traffic lights - 18 if you include the one in Katherine - and look at the bigger picture.
I have been concerned about our agriculture policy from day one, when the Chief Minister made the profound statement that ‘no cotton will be grown in the Northern Territory’. This was a statement based on a perception that it was not popular to grow cotton in the Territory. Little or no science was used in the argument, just populism. For me, that sent out alarm bells. Why was one crop selected by the Chief Minister against all other crops as a crop we should not allow to be grown in the Territory? If the Chief Minister believed cotton was an inappropriate crop to grow in the Territory, why were other crops not banned as well? If irrigated peanuts, vegetables, mangoes and vines, which required similar quantities of water, were sprayed as often or even more, and used just as much fertiliser, why did the Chief Minister not say they should not be banned as well?
The reason, as I said before, is populism, certainly not science. However, are we not supposed to be leaders? Should we not make decisions based on current knowledge and science? If we do not have that knowledge, or we know nothing of the science, should we not acquire that knowledge and investigate the science before we make a decision? Don’t we owe that to Territorians?
This motion is not so much about cotton, it is about finding knowledge from sources that will give us that knowledge - investigating the science from sources that will show us that science. So far, the government has made a profound statement based on knowledge gathered from the back of a cornflakes packet: ‘I saw it on TV so it must be right. Someone wrote a letter in the newspaper - the extreme greens, called the EGs. We could lose votes at the next election if we mention the C word’.
This motion asks the government to get off its collective backside and have a look at what is happening in the real world. I am simply asking that this government take a trip, through its Environment and Sustainable Development Committee, and look at the science in growing cotton in 2004 - not 1984; the problems of growing cotton in 2004; and the positives and negatives of growing cotton. I only say cotton because the government banned cotton; it did not ban any other crops. If it had banned tomatoes, I would have said tomatoes. If this government had any sense, it would be looking at cropping in the Northern Territory instead of just looking at cotton.
Cotton is not the issue. The issue is how you grow a crop. We could talk about crop X. If we want to grow crop X, then it should be grown using these guidelines: it should be grown on soil with a certain maximum slope, unless certain protective methods are employed; grown at least X distance from a water way; only Y amount of land to be cleared without retaining an area of natural vegetation; we should work out things in relation to soil types; integrated pest management (IPM) should be part of the development; no irrigation water to be discharged from the block; only Y hectares in total can be grown in one particular area; the crop must be used in rotation with another crop; and the crop should not be a weed risk such as has happened with gamba grass. The government could set the broad parameters, and anyone wanting to grow would have to fit within those parameters.
By saying we are banning cotton and it is okay to grow other crops, the government is showing its lack of knowledge. What will damage our environment is not the type of crop; it is the way it is grown. Tomatoes can be grown on a broad acre scale. They need lots of water and fertiliser; they need spraying; land needs clearing, levelling and ploughing. However, will we ban tomatoes in the Territory? No, because tomatoes are not as politically sensitive as cotton - or should I say, they start with ‘t’ not ‘c’.
I do not want crops grown in the Territory that might threaten our environment. I do not want the Daly, the Ord or any other river stuffed up. However, neither do I believe that means we do not grow anything. I believe I have a long record of speaking up about our environment, but I have not said we should not have development. I opposed the dam on the Elizabeth River and said that we should build Weddell away from the sea. I supported the LNG plant because it needed access to deep water; however, at the same time I said that we should preserve Middle Arm Peninsula as a national park and recommended that industry be located north of Howard Springs. The environment and development can live together, but we have to be clever. That is what sustainable development is all about. After all, why call a committee a Committee of Sustainable Development? It is the same claim that this government uses when it looks for excuses to industrialise the centre of our harbour, and that I use when I say: ‘Yes we need industrial sites, but here is the better site’.
However, clever this government ain’t, because it has fallen into the trap of condemning cotton without worrying about other crops. It has not looked at cotton and said: ‘These are the concerns we have; if you can overcome these concerns we may look at it’. It has not looked at the science and the real issue; that is, cropping. I have tried to combine in this motion an opportunity for the government to look at these two issues at the one time; that is, cotton and cropping.
When I went to the cotton research station in Narrabri earlier this year, the one thing I was told was that very few politicians have ever visited there - certainly far less than all those so-called expert politicians who make comments about cotton. I did what any good politician should do and went and had a look for myself. When I mentioned this in parliament, all I got from our minister was that I was a convert to cotton. The minister should recall that one of the very first questions I asked in parliament concerned off-farm effects from the Katherine cotton trials. I had concerns about cotton, and still have some concerns. The minister covered his lack of knowledge by trying to divert attention from his poor understanding of the issues back on to me.
However, here is the chance for the minister to have a better understanding of the issues by supporting this motion to get the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee to have a look on the ground. The committee should be looking at these big issues instead of pretending it is doing something by filling in time with cane toads and then doing bugger-all about them. Remember the cane toad fence at Cobourg Peninsula?
Mr Baldwin: What fence?
Mr WOOD: That is right. In fact, when it hands down its final report on an EPA, it has finished what it was required to do. What better time to take up a new task? The committee should not only be looking at cotton in New South Wales and Queensland, but also at the cotton trials in Katherine, and taking along concerned residents as well. After all, the trials apparently have only one more year to go, and this year’s trial is coming to fruition now with harvesting very soon. The committee might even make an effort to read an overview on the cotton trials which it helped to fund. The overview was prepared by Colin Martin and Stephen Yeates from the Australian Cotton CRC in Darwin and released in March this year to the Chief Minister. I quote from the synopsis on page 1:
- Research involving cotton in the Northern Territory over the past seven years indicates there are no
ecological, agronomic, management or scientific reasons why cotton should be banned in the
Northern Territory.
The basis for this observation is the result of comprehensive research conducted by several NT government
agencies (funded by the Northern Territory government), CSIRO, the Cotton Cooperative Research Centre,
and the Cotton Research and Development Corporation.
This research program is studying irrigation, drainage, conservation tillage, nutrients, fertilisers,
pesticides, herbicides, spraying regimes, rotation crops, farming systems, economic return, and
environment contamination.
Leave granted.
Mr WOOD: Has the government read this document? Does it support its own research?
The committee might even have a look at the results of last year’s crop trials in Katherine, Kununurra and Port Smith south of Broome. On average, these GM crops produced over 10 times more than the yields of conventional crops, with only two sprays required for other insects. You would have required 11 sprays over the conventional crops to produce the same yield.
Could I be so bold to ask if any members of the government had been to Katherine Research Station this year and actually looked and discussed the concerns they have about problems with those conducting the experiments? Please put up your hand. Thank you, minister. One. Would members know that the cotton grown in Katherine is grown about 7 km from the Katherine River, uses pivotal subsurface irrigation, and no more water than mangoes, peanuts, and maize and nearly a third less than bananas? It uses conservation tilling; seed planting techniques using a Wet Season crop such as Sabi grass which prevents practically all erosion; is monitored for any release of nutrients into the subsoil; uses Lablab as a trap crop as part of integrated pest management; only uses environmentally friendly insecticides, Fipronil and Frontline, which are only used twice during the life of the crop.
The committee should also being going to the Ord to look at the trials in Kununurra and see what other crops are being grown there because this debate is, as I said before, as much about cropping as cotton. We might even ask why the Minister for Agriculture in Western Australia has supported the growing of GM cotton in the Ord Stage 2, even though his state has banned the growing of GM food crops. We might also ask why our minister wants to grow sugar on the Ord when it uses 16 to 22 ML per hectare of water compared to 7.5 ML per hectare for cotton; and why cotton in the Katherine Research Station using subsurface irrigation uses 4.5 ML to 5.5 ML per hectare. If the minister is so concerned about cotton, why has he gone out and barracked for sugarcane?
Minister, I hope you take note that, this week, your department is losing an officer who has kept the cotton trials in Katherine and is now leaving. Do you know where he is going? He is going to Bundaberg to show sugarcane farmers how to diversify and grow alternative crops because of the state of the sugar industry. I rest my case.
We need to investigate, learn and report back to this parliament. Territorians are looking for leadership and that sometimes means taking risks. Until we do that, the Territory is going to be a basket base where good science and good enterprise is regarded as dangerous and not to be trusted. Australia is running out of water. The world will continue to need food and other commodities such as textiles. We should be in the forefront making sure we have in place the safeguards and controls when the pressures will be on the Territory to be part of that supply chain. We are not going to pump water to our southern farmers; they are going to come here. When that happens we need to know what we are talking about, not making up stories that we heard on television or someone told us at a branch meeting of the Balmain basket weavers.
I put this motion forward so that decisions we make in this parliament are on a sound basis of science and logic and knowledge. Governments need to have policies that will create the wealth that future Territorians need if they are to be employed and prosper. Agriculture will need to be part of that prosperity, but only if we see past our nose, past Bagot Road, and into the real world.
I hope the government will support this motion as a sign of its maturity. I hope this government believes in inventiveness, best practice and being a leader in Australian primary production. Yes, we need to look after our environment and support other industries such as tourism, but we also need to have a diverse economy which assists in providing a steady economy that can survive the peaks and troughs that we are accustomed to. Agriculture is part of that diverse economy and it should be supported by government.
I, therefore, hope that this government will show some leadership, shows that it supports sustainable agricultural industry, and supports this motion that just asks for our Environment and Sustainable Development Committee to, at the very least, investigate the issues regarding cotton and cropping in Australia, the Northern Territory and Western Australia.
____________________________
Distinguished Visitor
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the former Speaker of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, Mr Terry McCarthy. On behalf of members, I extend to you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
_____________________________
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, first of all I would like to say that the government will be opposing this motion. I express surprise at the member for Nelson - the green and mean passionate fighter from Humpty Doo - all of a sudden turning pro-cotton and supporting the cotton industry.
Mr Wood: No, I have not said that. That is not the motion, minister.
Mr VATSKALIS: I will come to the motion because, in the motion, the member for Nelson said that he wants the sustainable development committee to examine the cotton industry in Australia, the cotton trials in Katherine, and irrigated cropping in the Top End including the Ord River irrigation district. However, in his speech he only referred to cotton - cotton, cotton, cotton - how cotton is good for the Territory; how cotton can give unique opportunities for the Territory; and how cotton uses the same volume of water as other crops that we are currently growing in the Territory.
That is exactly the point: it uses the same volume of water like other crops that we currently grow in the Territory in the Daly region. What he really advocates will put more pressure on water resources by promoting the broad acreage of cotton in sensitive areas like the Daly region.
He also said the government decision was based on perception to ban cotton in the Territory. I recall, in the not-so-distant election in Katherine, our candidate said she would not support cotton growing in the Territory. I recall well, because I was there, that the member for Katherine said neither would she support cotton growing in the Territory. It is not only the government, it seems that some members of the opposition, if not all, do not support growing cotton in the Territory.
I will come to the issues you raised, the first of which was the Daly region. As you are aware, we have the Daly Region Community Reference Group, which is assisting in the formulation of an ecological sustainable development framework. The group includes farmers, Aboriginal people, recreation fishermen, a broad spectrum of the community, and they are discussing the issue of the Daly River, an icon river for the Territory.
Mr Wood: And they were not allowed to talk about cotton.
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am trying to listen to the debate, and there are constant interjections. He has had his chance, he has had his say, he has had his theatrics. May we hear the minister, please?
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. However, member for Nelson, do contain yourself.
Mr Wood: May I speak to the point of order, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: No, you cannot. Just sit down!
Mr Wood: Well, that fixed that.
Mr VATSKALIS: We now have the Daly Region Community Reference Group that consists of a broad spectrum of the community and they are debating the whole issue of the Daly region. As the member for Daly knows very well, strong concerns have been expressed about the future of the Daly River, an icon for the Territory. He knows very well that a lot of concern has been expressed that people do not want the Daly to turn into another Murray.
There is already pressure on water resources in Australia. They are already calls by federal ministers: ‘Go north, young man; there is plenty of water up there’. There are even plans about channelling our water through the middle of Australia and down south to irrigate farms, something which is technically impossible at this stage.
The member for Nelson wants the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee to go, in a parallel way with the Daly Region Community Reference Group, and examine the same thing, which is rather a waste of time and money. It is already in place. We are expecting the reference group to present the government with their outcomes, which we are prepared to discuss with the community.
The member wants to debate the cotton trials in Katherine. The cotton trials in Katherine have not been completed yet. They are still under way and will finish at the end of June 2006, with the next crop to be planted in the Dry Season of 2005. We will not start analysing and evaluating the cotton trials in Katherine when the cotton trials have not be concluded. The cotton trials in Katherine, despite the fact that they are utilising cotton to do the research, the result will apply to many irrigated crops apart from cotton.
You saw the report, which was really good. I am glad you pointed it out. At page 3 under ‘Summary of Northern Territory Cotton Research and Prospects’, it says:
- Sustainable cotton cropping with a national potential of $100m annually is a viable prospect for
Ord River Stage 2 and other irrigation development.
The problem is that the Western Australian government is still awaiting a consultant’s report on the business case options for the Ord Scheme Stage 2, so the report has jumped the gun. They made conclusions when the Western Australian government is still waiting for the report to tell them what is good to grow in Ord Stage 2.
I had a meeting with the Minister for Agriculture in Western Australia. He was supporting cotton for Ord Stage 2 but, at the same time, he advised me that the sugar mill in Kununurra is going to close down if they do not expand planting sugar cane in Kununurra. He mentioned sugar cane and the problems with the sugar industry in Australia. This is in direct contrast to a recent conference in Queensland when the ethanol industry from Brazil urged Queensland farmers to switch from sugar production to ethanol production because, at the moment, we cannot supply enough ethanol to the world for either chemicals or even for fuel for vehicles. In Brazil, where the industry was in dire straits like ours a few years ago, it has now joined forces with the automobile industry, and they have produced engines that can use diesel or ethanol, which can use 10% or 20% per cent ethanol in their fuel, or they can use 100% ethanol as fuel. Therefore, there is still a bright future for sugar and we should not discount other crops growing in the Ord area, or even in areas of the Northern Territory.
I suggest we wait for a consultant’s report on the business case for the Ord area before we reach any conclusion about how the cotton is the only suitable or only broadacre plant crop that will provide business opportunities for the Territory.
As you are aware, member for Nelson, the government’s priority remains the pursuit of environmentally-sustainable development. Our focus, at this stage, is the development of a sustainable framework for the Daly region. We do not believe that having a wide-ranging inquiry into Australia’s cotton industry would serve any purpose. Let us focus on what we have now. Let us do what we want to do now. We have focussed on sustainable development and the Daly region. Let us get our information together so, in the future, the Territory will be known as a place where there are still rivers with running water, and as a place that produces high quality food that we try and promote all over the world. One of the things we have is probably a perception in many people around the world who do not want food material that can be possibly contaminated by genetically modified material.
One of the things we are trying to do now is promote Territory food - be it seafood, meat, horticultural products - all over the world, as clean and high-quality food material. The last thing you want is to confuse consumers anywhere in the world that this material may have come from an area where they grow genetically modified cotton.
I believe we should wait for some of the outcomes. We should wait for the outcomes of the Katherine trials. We should wait for the consultant’s report about the Ord, and we should wait for the Daly Region Community Reference Group. If, in the future, you think this is not good enough, then you can come back and argue strongly for a referral to the Environmental and Sustainable Development Committee. However, I do not think this will be the case, member for Nelson. I reiterate that the government will be opposing this motion.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, what a woeful reply to a very important motion. This motion is all about the honesty and integrity of the Labor government in the Northern Territory. All this motion is doing is asking for a panel of people, made up from both sides of this parliament, to have a good, rational look at the arguments of cotton. We have the very instrument to do it, called the environment committee, yet the government is afraid of something. They are afraid that, perhaps, the committee might bring back a report to this parliament that says that cotton is a viable crop that has a place in the Northern Territory. That is what they are frightened of.
They said in this House, and out in public and said: ‘We have been growing cotton in the Northern Territory’. Well, you have not. What you have said is: ‘Yes, we have banned it’. However, when I questioned you, minister, in estimates earlier this year, and asked you: ‘Is there a ban in law?’, you admitted: ‘No, there is not’. You have not banned cotton, so you are hypocritical. You are hypocritical to the fact that you go out there and tell everybody that it is illegal to grow it in the Northern Territory, yet there is no law in the Territory that prevents anybody from growing cotton. If you are going to put your money where your mouth is, let us see the legislation brought in here. Let you, and you, Chief Minister, have the guts to put your money where your mouth is, because you have not. You have spun a yarn out there. What the member for Nelson has done today is put a motion to look at this in a reasonable light and manner, and you are too scared to let that happen because you are running a furphy. You are a running a spin on cotton to the general public.
Mr Henderson: Well, you go out there and say you support cotton. Go on, out you go.
Mr BALDWIN: The CLP supports the trialling of cotton, and I personally believe there is a place in the Northern Territory for a cotton crop. What we have to do is be mindful of where it goes and how it is grown. That is what the trials are all about. The CLP does not support the growing of cotton in the Katherine/Daly Basin.
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: So, there! We have always said that. However, there is the potential for a cotton crop in the Northern Territory if it is done properly. There is nothing wrong …
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: For the minister to come in here, and in estimates, and say it is not viable – and that is what he said. He was quoted in estimates as saying it is not a viable crop. His Labor colleague in Western Australia says it is a viable crop and there is a place for it in the Ord River. Their own report to the Chief Minister and government from one of their own officers says a viable cotton industry of 7000 hectares is achievable in the Northern Territory. It also says:
- Sustainable cotton cropping with an export potential of $100m annually is a viable prospect for the
Ord Stage 2 and other irrigation development.
Minister, where do you stand? Is it viable, or are you the one who decrees whether it is viable for the industry? Your own officers are telling you it is viable.
It has to be done right and that is what this motion is all about. Let the environment committee go - and on the committee, the Chief Minister in her promise to Territorians, said committees under her government would be able to self-reference. That is what you said. Why can’t we self-reference? Because you will not allow it. If you were going to stand up and say that you are open and accountable, Chief Minister …
Ms Martin: I find it offensive that you would point to me across the House. Didn’t your mother tell you not to point?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BALDWIN: If you were open and accountable you would let the environment committee self-reference to look at cotton as well as a number of other issues - and there are some big issues. But no, no, she has reneged on that promise, so we will not get there.
You have heard that the new generation of cotton can yield up to 10 times more than conventional cotton crops; the sprays are down to two from 11; and the water use is the same as mangoes and other plantations - half the use of banana plantations. My electorate also covers the East Baines …
Mr Henderson interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: … but you would not know that because you never get past Berrimah. The East Baines may be a possible place for cotton to grow. Do you know why? Because it has the water, it is at the end of a catchment, and it has heavy, black soils which cotton likes. You might not know that because you never go past Berrimah, but I do and that is in my electorate as well.
The trials on cotton are very important. If they were really sincere about banning cotton in the Northern Territory, why do you think they would let the trials continue? The trials continue for another year. Unfortunately, we are losing a great officer who has done so much work in the past, and all of that work will probably go with him. However, if they were really sincere about a ban, why do they let the trials go on? They are pulling the wool over Territorians’ eyes, because …
Mr Wood: The cotton wool?
Mr BALDWIN: Cotton wool. As the member for Nelson has said, it is just a ploy. It is populist politics and they are gutless to make hard decisions.
Sure, cotton is an emotional subject: (1) because of genetics, and (2) because of past growing regimes. I can understand that, and I certainly sympathise with it. As a farmer, I have been involved in all sorts of cropping. Sprays such as insecticides and pesticides and so on, are agents that have to be taken very seriously. These new generations of cotton have ameliorated the need for substantial spraying; have used new irrigation techniques to use less water - more than half of what it takes to grow sugar which, interestingly enough, the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries totally supports. If someone wants to move into the western Victoria River area and grow sugar, he would be supportive. Yes? Okay?
Mr Wood: Three times as much water. I have the figures here.
Mr BALDWIN: Nearly three times. I am saying at least twice as much water. Your whole argument was based on water use, because you then turned to the Daly Reference Group and said they are considering this. Well, I tell you, I am a bit suss about that; I do not think they are considering cotton at all. What you are going to get as a report is going to leave you in a pretty onerous position, I would imagine, as far as what you have to do about water.
If you think water use is a problem in the Katherine-Daly catchment - and I believe we should all be concerned about it - what about the rest of the Territory? What about the rest of the Territory where there is abundant water and soil type that is suitable for major crops such as sugar and cotton?
This is a ruse for your ban; a ruse because you think it is very popular to ban cotton and you have not even introduced a law that prevents anyone. Minister, I ask you to come over here and show me the label on your shirt. Is that a cotton shirt that you are wearing, by chance? Does it have some cotton in it? What do you have against cotton? Why would you not allow it to be grown under the right regime? I say to you again: Katherine/Daly is probably the wrong region for it. I do not think, from what I know of it, that it has the right soil type. There is water pressure, there is no doubt it. However, there are certainly other areas - and your own department will tell you and give you the advice - in the Northern Territory where the impact could be minimal and would be suitable.
You are not listening to them. We have the expert leaving the Northern Territory because you want to play popular politics. It is just outrageous. This motion is asking for some of your people, some of our people, some of the Independents, to have a look at it in a rational way, and you are objecting to that. You call yourself open and accountable, all of you, and you will not allow self-reference by that group so the member is forced to bring in a motion asking you …
Ms Martin: Pop out and tell everyone how supportive of cotton growing you are.
Mr BALDWIN: You do what you like, Chief Minister; you are not going to hurt me. You play your popular politics. I will go out there and tell them about your broken promises. That is what I will do. I will get out there and tell them about the Chief Minister’s broken promises to Territorians. Why cannot the committee, for instance, self-reference as the Chief Minister promised before the election? She is back-flipping on that promise, as with a number of other promises. Why is it that they have banned cotton without passing a law? There is nothing; they are, in fact, deceiving Territorians.
Mr Stirling: We do not have to ban you, Tim.
Mr BALDWIN: Are you going to pull me up on that? They are being deceitful to Territorians by telling them: ‘We have banned cotton’. They have not banned cotton. There is nothing to prevent a commercial crop being started tomorrow. What would you do? You, the minister for business? Let us take the minister…
Mr Henderson: Let us see the media release. The Leader of the Opposition put out a media release tonight: ‘We support cotton’.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, absolutely. I support cotton if it is done in the right way, under the right regime, and I do not think the Katherine/Daly Basin is the right place for it. Quote me word for word. I am happy that the Leader of Government Business puts that out. I will check the quote in the Hansard. I will endorse it for him. I will speak to it in the media because I will also tell them how deceitful this government is to Territorians about telling Territorians that they have banned cotton.
A commercial grower could come here tomorrow, say to the business minister, ‘I have $100m worth of crop annually that I want to plant here tomorrow with 200 jobs surrounding it’, and he is going to stand up and say: ‘Sorry, we have banned cotton’. If the plantation owner goes ahead, what is he going to do? What is he going to do? You stand up and tell me and Territorians what you are going to do. Is he going to walk in there and stand in front of the plough? Is he going to be the greenie standing in front of jobs for Territorians because somebody wants to do it right?
This is the government that will stop them growing the same way - and you want to talk about the Daly River Reference Group! There was an undertaking, Chief Minister, that you would have the moratorium on clearing and subdivision lifted by October. It is now October. What are you going to do? You tell Territorians what you are going to do about development. I know what you are going to say: ‘We are waiting for the report from the reference group’. So, we have to wait for the report. When they get the report, it is going to be full of inconclusive recommendations. It is a bit like the education review. They will then say: ‘We are now considering all of this’. They have bought together all these people who have arrived at a number of recommendations that they will have to make decisions on, but I bet you the moratorium stays in place sometime into next year - probably about election time, I reckon. They will not act because they are too gutless to make decisions. It is a bit like the cotton: we ban it, but really it is not banned.
Ms Carney: It is a bit like petrol sniffing.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, a bit like petrol sniffing: ‘We want to help them, but we do not want to make it illegal. We do not want to pass laws in this place’.
Ms Carney: No.
Mr BALDWIN: No, because they are gutless like that. That is the problem here.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly, I have tolerated your use of the word ‘gutless’, but you have overdone it.
Mr BALDWIN: I respect your decision, Madam Speaker. It is interesting that they have not stood up and countered it, but …
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I know, but it is offensive
Mr BALDWIN: Madam Speaker, as I said at the outset, this motion is clearly about the honesty and integrity of the Labor government in the Northern Territory. It is simply asking for the deceit of the government to be put to one side while a bipartisan committee of members of this parliament look at the issue of cotton in a rational way.
The report might say that there is no place for cotton in the Northern Territory and laws should be passed in this parliament to prevent .two-gene cotton, conventional cotton, all cotton. Wouldn’t that be surprising thing? The government would find out that they had done the right thing after - what? - after talking to Territorians. That is what this motion seeks to do; it is asking for the committee to talk to Territorians and experts, look at the scientific evidence, have a look at the site trials both here and in Western Australia, have a look down south, if necessary, where cotton has been grown conventionally and otherwise for a long time, and make some recommendations to this parliament on the future merits or otherwise of commercial cotton in the Northern Territory.
But, no, government has said already they will not support this. I can only assume it is because they are running scared of being shown up in front of Territorians …
Ms Martin: Of whom?
Mr BALDWIN: In front of Territorians; that is who, because they have deceived them and they know that they will be caught out. I hope that someone over there has some sense about them and will contribute in a way that will recognise the scientific facts - some of which have been articulated by the member for Nelson, and are in the report by their own government officers - and question the need for a total ban on cotton.
I questioned the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries in estimates and asked whether this is a ban just until the trial has finished, and he was very reluctant to answer. In fact, what he replied was that this is a ban - a ban is a ban forever. Even if they are shown it to be wrong about the scientific evidence of future commercial cotton crops, they are still going to have a ban. It is sinful and deceitful. I have put our position on the line; members should support the motion.
I reiterate, for the member for Wanguri, so he does not get it wrong, that the CLP believes that there is a place in the Northern Territory, if grown under the right arrangements and regime, for cotton growing, but does not believe …
Dr Burns: Did you say in the Daly?
Mr BALDWIN: Listen! I have to repeat myself many times, Madam Speaker, for those who are hard of hearing - many times - that we do not believe that the appropriate place is in the Katherine-Daly Basin. I cannot be clearer than that. We started the trials, Labor is finishing the trials, they have not axed them, and the trials will be the telling thing. Already, the reports have shown, by their own words - this is government’s own words - that there is viability for a commercial crop in the Northern Territory.
So, over to you. Show me your press release; I will happily endorse it if you use my words …
Mr Henderson: No, I said you put out a press release.
Mr BALDWIN: Happy to.
Mr Henderson: The Leader of the Opposition put out a press release.
Mr BALDWIN: Happy for him to put it out.
Mr Henderson: The CLP supports cotton?
Mr BALDWIN: I am happy to speak to it.
Mr Henderson: Get the Opposition Leader to put out a press release.
Mr BALDWIN: Any forum you like, because I want you to tell people that if somebody comes here with a $100m business enterprise with 200 jobs around it, you are not going to allow it to go ahead, because you are banning cotton. Also, you will not even let a parliamentary committee of your members look at the viability of that crop because you and your government are deceitful.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, well, I have heard it all! We have a government that claims it is open and transparent, and will not allow its own Environment and Sustainable Development Committee to just inquire into the issue - nothing more, nothing less. This debate has been distorted by sheer politics - and shameful politics. What I cannot stand is people saying to me: ‘Oh, the community does not like it’. Fair enough! However, if the community was given all the information, what would they think then? The community is not given all the information.
I do not stand here and support cotton that would ruin the Daly or any river. I do not support any crop. If you could grow cotton that would not affect the Daly, the Ord, the Victoria, or whatever river, would you not say that is a good idea? What if it was tomatoes? What if it was maize? Why the separation?
The issue is about damage to the environment by cropping. You banned cotton; I want to know the reasons why you banned it. The reasons have been stated by the Chief Minister and the member for Wanguri today when they said: ‘You go out and tell the people that’. It is populism. I do not mind that, that is fair enough; if that is your answer, good. However, is it not the role of us, as politicians here, to go out and find the information and to tell people this is the issue? For sure, cotton has a bad name - no doubt about it. It stuffed up rivers in the Daly …
Ms Martin: It is a shocker.
Mr WOOD: Yes, right, but that was 20 years ago. If any of you politicians went to the Narrabri Research Station and had a look at the new methods of growing cotton, which none of you have - and by the way, AFANT has a representative. I do not know whether he represents AFANT, but John Harrison is on the Cotton Advisory Board in Narrabri. He also has a concern as a fishing representative. I am not supporting cotton that would stuff up our rivers. You are trying to put those words in my mouth. I am supporting an agricultural industry that is sustainable, and that means it will not cause an effect for our future generations.
I went to the Katherine Research Station, and found cotton growing, under trickle irrigation, using half as much water as on the Ord or the Narrabri, having very little erosion. Read the report, have a look for yourself, because they grow Sabi grass. After the cotton crop has been put in, they retain that as a mulch and they plant directly into that mulch without cultivating. Therefore, there is very little erosion in that particular crop.
We have techniques that have been developed on the Katherine River. We are using Lablab as a trap crop, which is a requirement, and that attracts the Helicoverpa, which is the caterpillar, into that area. We are looking at rotation with peanuts, so we are not looking at growing a crop every single year, because that is bad farming practice. We are looking at the movement of nutrients into the soil, and they do that by looking at the movement of the chemical called chloride. We are looking at best practice. If it was not cotton it could be tomatoes. If it was not tomatoes it could be capsicums or sugarcane. All I am saying is that this government should allow a committee to go down and have a look, and that we should report back to the people that this is how cotton is growing - this is the downside, this is the upside - nothing more, nothing less.
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Karama, you are on that side of Bagot Road, and that is one of the problems we have here.
Ms Lawrie: Yes, I am very proudly the member for Karama, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Yes, you had a big yawn there, but it was heard from here. Pity we cannot have a point of order on yawns, Madam Speaker.
Mr Kiely: Or on boring speeches.
Mr WOOD: Yes, well, again, from that side of the Bagot Road lights there is no problem. That is part of the problem we have. We do not have sufficient people in this parliament to put forward a case for a good agriculture economy in this Territory, and that is sad. That is all I am trying to do: help the agriculture economy of the Territory grow - not in just any old way, but sustainably. That is what this is about.
I have to take up a few issues that the minister raised. He spoke about the Daly River Reference Group. The Daly River Reference Group is not allowed to talk about cotton. It was not even allowed to talk about it then; they were not mature enough to take on those issues. Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant. However, surely if we are going to talk about the Daly River, all things are on the table. But no, cotton was not part of that, dams were not part of that; we could not discuss them. I do not mean I agree with them; do not take me wrong there, minister. I know you will say: ‘Oh, he supports dams, he supports cotton’. However, they were not on the table for debate in the Daly River and that is a shame.
Mr Henderson: Because we do not want to dam the Daly River.
Mr WOOD: Let the people …
Mr Burke: You do not know what you want.
Mr WOOD: The member for Wanguri must be the kindergarten teacher. He cannot let the little children discuss these issues as mature adults. Everything should have been on the table in the Daly River Reference Group. If they came back and said, ‘No cotton, no dams’, well that is what they said. You put the words in their mouth before they could even look at it.
The minister talked about GM. Genetic engineering or genetic modification is a huge industry. To lump genetic modification of food crops in with cotton shows the minister is ignorant about what genetic engineering in cotton is about. You do not …
Dr Bonson: What about people - genetic engineering of people? How can you …
Mr WOOD: Member for Millner, let me finish.
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Member for Millner, I am not saying that all genetic engineering is supported. Genetic engineering is such a broad term for so many things …
Mr Bonson: That is right.
Mr WOOD: That is right. I am not saying I support all forms of genetic engineering. However, we are talking about a particular issue here; that is, the genetic engineering of cotton. What does that mean? What is the genetic engineering of cotton? It relates to the use of a protein called Bacillus thuringiensis - which you can buy from Bunnings in a packet called Dipel which you spray on your tomatoes - being attached to a gene in the cotton plant which kills that same caterpillar. It is not about changing the cotton plant; the cotton plant is exactly the same cotton plant. It is by adding - using technology - a protein to that plant that kills the caterpillar. That is why they do not have to spray the plant. I am not talking about having salmon genes connected to tomatoes.
Dr Burns: Well, you still have to spray. Do not say that.
Mr WOOD: Excuse me, member for Johnson! The member obviously has not read the report, and did not quite listen to me. They spray twice for a different insect altogether. They were not sprayed for that particular insect …
Dr Burns: Except in resistance.
Mr WOOD: Well, I am not sure. However, what I am hearing here is probably a lack of knowledge, a lack of science, which I am hoping this committee will be able to find, to tell the parliament exactly what the issues related to cotton are.
However, we are not going to get anywhere because this is about populism. It is not about treating our constituents as mature adults who can at least make up their minds when all the information is given to them. If we come back with a report and the people still say: ‘No, no good’, or the committee comes back and says: ‘Look, this is not going to happen in the Northern Territory because of this and this’ - fair enough. However, we are not even going down that first stage. We are making a decision, sorted out in the Cabinet room, based on ‘people would not want to hear about that’. I do not think people have been given all the information. If they have been given all the information and they then decide, that is a different matter.
This debate has gone to trying to shift the issue before us to saying: ‘The member for Nelson supports cotton; he does not mind if the rivers all get stuffed up’ etcetera. That is not the case. This is simply asking for an inquiry. I have put a case using the particular crop they have banned – cotton - based on my own perception of what is happening in a very changing industry in a very changing world, and changing technology.
We cannot be stagnant and say: ‘This is what happened 20 years ago, therefore, we make our decisions based on that’. We make our decisions based on what is happening today - good science, good technology, good understanding - and put all that information out to the public.
This government, obviously, does not want to do it. It finds, it believes - and you have heard the comments today - that the best thing is to say to people: ‘We are not going to grow cotton’, because they know that will automatically give them some votes. I say that might be great politics, but it shows no leadership. It shows this parliament, in some cases, is a waste of space if it cannot go out and do the work that it is supposed to.
We should lead, we should inform, and then we should make decisions. This whole concept of no cotton has been based on none of that. It is pure populism and, sadly, that is where our agricultural policies in the Northern Territory are heading: stagnant, nowhere.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Standing Orders Committee – Reference regarding Explanatory Memoranda for Bills
Standing Orders Committee – Reference regarding Explanatory Memoranda for Bills
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move:
- That this Assembly refer the following matter to the Standing Orders Committee for inquiry and report:
- The need and effectiveness for an explanatory memorandum/statement to be signed off and presented
by the relevant minister or member when a bill is tabled in the Assembly.
Talk about from one big issue to a very tiny issue! This is regarding the explanatory notes. I know this is only a relatively minor issue, but I brought it forward because the more we can do in parliament to help people understand what legislation is going through – or if they are reading legislation that has been passed in years gone by - and we can put in place certain things that will help the public understand what was said, then it is better.
I have mentioned before that I would like to see more use of electronic equipment in this House. For instance, two screens which face people who come into the gallery so they can know what is going on at a certain times. I am not sure where that is at, at this stage but, again, that is about trying to help the public have a good understanding of what the processes in parliament are.
I am asking that the explanatory notes, basically, would be a precise note, when a bill is introduced to parliament, which indicates exactly what the name of the bill is, when it commences, if anything has been repealed or substituted; and some fairly succinct comments about what is in and what is out. Later today, we continue debate on the Interpretation Amendment Bill, and perhaps I could use that as an example. If that bill was to pass, then an explanatory note would be issued which could say, for instance, clause 1 would give you the short title to state the name of the act, which is the Interpretation Amendment Act 2004. Clause 2, ‘Commencement’, states the date when the act comes into effect. Clause 3 ‘Repeal and Substitution …’. In this bill, section 55’, ‘Headings, schedules, examples and notes’ is repealed. The note would tell you that it also replaces it with a new section 55, and tells you exactly what is in there. Then there is clause 4, which provides new sections 62C and 62D. Immediately, people know what you have introduced, the name of the act, when it will start, what has been taken out of the act, what has been substituted, and if there are any new clauses.
It is a very simple motion. As I said, it will help the public and ourselves, as parliamentarians, to be able to quickly reference what a bill is all about, without having to go through second readings which sometimes are not exactly precise and, you might say have a fair bit of political padding in them. This will enable people to quickly assess what is in that bill, and would make for better legislation and more open and transparent government.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I indicate to the House that the government will be supporting this motion in our commitment to open and transparent government. I take …
Mr Dunham: Go, Gerry!
Mr Wood: One out of six.
Mr Dunham: You nearly choked saying that, didn’t you?
Mr HENDERSON: No, this is not a tiny issue and relatively minor. The Attorney-General said so far in this period of government, the government has passed 87 bills through this House. Those bills have been wide-ranging in their effects and impact on the Northern Territory …
Dr Burns: Moving the Territory ahead.
Mr HENDERSON: Moving the Territory ahead - exactly, member for Johnston. Eighty-seven bills is a lot of legislation for this parliament to process. Anything that further informs the community of the Northern Territory about the effect and impact of that legislation in an easy-to-consider way is a move that the government supports.
I commend the member for Nelson for bringing this motion to the House. As the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee, we will consider this as quickly as we possibly can. We support the motion and agree that it is a fairly significant reform. I do not think it is a tiny issue and relatively minor at all, Madam Speaker, and I commend the member for Nelson for presenting this motion.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I was not going to speak until I was aware that the government was going to support this. For the Leader of Government Business to say that this is part of their commitment to open, honest, and accountable government - he has to be joking.
We are talking about explanatory notes that go with bills. Open, honest, and accountable government deals with how these people deal with the people of the Northern Territory, and what they tell them and do not tell them. Based on the last debate in relation to the cotton motion, it was clear …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The motion before this parliament is referring a matter to the Standing Orders Committee about explanatory memoranda. The member for Macdonnell is now raving on into other areas. I urge you to consider that he speaks to the motion before the Chair.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, the minister talked about his policy of openness, honesty and transparency. Now he is trying to shut me down. He raised the issue; a debate suggests that I have a right of rebuttal.
Madam SPEAKER: What I am suggesting is that you speak to the motion, and let us get on with it.
Mr ELFERINK: The government talks about its openness, honesty and transparency and, so far, they have failed Territorians miserably in the way that they have conducted themselves, especially when you look at the policy paper they issued prior to the last election.
I have said it before in this House and I will say it again: they have a contract with the people of the Northern Territory and that contract was the promise that they made for the price of Territorians’ votes. They are in breach of contract. However, in terms of this …
Ms Martin: This is the bush lawyer with two-thirds of a degree, is it?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Martin: Are you standing again, by the way? Rumours abound everywhere.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister!
Ms Martin: Sorry, Madam Speaker.
Mr Dunham: Speaking of relevance, what does that have to do with it?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, thank you! The member for Macdonnell has the floor.
Mr ELFERINK: Regarding the motion itself, explanatory notes are going to be useful tools for members of this House and Territorians to understand the content of bills. It is a good suggestion; the government agrees that it is a good suggestion. However, to dress it up in the fashion that the Leader of Government Business suggests, leaves me thinking that if that is his idea of dressage, then he is wearing the emperor’s new clothes.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank members of both sides for their support. I agree with the member for Wanguri that it is not a small motion but, in relation to what we were debating before this, it is relatively small.
It is important, and I note that the member for Wanguri said that this is about open and transparent government. I hope that it is consistent because in the previous debate, it was not consistent. I support the idea of this motion going to the Standing Orders Committee, because we must have open and transparent government and make legislation more accessible to the community so it understands what we are doing in this place. I know that, sometimes, they do wonder about it.
I thank both sides of parliament for supporting this. I hope that the Standing Orders Committee will support it, and that we will see it as part of normal processes in parliament in the future.
Motion agreed to.
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 to move the following motion of censure:
- That this House censures the Chief Minister and her Labor government for:
- 1. Failing to stand up for the Territory and show leadership by condemning the federal Labor leader
Mark Latham for his position that:
- It is absurd to suggest, as the Grants Commission does every year, that community needs in Hobart
and Darwin are two to seven times greater than those in Campbelltown and Blacktown. With limited
government resources, funding formulas must be …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 68 refers to anticipation of subject. We now have before us an MPI with exactly the same framework. Either we have an MPI which the Opposition Leader is bringing on tonight for debate, or is he going to bring it on as a censure? Should we take this off the Notice Paper?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: It is a good point, member for Sanderson. However, we have a censure motion being presented and government has not indicated if they are going to accept it or not. Do you want to finish reading us your motion? It is very long.
Mr MILLS: Yes, Madam Speaker.
- With limited government resources, funding formulas must be prepared on the basis of need between
regions, to take away as well as give.
- 2. Their public support for the dangerous position and policies of federal Labor leader Mark Latham which would:
- result in a reduction in Commonwealth funding to the Northern Territory in favour of the rich
southern states of New South Wales and Victoria;
Territorians.
- 3. The Northern Territory government’s failure to take a stand against the impact of proposed industrial relations
policies under a Latham Labor government on struggling Territory businesses and the mining industry.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, the government will accept this motion. It is to be expected, I suppose, at this stage of the electoral cycle. I foreshadow now we will be seeking to amend the motion.
MOTION
Proposed Censure of the Chief Minister and Government
Proposed Censure of the Chief Minister and Government
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move:
- That this House censures the Chief Minister and her Labor government for:
- 1. Failing to stand up for the Territory and show leadership by condemning the federal Labor leader Mark Latham
for his position that:
It is absurd to suggest, as the Grants Commission does every year, that community needs in Hobart and
Darwin are two to seven times greater than those in Campbelltown and Blacktown. With limited
government resources, funding formulas must be prepared on the basis of need between regions, to take
away as well as give.
- 2. Their public support for the dangerous position and policies of federal Labor leader Mark Latham which would:
- result in a reduction in Commonwealth funding to the Northern Territory in favour of the rich
southern states of New South Wales and Victoria;
Territorians.
- 3. The Northern Territory government’s failure to take a stand against the impact of proposed industrial relations
policies under a Latham Labor government on struggling Territory businesses and the mining industry.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! For clarification, has the Leader of the Opposition arranged for the motion to be circulated?
Madam SPEAKER: I believe the motion is being circulated.
Mr MILLS: When you scratch the surface you will find a systematic pattern amongst Labor leaders - past and present, and both federally and at the state and territory level - of economic mismanagement and policies that will, ultimately, put upward pressure on interest rates. That is what poses a real threat to the Northern Territory, and what they are trying their very best to hide. As silent as Latham is on his true agenda, this government and the Chief Minister are silent in their opposition.
Labor luminaries often talk of their light on the hill but, when it comes to Mark Latham’s real agenda and policies, the only place he has put his light is firmly under a bushel. His industrial relations policy has been missing in action. Who knows what the details of his deal with Bob Brown actually are. Now a few rays of light from the real position on funding the Territory are beginning to emerge. Approaching this campaign, the Labor spin machine new the real Mark Latham and they knew the real Latham Labor policies. Accordingly, the real Labor agenda had been pushed well and truly to the back of Mark Latham’s campaign. When we get a glimpse of it, it is very easy to see why. However, where is our Chief Minister? Where is Clare Martin? Where is her voice in standing up for the Territory? This government is complicit in its deceit of voters and selling out of Territorians by saying nothing.
Federal Labor is trying to sneak into power without a whimper, and with an array of policies that will do irreparable harm to the Northern Territory. However, local Labor is nowhere to be seen. Whether it is Mark Latham or his man on the ground in the Territory, the Labor candidate for Solomon, it is a tale of two completely different Labors. There is the polished campaigns launched with Labor spin, brochures and guarantees written on cardboard - and then there is the real Labor agenda which, occasionally, makes its way to the surface.
Nowhere else was this clearer than when Mark Latham made his maiden speech to parliament. Mark Latham’s politics are those of envy and his policies are those of division. The real Mark Latham is about ‘us and them’. This was made clear when he made his true thoughts on the smaller states and the territories, such as the Northern Territory. In his statement, Mark Latham said:
- It is absurd to suggest, as the Grants Commission does every year, that the community needs in Hobart and
Darwin are two to seven times greater than those of Campbelltown or Blacktown. With limited government
resources, funding formulas must be prepared on the basis of need between regions, to take away as well as give.
This is the other side of Mark Latham that they would not have us see until after he is Prime Minister. There is the Latham Labor that gives its guarantee on economic performance. There is also the Latham Labor that comes to the Territory in full campaign mode, seeking to snare the most marginal seat in the country - a seat he knows is crucial to his electoral fortune. Then there is the Latham who, in power, would remove funding from the Northern Territory.
Any Chief Minister worth their salt would have met Mr Latham at the airport and told him: ‘No, thank you’. Any government truly committed to the Territory would let Mark Latham know that his commitment to cut our funding is certainly not welcome and needs to be addressed. He is the leader who would remove funding from the Territory and other small jurisdictions because he thinks it will win votes in western Sydney. Our government is taking this threat lying down.
Just as Latham would take money from one school and given it to another and drive a wedge between private and public, Catholic and independent, he would seek to drive a wedge between regional Australia and the east coast. He will take funding from schools and hospitals in the Northern Territory because it will help him to develop a Robin Hood image in New South Wales. Worst of all, he will take funding from the people of the Northern Territory because he owes it to his Labor mates, Bob Carr and Steve Bracks. There is no secret in the fact that these two would like to see funding to the smaller states cut. If not for the moral fibre and the fortitude of the current federal government, they may well have had their way. Mark Latham owes this pair and he will do anything to pay them back. This would be a great way for him to start. Well, the message from the CLP to Mark Latham is to pay your own debts. We are waiting for our Chief Minister to send a similar message.
This morning, we heard from an esteemed former Chief Minister and proud Territorian who knew how to take the fight to Canberra and to the Bob Carrs and Steve Bracks of this world. After the current spate of policy larceny by members opposite, the Chief Minister and Treasurer would do well to copy from the CLP some of the negotiating skills of our past Chief Ministers. The member for Brennan who took the unprecedented step of taking a full page advertisement in today’s NT News, like the other distinguished leaders before him, understands what it takes to stand up to a bully, and did so regularly for the Territory.
The Grants Commission is an independent body that is responsible for making recommendations as to the allocation of funding between the states and territories. It does this with the central principal of horizontal fiscal equalisation. Put simply, this means that all Australians should have the same access to the same services. In essence, it is a fair go for all. It is the Australian way; principles which, from the endless rhetoric that we hear from the Labor Party, you would think Mark Latham would be very supportive of. Principles that are based on the high cost of delivering services in the Territory and our lower capacity to raise revenue, gives Territorians access to comparable services such as health care, education, law and order, as the rest of Australia. However, as I have said, this is not the way of Mark Latham. Typical of the politics of envy and division, he is either with you or against you. Clearly, in Mark Latham’s eyes, he is not a supporter of the Territory. If Mark Latham is elected Prime Minister on 9 October, Territorians can rightly expect that funding from the federal government will be reduced - funding that allows the Territory government, regardless of its political persuasion, to provide services to all Territorians. This is in line with Mark Latham’s philosophy of ‘us versus them’.
This government stands condemned for their lack of backbone in standing up for Territorians and our funding. That is why the Martin Labor government is being censured today. Sadly, this is a government that has the resources and the will to hound Territory businesses, but it will not stand up to southerners. Ask Warren Anderson; ask Integrated Technical Services; ask Dick’s Plumbing. If only they could have put this energy into fighting to ensure a guarantee that a future Latham Labor government would not reduce Territory funding, which is so needed for our schools and our hospitals. This attack on the Territory’s funding is just one cell though. in the onslaught that Territorians can expect from a Latham Labor government. Yet again, not a peep from the Martin Labor government.
Under a Labor government, we will see many of the industrial relations reforms that have been ushered in under the Howard government, and on which Australia’s current unprecedented economic prosperity have been underpinned, disappear as we return to a system dominated by the unions and characterised by centralised wage fixing - economic prosperity, might I add, that is exceeding forecasts in every state and territory, except the Northern Territory, where the policies of the current government have delivered a stagnant economy and population growth rate. Labor’s industrial changes will send Australia back in time to an era of industrial chaos and low productivity.
Let us look at some of the changes and what they will mean for the Territory. Labor, if elected, will impose the first federal payroll tax since the 1970s to fund workers entitlements in the event of an employer becoming insolvent. This will impact on every employer and will be a disincentive to recruit new staff. The CLP recognises the need to reform payroll tax and create an environment where business can create employment and prosperity. This is even a principle that members on the other side of the House subscribe too, albeit with a tokenistic effort in the most recent Territory budget, which, I might add, resulted in a higher tax take than previously. Will they have the courage to stand up to Mark Latham and tell him that his tax is not welcome in the Territory?
Mark Latham made it clear that he will abolish Australian workplace agreements which allow small businesses to negotiate flexible working agreements with their employees. Australian workplace agreements underpin the employer/employee relationship of many of our key sectors in the Territory. The resources, minerals and energy sectors are well known for their use of flexible agreements. The hospitality industry in the Northern Territory has one of the highest uptakes of Australian workplace agreements in the country. Retail uses them to great effect. These agreements promote flexible work practices and give staff the ability to negotiate agreements that are outside the current and inflexible award system, to better suit their personal and family commitments. No Australian workplace agreement is approved in this country without having passed the so-called ‘no disadvantage test’. Chief Minister, will you be there to explain to local businesses why they cannot use these agreements any more? Will you tell them that you would not help them, or will you try and pass the blame, as usual?
What does Mark Latham’s local candidate for the seat of Solomon think of Australian workplace agreements? At a forum organised by the Minerals Council last Friday, the Labor candidate for Solomon called these agreements which have driven productivity in the Territory ‘insidious’. I have news for both Latham and Davidson; that is, the Northern Territory and Australia, in fact, is no longer in the 1960s. Whilst the days of radical protest against military exercises and uranium export may not quite have ended for Mr Davidson at the same time as flared trousers and Woodstock did, the days of old-fashioned workplaces have. The majority of the work force is no longer employed on a 9-to-5 basis.
One of the biggest drivers of our future economic success is, without a doubt, the tourism industry. I can assure Mark Latham and his underlings on the other side of the House that it is not a 9-to-5 business. The people who invest in this industry and the staff who work in this industry need and want flexible work practices.
As equally disturbing to the tourism industry and, no doubt, the retail sector as well, is Labor’s concerted and union-approved attack on casual employment. A Latham Labor government will give casual employees the right to demand to be made permanent. It will make it harder for small businesses to employ people at the times they need them, and it will increase costs by making casuals eligible for redundancy payments and leave entitlements.
These are the policies that Mark Latham would not have us see until after the election. These are the policies that the Labor spin doctors would rather the public knew nothing about before casting their vote on 9 October. This is equally evident in Mark Latham’s unholy alliance with the Greens. I urge Territorian voters this Saturday to ask themselves not just what the policies of Mark Latham are, but what the policies of Bob Brown are. What policies of the Greens will we see implemented by a Latham Labor government in payment for his deal with Bob Brown? An increase in the rate of company tax, for one.
We are expected to believe that interest rates will not rise under Labor. Interest rates were over 10% under Mark Latham’s mentor, Gough Whitlam; they peaked at 17% under Bob Hawke; and they reached 12% under Paul Keating. There has been much debate over the question of whether interest rates will go up under Labor. Does the Reserve Bank put up rates because a particular party is in power? The answer is that it puts up rates to counteract the policies of the particular party that is in power. There is no doubt that the policies of the federal Labor Party will put upward pressure on interest rates. A return to centralised wage fixing and a union-controlled industrial system will, without a doubt, lead to a wage price inflationary spiral, and the Reserve Bank will have no other course of action than to increase interest rates to counteract this. We have seen it before under previous federal Labor governments and, heaven forbid, we could see it again under a Latham Labor government.
I repeat and stress again that federal Labor is no friend of the Territory. As we saw Paul Keating sitting in the front row of Mark Latham’s recent campaign launch, what Territorian could forget the former Prime Minister’s description of our home? It was Paul Keating’s famous view that the best place to view Darwin was from at least 30 000 feet up, on a plane heading for Paris. Is this the type of contempt for the Territory that Mark Latham has shown when he committed to reducing funding for the Territory? Is this the contempt for the Territory that leads him to pursue policies that will decimate the current employment arrangements in our tourism, hospitality, retail, mining, energy and resource sectors?
Let us not forget where this funding is coming from, and the hypocrisy of Labor on this issue. Labor opposed the GST, yet it is happy to reap the benefits of it. Again, there is a Labor that they would like us to see, and the Labor that lurks beneath the surface. In opposition, Mark Latham opposed the GST and said that he would abolish it. In government, it is a different story. In opposition, Clare Martin, our Chief Minister, predicted that the GST would bring nothing but pain to the Territory, yet in government she has reaped almost $600m in GST revenue when the CLP left office. Now that the funding is under threat, will she stand up to Mark Latham and demand the Territory continues to get its fair share? Will she seek a clarification of the comments of Mark Latham? No - silence. I would have to say that there are two chances of this happening - slim and slimmer - judging by the way that this Chief Minister has failed to confront Mark Latham on his $50 tourism tax - silence. The Minister for Tourism, the Chief Minister - silent.
It is a return to the old Labor way of expensive promises and, invariably, new taxes to pay for them, such as the $50 tourism tax. Labor is true to form; very good at spending and very poor at earning. This new $50 tourism tax will hit the Territory tourism industry right between the eyes, and our Tourism Minister is silent. Where are the ads that state: ‘There will be no Canberra Labor tourism tax in the Territory’? Where is the statement? Where is the stand for the Territory?
Madam Speaker, mismanagement, deception and failure to stand for the Territory against policies that are against our best interests is why we are here: a continued failure by this Chief Minister to do her job and present the interests of everyone in the Territory and put all Territorians above short-term political gain. These are the reasons why the Martin Labor government is being censured today. These are the reasons why Territorians should think very carefully about electing a Latham Labor government this Saturday. These are the reasons why Territorians should think very carefully about re-electing any Territory government that remains silent in the face of such threats to the Northern Territory.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, when a censure is moved you have to take it seriously because we respect the conventions of this parliament. However, honestly and truly, to listen to the – it was a combination of a hate file of former Labor leaders and a personal attack on former Prime Ministers who have done extraordinary things for Australia. It was petty personal politics that was part of this censure, and the other was fantasy. That is what I find extraordinary.
The Opposition Leader came into this House and said: ‘This is what Labor is saying at this election’, and can produce no documentation to support it. The only documentation that the Opposition Leader has - and this is direct quotes, two of them - during his censure: ‘Funding will be reduced to the Territory under Labor’. That is a quote from you speech. You can probably find it earlier in the speech. ‘Funding will be reduced to the Territory under Labor, under Mark Latham’. Later, we had: ‘Labor, Mark Latham, committed to reducing funding to the Territory’. Where is your evidence? The best you can offer is a quote from Mark Latham from 10 years ago. Where is the document?
In this 20 minutes of rhetoric from the Opposition Leader, which was based on no facts, he said: ‘Glossy brochures have been shoved into your letterboxes and ads on television’. Where are the ads on television which say Labor is going to reduce funding to the Territory? Where? Let us look at what evidence this man is producing. It is only in his own mind - only in his own mind. The best he can do is produce a quote from Mark Latham’s maiden speech, which talked about relativities, and then he has then taken the enormous leap – he has quoted accurately, I assume, about relativities. You have a man who comes from western Sydney, brand new into politics, standing up for the electorate of Werriwa, which does not have a high socioeconomic profile, who said: ‘I want to stand up for my electorate’ because he is a man who is a fighter.
What you have done is extrapolate a whole censure – this is how hypocritical, illogical and false you are - based on something that does not turn into ‘A Labor government in Canberra will reduce funding to the Territory’. How do you make that connection? You failed to make the connection in 20 minutes. How can I take you seriously? How can Territorians take you seriously when you simply fabricate things and lie to this House? That is what this man is doing …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I guess you know what my point of order is: The Chief Minister should withdraw that reference.
Ms Martin: It is a censure.
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, the censure is against you, not against the Leader of the Opposition.
Madam SPEAKER: Let us make sure that no one calls anyone liars, then. Just withdraw.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, he misleads this House. I take back the ‘lie’, sorry, but he misleads this House.
Mr Dunham: You cannot say that either.
Ms MARTIN: Yes, I can.
Mr Baldwin: No, you can’t.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker. Misleading the House is something that must be substantiated by a substantive motion, as the Chief Minister well knows.
Madam SPEAKER: It is a censure motion and we usually do have quite outrageous accusations against both sides.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: I know what you are saying, but the Chief Minister is responding and, if she wishes to use that term, in this circumstance, it is satisfactory.
Mr Elferink: In that case, Madam Speaker, I have to say that the Chief Minister should not lie.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell!
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, I do not care what the member for Macdonnell says, honestly. It does not bother me at all. He is irrelevant to this debate.
Mr Baldwin: You are, too.
Ms MARTIN: Well, I am not; I am being censured.
Madam SPEAKER: I would like the member for Macdonnell to come and see me. Continue, Chief Minister.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member for Daly says I am irrelevant to this debate when I am actually the one being censured. I assume I am not irrelevant to the debate.
I make the very valid point that you have premised a whole censure - a whole condemnation of federal Labor and Labor leader, Mark Latham - on fantasy. That is all that you are doing. You have taken a quote, as I said, that does not say anything about ‘… and when I get into government I will do X’. It does not say that. Let us get real here. What somebody says 10 years ago, where is it translated into this election campaign? Whereabouts is it?
How can it be taken seriously? When we have the Opposition Leader posturing and verballing federal Labor, how can you take it seriously? He is making it up. The worst thing about making it up in here is that this is also the man who, come the next Territory election - whenever that happens before October next year, as the legislation spells out - is asking Territorians to take him seriously. He is asking Territorians to trust what he says. Yet, in this House, you cannot trust anything he says. This could be whether it is dogs and cats or Labor and Mark Latham, but he does not tell the truth in here, and he has not told the truth in this censure.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker. Conventions are that if a person is being censured, certain things can be said about them. It is not adequate under our standing orders for the Chief Minister to respond by using like comment. Unless standing orders or the practice of this House have changed, I suggest that she desist from that and she withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: I presume you are saying that it is all right for members of the opposition to accuse the government of lying in a censure, but the government cannot respond? Is that what you are saying, member for Drysdale?
Mr DUNHAM: As I understand standing orders, Madam Speaker, you can only say it by way of a substantive motion, which has been accepted in this House. It is a motion that has been accepted, so we are now able to use language which is not otherwise able to be used.
Madam SPEAKER: No, it is not parliamentary. I have ruled on numerous occasions that ‘lying’ is not parliamentary in this place. You cannot always hide behind a censure to use it, which is what you are basically saying. So I am saying …
Dr Lim: We are not hiding behind a censure; we are just using …
Madam SPEAKER: It does not matter whether it is a censure or not, you should not be using unparliamentary language. That is my point. It does not matter who is using it.
Mr DUNHAM: Speaking to the point of order, I ask when this practice came about, Madam Speaker? As somebody who has been censured by the party opposite and had a variety of allegations made about me, which were subsequently found to be untrue, I just wonder when this practice came about.
Madam SPEAKER: What I am saying to you, member for Drysdale, is that it does not matter whether it is a censure or not, we should all try not to use unparliamentary language. Just because it is a censure does not mean to say you can end up with a slanging match, and that is my ruling. Chief Minister, withdraw that.
Ms MARTIN: I withdraw whatever I said.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Please remember what I said: just because it is a censure it does not give you licence to use unparliamentary language, no matter what side of the House you are on.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, can I make a point, though?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes.
Ms MARTIN: If the Opposition Leader is not actually being accurate in here, and is not telling the truth, what do I say?
Madam SPEAKER: Then you need to produce the evidence to show that he is not accurate.
Ms MARTIN: I am asking him to produce the evidence to support his argument.
Madam SPEAKER: All right, you could do it that way.
Ms MARTIN: So, Madam Speaker, I say to the second speaker for the opposition: will you produce some evidence? Will you produce …
Mr Dunham: It is in your hand.
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: Here we have a brochure from your local member, which says what he is committing to for the next election. There have been lots of brochures around, lots of television advertising - policies delivered over the last six months, particularly over the last four-and-a-half weeks. I would like to see some evidence in one of those brochures, in one of those television ads, that says Labor will reduce the funding to the Northern Territory. I find it quite extraordinary. In the same breath, this is the illogical presentation we get from the Opposition Leader. In this fantasy world that he is trapped by, he says Labor will reduce funding to the Territory. Then he says we have horizontal fiscal equalisation, which is a policy that is implemented by the independent Grants Commission.
All this rubbish - we have an independent Grants Commission, which very carefully does the relativities, and, let me say, the relativities under federal Labor actually were higher for the Territory. They were seven and eight times higher. Now we are down to about 4.7 - that level. They were actually higher per capita. We were getting more under federal Labor - under the dreaded Hawke, under the dreaded Keating - than we are getting currently. Your arguments are contradictory. You are saying, on one hand, Labor will reduce it, and yet we have an independent body that determines that funding - the Grants Commission does the relativities with great care. I would like more, and I say very clearly to Canberra: ‘We want more’. We are down there saying that very often, standing up for the Territory. However, that is the GST pool that is then divided by those relativities determined by the independent Grants Commission.
Therefore, where is your logic in saying Labor will, under that principle, actually reduce funding to the Territory? No, so you are wrong on that count. You have not been able to prove that Mark Latham, as Prime Minister, would reduce the funding. He is not on the record in this election campaign - and he is not even on the record in this. You are extrapolating from statements he made. It does not say there: ‘When I am Prime Minister I will …
Mr Mills: Yes, it does
Ms MARTIN: It does not say it; it does not. Then you contradict yourself by a short reference to the Grants Commission and its process.
You expect a logical censure and, on two points already, you have failed hopelessly, absolutely - and it is typical. When the Opposition Leader gets his burst of ‘I am on the pulpit’ rhetoric, he gets it all wrong. You are simply in here, not standing up for the Territory, but doing John Howard’s bidding and the Canberra Liberals’ bidding. That is what you are doing. That is what that ad in the paper this morning, which had all the CLP Chief Ministers lined up, was doing. It was not standing up for the Territory, it was doing the President of the Liberal Party’s bidding. That is what it was doing. It was doing the bidding of the former Chief Minister and now President of the Liberal Party: fight for John Howard in Canberra, not fight for the Territory. You are not even standing up and fighting for the Territory.
We certainly do not have the member for Solomon as an example of why we vote CLP or pretend Liberal in this election. He does not stand up for the Territory. You do not stand up for the Territory. It was an embarrassment at the Telstra Awards at lunchtime to hear the member for Solomon say: ‘Behind every successful man is a successful woman. Well done, girls, you are going quite well’. What kind of federal representative is this man? What is the kind of man who stands there - and we heard the sequence of events about the national nuclear waste dump. He thinks it should be in the Territory!
Mr Mills: That is nonsense!
Ms MARTIN: He does! I am not verballing him; he said: ‘The Territory has an obligation to accept nuclear radioactive waste from other parts of Australia and house it in the Territory. He is a significant embarrassment to you. When did I hear any member of the opposition take him to task? You cannot even take your local member to task; how on earth do you think we believe this rhetoric that you are taking Canberra governments to task? It is a load of rubbish! Standing up for the Territory is a little more than coming in here trying to strut your stuff - making up stuff and standing up for an awful federal representative. When you think back about those who have represented the Territory, you would have to say that Dave Tollner is the worst by a roaring mile - an absolutely roaring mile! What was it that …
Mr Stirling: Even worse than Nick!
Ms MARTIN: Yes! What was it that the former President of the Liberal Party described him as? The good Dr Len Notaras, when he was the President of the Liberal Party, described the member for Solomon as a ‘6’6” albatross hanging around the neck of the CLP’. This is how the former President of the CLP described your candidate for Solomon - and you are in here, advocating for him to go back to Canberra for another three years! How is that representing the Territory? The Dave Tollner recipe for the Territory: we could make Katherine the site of the next national nuclear waste dump. The member for Katherine would love that. Did I hear her saying that is a load of rubbish? Silence!
Mrs Miller: It is a total load of rubbish!
Mr Elferink: It has been totally discounted! It is out! Gone!
Mr Mills: Anyway, back to the business at hand, please, Chief Minister!
Ms MARTIN: We could really do well with another three years from the member for Solomon! Astute, stand up for the Territory; always gets it right! That is what I like about the member for Solomon; he always gets it right! Astute comments on foreign policy and a whole range of things. Then he bumbles off and says: ‘Oops, got that one wrong again’. What about his record in the federal parliament, not speaking on major debates to do with the Territory? He does not speak on major debates to do with the Territory. Here we have this mob advocating him going back to Canberra, and putting down a very fine Labor candidate in Jim Davidson, who is hard-working and has won the respect of business, and is out there impressing everybody he meets with his ability to represent Darwin, Palmerston and the Territory.
The basic premise of this censure is one that has no evidence to support it; it has no grounds. The Opposition Leader has simply come in here and said: ‘I have extrapolated from this that we are going to have reduced funding in the Territory’. It is wrong - it is simply wrong. In fact, let me just say how the Territory would be better off under Mark Latham as Prime Minister and federal Labor in government.
Rather than what the Opposition Leader referred to as divide and rule and pick on the wealthy, every school in the Territory will be better off under a Labor government ...
Mr Dunham: Rubbish!
Ms MARTIN: Every school in the Territory will be better off and they will have more resources under a Labor government. We are a young Territory and we need extra resources into our schools. We need to be getting our students through with better outcomes, whether they want to go to Year 12, or whether they want to go into TAFE and the VET courses. We need to be achieving that. We all know what the Howard government did when they got into power in 1996: cut the heart out of our university, cut the funding out of our university, cut into the TAFE courses we could offer. There will be extra university places for Charles Darwin University under Labor, and there will be an additional 400 TAFE places to address skill shortages. That does not sound like cutting funding to the Territory to me. That sounds like building education resources …
Mr Mills: Do not trust him.
Ms MARTIN: When the Opposition Leader says, ‘Do not trust him’, let us look at costed policies, at commitments to the Territory. That is what I trust. Every school in the Territory will be better off; our university will be better off; our TAFE students will be better off. That is not bad as a starter; that is a pretty good starter. When you talk to Territorians, one thing they do want is to see their children educated, to be given an opportunity in life to have the skills for the jobs of the future.
Let us look at health. We have had a government for eight years which has simply snipped away at Medicare. You talk to an ordinary Territorian about whether they can get bulk billing at the doctor. We have the lowest bulk billing rate in the country. Are you proud of that as Territory Liberals - that we have the lowest bulk billing rate in the country? You say: ‘Go on, John Howard, do it to us again. Yes, let us send Dave Tollner back to Canberra to see if we cut that, see if we can get it even lower in terms of bulk billing’. Labor is going to turn that around. There will be an increase in bulk billing incentives in the Territory so that more Territorians can see a doctor for less. How can the opposition criticise this when we are talking about access to health?
Mr Mills: It is unfunded, and I do not trust him.
Ms MARTIN: These are funded, careful policies which contrast with a very anxious and nervous Prime Minister who has just grabbed at the surplus and, every time he walks out the door, throws another $1bn at something - uncosted. If you are talking about interest rates - which the Opposition Leader did, when he asked, ‘What will it be under Labor?’ - take a look at the commentators. The informed commentators - the banks, the financial commentators - are saying there will be no difference to interest rates whether you are under Liberal or Labor - no difference. Let us stop the scare here. The only difference is the rash rush of promises that Prime Minister Howard is making. That could see the real pressure come for interest rate rises. That is the heart of it. I do not think the Opposition Leader bothers to get an informed opinion on this. He has just been given the rhetoric from Canberra and he is in here spouting it. There will be no difference to interest rates whether you have Liberal or Labor in power. That is the informed comment on the issue. However, a proviso to that is that, with the spending we have seen over this election campaign and before it from the Howard government, we could start to see pressure on interest rates.
Let us go back to health though. A Medicare hotspot team at Royal Darwin Hospital provide after hour GP service; a bad thing? That sounds to me like funds to the Territory. That sounds to me like well targeted funds to the Territory that will help Territorians, and take the pressure off our emergency and allow Territorians to get access to medical services in the later hours and early morning. It is an initiative that is funded, that puts dollars into the Territory in real programs.
There will be a Medicare office in Palmerston. For eight years – silence. Now we finally have a little bleating from the member for Solomon saying: ‘I will do it too’, now that Labor has offered it. Labor is committed to a Medicare office. There will be initiatives to increase the number of doctors in rural and regional areas and, importantly - and I make no bones about this - dental health is very important for me, it is very important for Territorians.
We saw the heart cut out of dental services. The Howard government simply took a $1m out of our ability to deliver those services . There will be $300m in dental care programs across Australia from Labor - $300m. It is all very well to talk about how great it is to be a senior in Australia, a senior Territorian; if your teeth have gone to the dogs, life is not up to much. You can do the mushy food, but if you do not have good dental care and you are on a waiting list for two years because the federal government has cut the heart out of dental services, then life is not up to much. We have a Labor opposition that recognises that and funds are going back into dental health, back into employing dentists, making sure our waiting lists for those such as seniors are at a manageable level - and they have been awful. We have put additional Territory funds into that, but John Howard cut the heart out of those dental services. Did we hear a squeak from his little acolytes on that side of the House? Not a squeak, not a criticism.
We had some very vague references to industrial relations, how the place would go to industrial chaos and that the work force would be damaged. Again, not a shred of evidence for this. He said: ‘A federal Labor government will get rid of those AWAs. What a shocker! What a shocker to do that’. Yet, as we said in Question Time, after eight years of the opportunity for our employers to grab those AWAs, they have a coverage of 3%. They are an absolute roaring success! Who are you standing up for? Are you standing up for workers being treated decently? Are you standing up for decent awards? No, not at all. Yet, here we are at a time that we are building the Territory work force. We have projects …
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: We are building the Territory work force and the projects are coming on line.
Mr Henderson: They do not get out much, do they?
Ms MARTIN: That is a good point from the Leader of Government Business. You do not get out much, do you? What do you do? You sit up there in that closed opposition conference room – I have been in the opposition conference room. It can create an unreal atmosphere, from time to time. It is important to get out there and talk to people. Go down the mall, go and talk to people, talk about what is happening in our community.
Mr Dunham: Go and have lunch at Christo’s.
Ms MARTIN: We have the member for Drysdale saying: ‘Go and have lunch at Christo’s’. There is a long history of a government, when in power, that lunched its way to …
Mr Henderson: $56 000 worth once!
Ms MARTIN: That was Mick Palmer. What was your sum? We will have to go and check up what the former Minister for Health’s sum was.
Mr Stirling: Mick spent $55 000.
Ms MARTIN: $56 000.
Mr Stirling: $56 000, was it?
Ms MARTIN: $56 000 in one year on his own personal expenses. That is hard eating, isn’t it? That is hard eating. It is tough.
Mr Dunham: Yes, and what did he do with live cattle exports?
Mr Kiely: Government by long lunch, that was you lot.
Mr Dunham: He was more efficient than the whole lot of you put together.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, order! Let us get this debate back on track.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, I take your point to get this debate back on track, but it was never on track to start with. The censure is, basically, a load of rubbish. The censure is unsupported in that it does not produce the facts for the allegations – and they are simply allegations - that the Opposition Leader is making. If the Opposition Leader wants to truly respect the traditions of this parliament, he will have to get his facts right. We reject this censure because your facts are wrong. On Saturday, put Jim Davidson in as the member for Solomon. Let us have a Mark Latham Labor government in Canberra and the Territory will do well.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, not unexpectedly, the Chief Minister has decided where her support will be on Saturday. She belittles the CLP and calls us cronies of the federal Liberal Party for supporting John Howard as Prime Minister of Australia for the next three to four years. She says that we have no case to argue that Mark Latham should not be a future Prime Minister of Australia.
I say very emphatically that we do have a case. The Chief Minister has a wonderful way of belittling anything the opposition says but, then, emphatically asks us to support notions of some sort of crystal and glorious future for the Northern Territory by virtue of her own statements.
Can anyone remember the statements about Chinatown, when the Chief Minister came to office? Can anyone remember the fact that this first Labor government in the Northern Territory was going to create a whole new office complex, and build a whole new cultural centre for recognising the Chinese contribution to the Northern Territory? Not only that, they would put aside about 4000 m2 of government space to accommodate it? That, down there, is the realisation of Labor promises. That, down there, is the realisation of the only decision this government has made and stood by that has been of any initiative, supposedly, to enhance development of the Northern Territory. Three-and-a-half years later, where are we? Zip down there; an empty block of land with a black curtain around it - that is Chinatown.
Now the Chief Minister asks us to have faith in someone called Mark Latham, someone who she believes emphatically will deliver in the same way that her government has delivered. She has the upmost faith in this man, and has the claim that this opposition, by this censure motion, cannot put forward any substantiative argument as to why this man should not be Prime Minister. This is a serious motion and, if the Chief Minister wants to put her bet on Mark Latham on the future of the Northern Territory, we stand here emphatically and say we put our money on John Howard. You can call us cronies of the Liberal Party, if you like. You can call every former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory a crony of the Liberal Party in this matter if you like. However, we will stand emphatically and say we will stand with John Howard for the future of Territorians because that is best for the Northern Territory.
That is not cronyism, crawling to the Liberal Party, or being part of the Liberal Party, that is simply saying that is what we believe and we have the arguments to prove it. If you ask where our arguments against Mark Latham are, I will say this: first, the comments the man has made on the public record; second, the attitude by the other state Premiers in the rich states of Australia in terms of their belief that the Northern Territory gets too much money; third, which the Chief Minister would not address and she should have addressed it - the ANSA funding arrangements methodology that exists in Australia and how that can be changed; fourth, Labor’s dishonesty - the fact that Mark Latham is asking us to believe that he will deliver for Territorians and Australians, and yet he has gone against his own charter of budget honesty which he signed up for by refusing to put forward to the Commonwealth Treasury his policies to be fully costed and go the through the rigour of scrutiny by Treasury and Finance.
How would this Labor government in the Northern Territory accuse us if we brought forward policies that did not go through that sort of rigorous process? They would laugh at us and say they were unbelievable. Rightly, we can stand here as Territorians and ask how this man can expect Australians to believe that he will deliver on his promises, when he will not even put his policies up for public scrutiny. On the last effort that I looked up, there was $25.6bn worth of projects that had missed the Treasury deadline on the charter of budget honesty, which this man and the federal Labor Party had signed up to and said that they would adhere to. They have missed the deadline, and that was before they rolled out Medicare gold, which is being totally thrown out and canned by the AMA and your own Access Economics, who you put so much faith into. They say it is unworkable, it is unbelievable, it is not deliverable. The best the AMA president in Queensland could say was that, maybe, perhaps in 10 years, you might be able to get some change, but certainly not under the methodology and arguments that Mark Latham puts forward to Australians at the moment.
Another reason why we do not trust Mark Latham as the Labor Prime Minister of Australian is the record of Labor governments in the past. You can go back to Whitlam and Hawke/Keating, who opposed self-government for the Northern Territory and opposed the now Charles Darwin University. Paul Keating refused and reneged on the railway, despite their promises. It was a Labor federal government that delivered up to 70% in interest rates to Australians and Territorians, with the impact of business and inflation Australia-wide. The Chief Minister says: ‘We cannot get commentary on his industrial relations policies. We should have faith in the industrial relations policies that Mark Latham brings forward because they would be good for workers’. Well, try these for commentaries. Try Alan Wood from The Australian newspaper; not a great friend of the Liberal Party often. This is what he has said:
Mark Latham has now signed on to a union program to wind back new reforms at a federal level and
put union power ahead of jobs. The result, if Labor’s conference program is implemented, will be the
loss of international competitiveness, falling productivity and prosperity, and rising taxes as a less
productive work force has to shoulder the burden of an ageing population.
Alan Wood, The Australian, 24 February 2004. You want another independent commentator? How about Paul Kelly in The Australian. Paul Kelly is a pretty even-handed commentator and this is what he says …
A member interjecting.
Mr BURKE: You laugh. I will tell Paul Kelly that. As far as the Labor Party in the Northern Territory is concerned, he is a Liberal stooge. I do not think many Australians believe that. They believe he is a very informed commentator. Paul Kelly in The Australian says this:
- The deeper problem is the contradiction between Latham’s rhetoric and his policies.
The Australian Chamber of Commerce, in The Australian on 17 February, said this:
- In its strongest criticisms of Labor’s policies, the ACCI, in its quarterly analysis to be released today,
slammed the opposition’s industrial relations approach as significantly more interventionist and regulatory …
And so it goes on. In The Australian newspaper editorial - there is an independent commentator:
- Somebody should explain to Craig Emerson, Labor’s workplace relations spokesman, that he is supposed to
be finding ways to create jobs for Australians, not destroying them.
Another editorial in The Australian:
- Mr Latham has adopted policies that union leaders like, but are bad for ordinary Australians.
If that is the case, you have a person who proposes and puts himself forward as the new and best Prime Minister to lead Australia into the future. I saw an ad last night where he said: ‘Australians are ready - I am ready: Mark Latham’. The Chief Minister and her Labor colleagues have committed themselves to this man who said that, as far as he was concerned, the funding arrangements that flow to the Northern Territory - you have seen the quote: ‘… as given and decided by the Grants Commission, are absurd’. The Chief Minister’s answer to that quote was: ‘Well, he was young and inexperienced’. My answer to the Chief Minister is to use Rudyard Kipling’s words that said: ‘A dog always returns to its vomit’.
That is the way Australian’s should understand Mark Latham: a dog always returns to its vomit. I tell you the vomit of Mark Latham is this: Territorians are over-funded; there is no way this Northern Territory population should get up to seven times the pro-rata funding that goes to the Northern Territory in comparison to other states. Places like Campbelltown and Blacktown deserve more money, as far as Mark Latham is concerned. That, in itself, is a comment. However, where it becomes really dangerous is this: as you all and the Chief Minister knows - and I have sat in COAG meetings and I know - there is not a COAG meeting where funding is discussed where the strong Labor states of Victoria and New South Wales do not come forward and say: ‘We want to change the funding arrangements. We believe that we are getting dudded. We want a new tax system arrangement in Australia and we want monies that flow to the Northern Territory under the current modelling to be changed’. The danger of that - which the Chief Minister fails to recognise - is that those two states put Mark Latham in power. He belongs to the Labor Party in New South Wales and he is beholden to the Carr government for his position. The new taxation arrangements in Australia can only be changed by virtue of agreement of all the states and territories of Australia. It cannot happen at the moment. Do you know why? Because the Commonwealth government, which is the federal Liberal government, will not even entertain it.
Our Treasurer, the member for Nhulunbuy, I am sure would put forward his case to say that the funding arrangements should not be changed. However, I ask Territorians to ask this question: what weight would the Treasurer and Chief Minister of the Northern Territory have in the COAG argument against the Labor states of Australia, led by New South Wales and Victoria, who have the capability under those arrangements to change the funding arrangements, and also have a mendicant Prime Minister who, philosophically by his own statement, believes that the Northern Territory is over-funded. That is the danger for Territorians and what we put forward in this motion: that first of all you have a Prime Minister who claims that he is going to deliver for Australians and Territorians but, in fact, does not stand by the fact that the current funding arrangements that provide benefits to the states and territories under horizontal fiscal equalisation processes that have been around for many years and have been agreed under ANSA arrangements, are currently correct. That is the danger and the argument we put.
The implications for the Northern Territory are great. We have ministers in here who represent probably the most pressing health issues in Australia, difficult educational issues, and we have had arguments in this House about the paucity of funding we get for federal roads. That is the danger of the Northern Territory; we are dependent on 80% of our funding from the Commonwealth. We know what happens when a slight change results in reduced funding to the Northern Territory, where the Territory government says: ‘This is not fair, the modelling is wrong. We have to change it, we need more money’. The reality is we cannot afford to have any situation whereby those modelling arrangements could be changed to the detriment of the Northern Territory. They will and can be changed if people like Bracks and Carr, supported by Prime Minister Latham – God help us if it ever happens – get their way.
Therefore, I back John Howard. I back a man who has delivered for the last eight-and-a-half years to Territorians and Australians low interest rates, low unemployment, high productivity, and one of the strongest economies in Australia.
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: Well, you do not believe me? You do not back any of that? I back Territorians and Australians who will support the fact that, at the end of the day, they have more faith in a Prime Minister who can stand on a track record of eight-and-a-half years, than a pretender who signs cardboard sheets. This must be the Labor strategy, you sign a cardboard sheet that says: ‘I promise there will be no inflation’, ‘I promise there will be no rise in interest rates’. Do you remember the ‘I promise no public servant will be sacked’? That is the Labor way of doing business, and they expect us all to be like lemmings and follow them over the cliff.
I do not believe Territorians will. I believe that Territorians, at the end of the day, will recognise the person who has delivered a strong economy, low interest rates, and has taken home mortgage rates from about 17% under a Labor federal government down to the 6%, or close to it, that the average in Australia is now, and support the Prime Minister. To suggest that our support for Prime Minister John Howard is somehow un-Territorian and we are lackeys, just shows, in fact, what lackeys you are.
Dr Burns: Come on, what about Tollner’s record? Talk about that.
Mr BURKE: All they want to do is talk about the member for Solomon. If it was not for the member for Solomon, there would not be two federal seats in the Northern Territory. Where were you when that argument was going on? If it was not for the member for Solomon, there would not be free entry to Kakadu. Where were you when that was going on? And where were you when all the phases of radioactive dumps was being rolled out by Simon Crean and Bob Collins – wherever he is now - and was being mooted by a previous federal Labor government? Where is your strength of integrity, you lot? You have none!
The most you can run in this federal election is to attack Dave Tollner on a spurious non-issue of nuclear dumps, when you know it is not on the agenda. Why don’t you concentrate on the track record of Mark Latham? Why don’t you help explain to Australians that this fool who has never been a minister in any government, never held a job of any note in the public or private sector - the most he has been before he pretends to be Prime Minister is the Mayor of Liverpool City Council. There was a state government inquiry into Liverpool City Council after his term as mayor. As we said today, they put it on cyclone watch. This was a council that, after Mark Latham had had his way and said: ‘I will deliver massive surpluses to the people of the Liverpool Council area, I will teach these amateurs’ – he was exactly quoted as saying that they were a bunch of amateurs trying to run a $40m budget and they needed him to sort it out – he came in there and wrecked the place.
We are expected to believe that this is the man who will lead Australia. It says in the 1994 statement of financial position for Liverpool City Council that the amount of liabilities for creditors increased by 51% whilst borrowings increased by 45% while this jerk was Mayor of Liverpool City Council.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, member for Brennan, withdraw that remark, thank you. What you called …
Mr BURKE: Well, I could quote from the - I will withdraw, Madam Speaker. I withdraw unreservedly. However, given some of the comments that people who worked for Mark Latham - as quoted in this report - have said about him, ‘jerk’ is pretty nice.
In fact, some of the words that he said - and I will quote one where he called one Labor member ‘a c..t’ is typical of the way Mark Latham does business.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, but you do not have to do it.
Mr BURKE: That is the way he speaks. That is the way he describes people, Madam Speaker. It is in the report from the investigation of Liverpool City Council.
This is the guy who is going to introduce industrial relations changes that are going to benefit the workers. When he was handling an enterprise agreement at Liverpool City Council, the employees that he was negotiating with - 245 of them - put a no confidence motion against him of 243-2. This is the guy who put the council into debt so that it became a worrying council for the state Labor government, and they had an inquiry into it. He is going to deliver surpluses for Australians, is going to manage an $800bn Australian economy, and he could not even manage Liverpool City Council without stuffing it up. One of his …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 62:
- Offensive or unbecoming words.
No member shall use offensive or unbecoming words against the Assembly or any Member of the Assembly
or against the House or the Member of another Australian parliament …
This is a censure motion against the Chief Minister and we have accepted that. However, nowhere have we accepted that we should use such language against another member in another House. I ask that he withdraw these comments and that he keeps on track.
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: I am simply arguing why he should not be …
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw. Just withdraw, member for Brennan. We did say we would not make unparliamentary comments about another member of parliament.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker. The Leader of Government Business refused to withdraw Mr Bomb …
Madam SPEAKER: I did not give you the call.
Mr Dunham: Well, it seems to be an erratic …
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat, thank you! I am talking to the member for Brennan. Member for Brennan, just withdraw.
Mr BURKE: I withdraw whatever it was. I think he is asking me to withdraw the whole statement.
Anyway, five former mayors - these are not my quotes, these are theirs:
- Five former mayors and a former deputy, four of whom were members of the ALP, said Labor leader
Mark Latham was an economic dunce whose reckless spending spree led to a $15.9m deficit at
Liverpool City Council.
Mr Henderson: How big was your deficit?
Mr BURKE: I am talking about, as you say, the next possible Prime Minister of Australia, someone in whom you have the utmost faith. The Chief Minister asks Territorians and this opposition to have faith in one Mark Latham - a member, as I said, and a potential Prime Minister who signed up to the Charter of Budget Honesty and, on last check, there were $25.6bn worth of promises that had not gone to Treasury - uncosted, unfunded. So, how can anyone believe anything that Mark Latham says?
Under Mark Latham, Territorians and Australians will be losers. There is a litany of initiatives in Mark Latham’s policies, not the least being that single income and sole parent families will lose family tax benefits worth $60 a week for under fives and $40 a week for over fives, but get a new tax threshold worth only $20 a week. All families will lose the Coalition’s $600 per child a year payment and, in particular, families with larger numbers of children will be worse off.
It goes on and on. It even extends to black spot funding. The black spot funding for the Northern Territory, which fixes and helps to attend to dangerous places in our roads, has had the flick under a Latham Labor government. I wonder if Territorians know that your 4 discount docket from Woolworths or Coles, which a lot of Territorians are very happy with, has gone as well.
I could go on for another hour on this bloke, but Territorians should back John Howard. They should be very wary when they come to vote on Saturday about the promises and policies of Mark Latham, because he is dangerous for the Northern Territory and Australia.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, notwithstanding the diatribe of hostility, venom and vindictiveness from the member for Brennan against the member for Werriwa, the federal Opposition Leader, Mark Latham, the substance of this censure motion was nothing more than a torrent of abuse at Mark Latham, the member for Werriwa, from the member for Brennan.
Notwithstanding that, the substance, the first point of this motion, is a censure of the Chief Minister and this government for failing to stand up for the Northern Territory. A censure of this government for failing to stand up for the Territory!
Let us have a little look at a few of the things this government has done in standing up for the Northern Territory. In the first place, we have turned the economy around the corner, because of this Labor government’s strong intervention. In three years, we have addressed the fiscal black hole left by the member for Brennan when he was the former Chief Minister.
Mr Burke: What a load of rubbish! You put a $90 rego tax on.
Mr STIRLING: The deceit! Well may he talk about Parramatta Council or whatever it was and their deficit! This is a bloke who went to an election telling Territorians there would be a $12m shortfall, $12m deficit - unsustainable, the Under Treasurer said, and we were headed for a $126m black hole. I will take Mark Latham’s record and time, against yours, member for Brennan. Absolute disgrace!
We have spent record capital works on infrastructure, year on year. We have injected cash into tourism - $27m over three years; in health, more than $100m to date; in education, more than $40m to date. Why did we have to inject such massive sums of money into these areas? Because it was the neglect of the former government because they were cash strapped and running up a bill quicker than you could believe.
We have construction figures today that show a 53% increase, year on year, of residential building approvals. We have announced the waterfront project at $1bn. We have successfully negotiated the transfer of the tank farm; which is a project going to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars. We will see the development of Darwin as an LNG hub and gas onshore. We are going to oversee the expansion of Alcan. According to their side - and one of the issues that came up in this debate from the other side - was this question of unemployment. According to Dave Tollner, the member for Solomon, the unemployment rate in Darwin is about 3.3%; about half the national rate. It is here in the pamphlet: ‘Local unemployment rate 3.3%’. Yet, we were questioned by the Leader of the Opposition this morning about our unemployment rate. That is what standing up for the Territory is about, and it is a record that we are proud of.
It is interesting; there is a bit of a throwback here - much more from the member for Brennan than the Leader of the Opposition - in wanting to get stuck into Canberra. A bit of Canberra bashing days before Latham is even elected: they are going to climb into this Canberra government some three or four days before the election is even held. It does not surprise me from the member for Brennan, because he has form on this. One of his favourite tactics, of course, was bashing Canberra.
I go back to 31 July 2002: ‘Stone gives Burke a serve’. This is a good one, because they appear side-by-side in today’s paper - great mates:
Stone gives Burke a serve.
Former CLP Chief Minister, Shane Stone, yesterday criticised Denis Burke, his successor as CLP party leader -
and praised Labor Chief Minister Clare Martin.
Mr Stone claimed Mr Burke, who now leads the CLP in opposition, believed it was politically wise to
‘kick Canberra’.
Mr Burke denied the claim.
Mr Stone, now federal Liberal Party President, also praised Mr Burke’s successor as Chief Minister,
Ms Martin, for her ‘constructive’ dealings with the Commonwealth.
He described as ‘indisputable’ an assertion Labor’s relationship with the federal Coalition government
was more sound than that enjoyed by the CLP.
‘It’s an indisputable fact that Clare Martin has chartered a different course in Canberra’, Mr Stone said.
‘I’m not in the business of giving plaudits to political opponents, but there is a certain tenacity about her that
brings its own rewards’.
This is not bad from Stoney; this is not bad:
- ‘It shows you have to deal with incumbent governments of the day similar to when I had to …
- … deal with Keating and Hawke.
Clare Martin has a different style and approach. She’s been constructive’.
During his two years as Chief Minister, Mr Burke clashed with the federal government on issues
including mandatory sentencing, petrol excise and bans on Internet gambling.
‘Denis Burke was receiving misguided advice you needed to kick Canberra all the time’, Mr Stone said’.
This is interesting. We are going back a couple of years there in history, but today we saw the same elements that led to Mr Stone’s criticism of the member for Brennan. We saw it today: attack-dog mode, full-on Canberra, and this – what? - four or five days before the man is even elected. What will happen next week if Mr Latham is Prime Minister? It will be pretty hard to cop it in here.
I can assure this House that the federal Leader of the Opposition, Mark Latham, if he becomes Prime Minister on Saturday night and is sworn in at some time over the next couple of weeks with the government, is not going to take away horizontal fiscal equalisation. The other Labor states …
Mr Dunham: How would you know? He would not tell you!
Mr STIRLING: I will tell you why he is not going to do it, mate, because he could not! If you understood the system, you would know he could not. You have never been to a Treasurer’s conference, so you do not know how these things stack up! The other Labor states all act as a group on these sorts of questions. They act very much in self-interest, as does COAG, when the leaders are together.
New South Wales and Victoria will not be getting their way over the rest of the states and territories with a federal Labor government. I can make that unequivocal assurance because I know - and I have been to a couple of Treasurer’s conferences; no one on that side over that has - that it simply cannot happen like that.
The inter-governmental agreement that was drawn up to decide on the distribution of the GST when the new tax system came into being, is based on the very principles of horizontal fiscal equalisation. Under the process, New South Wales and Victoria usually raise their heads and vent a bit of steam about HFE. They are occasionally joined by WA when WA is getting a hard time. However, WA dropped off the train last year and joined the smaller states because they thought the Commonwealth were raiding their piggy bank. Therefore, you get the situation of NSW and Victoria versus Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, ACT and NT. If you have any idea about numbers - and I am not suggesting the opposition would - it is pretty hard to see how two can beat six, or at worst, if Western Australia crosses the fence because they never fully decided what side of the fence they want to be on in this debate, how three can ever get over the top of five with a vested interest in horizontal fiscal equalisation.
I go to that famous and quote - my first ministerial council, I had a phone call from a former Chief Minister, Marshall Perron. He was giving me fatherly advice ‘Be very careful of these southern states because they will try and get around you when you go to these ministerial councils’. We went through the principles of horizontal fiscal equalisation and he put a quote in my mind that I have never forgotten. He said: ‘You want to remind these blokes when you are down there that horizontal fiscal equalisation is the glue that binds the federation together’. The glue that binds the federation together. Marshall does not claim it as his own. I do not the origins of the quote, but it certainly stuck with me. When I did have the privilege of becoming Treasurer of the Northern Territory, it was a quote that was well to the fore when I sat in that forum at the Treasurer’s Conference.
The other issue in this censure is Labor’s industrial relations policies. Let me say, unequivocally again, that there will be no negative impact on struggling Territory business and the mining industry. This censure is all about a piece of political diatribe designed to inject some life into the dying campaign of their mate, the member for Solomon. We heard it over and over again in the input to the debate. My advice to them would be: why waste your breath? The flip-flops, the inanities, the crass stupidity of this member for Solomon already sealed his fate. A tempered motion such as this ain’t going to revive his chances. When Centrebet have the candidate sitting at $1.60 against the incumbent at about even money of $2, I would think he is pretty well gone.
Here is a man who endorsed a nuclear dump, declared the finalisation of treaty between East Timor and Australia when it had not even been completed, made comments on Iraq in a bumbling, contradictory way, and threatens to sue anyone who ever mentions his dog. As the Chief Minister said, the former president, Mr Len Notaras said: ‘This is the 6’6’’ albatross around our neck’. How perceptive! I like Len. I take that. He is a good critic in my view …
Ms Martin: A very astute man.
Mr STIRLING: He is astute and perspective and he read the wind a long way out.
Let us examine the facts. As I said, horizontal fiscal equalisation is a principle for which the smaller states and the territories of the Commonwealth have fought and won over the years of federation - and they will go on winning and fighting that battle. Why will they always win this battle? Because there are five of them - at best six - and there are only two and maybe three big states. Three will never beat five; two will never beat six. That is a fight. It is an interesting argument and you can bring up new facts or what is perceived as facts, but it always an interesting debate. It is a fight that absolutely crosses political lines. No matter what persuasion the state governments of South Australia, Tasmania, the ACT and the Northern Territory are, they will never cross the divide on this issue. It is a fight, as I said, by Victoria and New South Wales and, occasionally Western Australia, against the rest. It will always occur regardless of who is in power federally and who is in power in New South Wales and Victoria, or any of the states.
No federal government has acted to remove the principle of horizontal fiscal equalisation because, apart from the fact of it being the glue that binds the federation together, it goes to that ethos of a fair go - a fair go for Australians. That is exactly what it is about. If you understood it, you would recognise it. It would be a battle that you simply would not want to enter as the federal government because you are on a hiding for nothing.
When the CLP held power, most of the time - or for all of the time when they worked with Labor governments such as the previous and current Premiers of Queensland, Wayne Goss and Peter Beattie; Tasmanian Premiers Michael Field and the late Jim Bacon; South Australian Labor governments under Bannon and Arnold; West Australian governments under Burke, Dowding and Lawrence - they worked together. They worked together on this issue to protect and defend horizontal fiscal equalisation as a principle the same as I do now and this government will continue to do - whatever political persuasion the other states and territories might be. The former CLP government worked with federal Labor governments of Hawke and, subsequently, Keating, to defend those principles. Similarly, I work alongside Queensland, Tasmania, South Australia, the ACT and, sometimes, Western Australia to protect the principle to this day.
Unlike the member for Brennan, I have a strong measure of the men and women who make up the ranks of the federal opposition,. I am aware of the strong commitment made by the federal Opposition Leader, his shadow Treasurer, minister for finance, and other senior shadow ministers, to strengthen the regions, developing the capacity of remote areas, and making Australia a stronger place, regardless of where Australians live.
One of the un-truths peddled by the Prime Minister is that Labor will take Australian industrial relations back to centralised wage fixation. That is an absolute complete falsehood. There is nothing anywhere that suggests that is what a Latham Labor government will do. What the federal government conveniently leaves out of this misrepresentation is that it was Labor which introduced the system of enterprise bargaining to Australia. Why would you want to go back? Why would you go back to a centralised wage fixing system when you have introduced and overseen the implementation of an enterprise bargaining system which serves Australia well today? Why would you turn your back on that and go back to centralised wage fixing? What Labor will do is improve security of employment around casualisation and unfair dismissals, help balance family and work, and restore collective bargaining - and that would be the abolition of these AWAs.
The casualisation of the Australian work force is endemic; it is the cause of tremendous unnecessary stress for a lot of workers and families. What a federal Labor government will try to do is assist employees to obtain permanent employment wherever it is appropriate for them to do so. AWAs are un-Australian - there is no doubt of that where workers are coerced into signing substandard contracts, and signing away rights that other Australian workers enjoy. You have to ask yourself why less than 3% of the work force overall is currently on AWAs, despite the fact that the Howard government has had eight years to push these right through the industrial relations system - tried to ram them down the throats of workers wherever they are - and, eight years later we have around 3% of the work force on AWAs. Well, hello! It speaks for itself. Their removal will affect a minority of employers and their employees. They are rubber stamped by government, once they are signed off - a controlled bureaucracy, the Office of the Employment Advocate – and, rather than allowing any truly independent specialist tribunal deal with approval of these secret documents, there is a politically motivated process to ensure that workers are disadvantaged by these AWAs.
This office was supposedly set up to protect the worker where there might be undue ripping away of workers’ rights. They were supposed to apply the idea of a ‘no disadvantage’ test to a worker’s AWA. It is supposed to ensure that no worker would be worse off under an Australian Workplace Agreement. There is a bit of independent research that has been done on these AWAs - a comprehensive analysis of industrial agreements and interviews undertaken by Melbourne University’s Centre for Employment and Labour Relations Law. Researchers noted some AWAs included clauses - and this is what the Leader of the Opposition needs to be careful about when he touts and spruiks the case for AWAs. In some cases, they removed all forms of leave - sick leave, rec leave - that is it, you do not get leave - gone. They required employees to work at any hour of the day or night on any day of the week on ordinary rates of pay, and forced workers to work up to 58 hours per week without overtime. The evidence is in the Melbourne University’s Centre for Employment and Labour Relations Law analysis of some of these AWAs.
How could those agreements possibly pass through the Office of the Employment Advocate on a ‘no disadvantage’ test? Here I have leave - sick leave, rec leave - here I have none. They do not regard that as any disadvantage, apparently.
Unlike the Coalition, Labor is committed to putting fairness back in the system. Labor introduced the system of enterprise bargaining. It has provided flexibility to enable the growth of employment for which the Howard government takes the credit. The difference between the two is that the Labor Party has regard for the work force as part of the equation.
The other major difference between Labor and the Coalition is avoiding and resolving disputes. The Howard government, as always, introduces and runs with the law of the jungle in industrial disputes where might beats right. There is no regard for right; if you are powerful enough, you win. By restricting the powers of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, disputes can drag out for weeks and months whilst the specialist tribunal charged with resolving disputes is hamstrung. It is difficult to establish how Labor’s policy of returning fairness and sanity to that system is, in any way, likely to damage any industry - in particular the mining industry.
The speedy resolution of potentially damaging disputes is in the interests of all industry. It is in the interests of workers as well, of course. By contrast, the Howard government will always be ideologically driven by a ‘winner takes all’ mentality, irrespective of the damage done in the process. AWAs have proven to be unworkable and unfair. The low rate of take-up over eight years demonstrates how little interest there is amongst employers and employees in them. They are used by a minority of employers to largely reduce conditions of employment. Yet again, suggestion that the ALP’s industrial relation policies will hurt business is an example of John Howard telling lies in order to remain in power.
Madam Speaker, I have an amendment to put to this motion. I move to delete all words after ‘that’ and insert the following:
- This Assembly welcomes the plans outlined by Mark Latham and federal Labor to improve the economy and lifestyle of Territorians in that, under a Latham federal government:
every school in the Territory will be better off with more resources;
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that the member be allowed a further 10 minutes to conclude his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STIRLING: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
- more resources will be provided to all Territory hospitals;
provide after-hours services;
more child-care places for working Territory families, along with a free day of care
for four-year-olds;
an Office of Northern Australia in Darwin;
Further, a Latham government will also:
- allocate $20m for roads in the Territory, including upgrading the Victoria River Highway and
widening sections of the Stuart Highway;
allocate $13.7m to upgrade Tiger Brennan Drive and Berrimah Road - the road transport link to
the Port of Darwin;
allocate $19m extra for roads on unincorporated land in the Territory;
boost security in Darwin Harbour by providing $2m to the NTG towards a radar-based vessel
tracking system;
fund the Aboriginal legal services - not putting them out to private tender;
support moves towards statehood for the Northern Territory;
invest more than $30m in environmental protection for Australia’s coastline;
keep Telstra in public ownership; and
establish an expanded coast guard fleet - partly running out of Darwin.
Each of those points speak for themselves in how the Territory would be far better off under a Mark Latham Labor government. We saw the sensitivity and the anxiety from the opposition in the way that they prosecuted this so-called censure motion today - all about trying to shore up a loser in Dave Tollner in the seat of Solomon ...
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: Well, I did not bring on the debate. Jim Davidson can win without any shenanigans of this Assembly. He does not need this government saying good things about him in here to win. He is going to win. Go and take your $2, your even money with Centrebet, if you are that convinced that Tollner is going to get up. I tell you, Gerry Daffy will be happy to take your money; he has got Davidson at $1.60.
Each of these points speak for themselves. They underline the commitment of a Latham federal government to the Northern Territory. I ask all members of parliament who stand for the Territory - they really ought to be supporting this amendment.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I speak against the amendment and for the original motion. It is interesting that, at the 11th hour, this quite long amendment has been put to this debate. I hope it will be circulated …
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, it has been circulated.
Mr DUNHAM: … because there are substantial points there that are erroneous and, in true Labor style, they will change, because the loopholes are so big.
The MPI of this morning - it was pretty interesting that this is our General Business Day and, on such a day, one would think that the business of the parliament was handed over to the opposition. So ill-prepared was the government for a debate of this type, which they must have been anticipating, that they sought to fend it off further and further. You can see why now, having heard this debate. The reason they fended it off is that they are totally incapable of mounting a defence for the putative Prime Minister of Australia. They are totally incapable of mounting a defence to say why Mark Latham would be, in any way, beneficial to this place.
The Territory has a long history of being suspicious of politicians who come from the southern part of Australia and, for those of us who were here before self-government, one can understand why - because of the patronising attitude that many southern politicians have towards this place. Hawke’s Boyer Lectures talked about too many levels of government, and you can see that later on he carried this disposition further. That is why the words of the current leader of the federal opposition ring so loudly in our ears. It is all very well for the Chief Minister to dismiss this as foolish talk from a young new member of parliament, but the fact is that they have not been retracted. Like Hawke with his Boyer Lectures, this is the disposition of this man and, until the very time that he stands in this place or in the Northern Territory and makes a public retraction of those foolish statements, they stand.
The reading of this leaves no other option, other than to believe that this man, who grew up in the western suburbs of Sydney in a fibro hut - if you are to believe his rhetoric - believes that the needs in that particular part of Australia are greater than Darwin. Well, this man has never been to the remote communities in the Northern Territory, unlike our current federal Treasurer, I might add. I was fortunate enough to join Peter Costello on Bathurst Island when he went there, and I know that he understands some of the issues in the Northern Territory. I know John Howard does; in the last year or so, he has been here three times. He has spoken widely to the populous, and I believe he has a disposition of understanding what happens in this place. Therefore, before you run the case of: ‘Trust him, it is something he said a long time ago. Although he has not retracted it, we know in his heart of hearts he did not really mean what he said all those years ago’ - well, I do not believe that.
We can go to more recent history. The Treasurer gave us this patronising chat about numbers and said there are so many states and so many for and so many against. Well, this is a numbers game and we have two federal seats. We are entirely expendable in the eyes of Mark Latham, who is trying to win the bulk of seats out of the populous states of New South Wales and Victoria. How do we know this? Because he has already jettisoned Tasmania. We know that to be the case because we can take the words of the current Premier of Tasmania that he is quite prepared to jettison the interest of that particular state so that he can garner support in New South Wales and Victoria. If you heard that on the radio this morning, these words have to be ringing loudly in your ears because it is a pretty simple thing to write off two seats in the Northern Territory and try to garner another couple of dozen in other states. Therefore, the numbers argument that was put by the Treasurer is a foolish argument.
People have talked about horizontal fiscal equalisation. I thought I should read out what it means because it does have a definition. The definition is this - and I quote from Treasury documents, Budget Paper No 2 at page 42:
- State governments should receive funding from the pool of goods and services tax revenue …
GST, remember that:
- … and health care grants such that, if each made the same effort to raise revenue from its own sources
and operated at the same level of efficiency, each would have the capacity to provide services at the
same standard.
However, remember, it is only a couple of years ago that the Labor governments did not believe in the GST. The reason that they have gone so quiet on it is because they believe it was impossible to get the circumstances available to Australia to change the GST. What are those circumstances? Every state must agree. To have every state in the Commonwealth, as Labor states, puts the GST firmly back on the agenda. It is firmly an issue that has been embedded in Labor Party policy, rhetoric and banners around schoolyard fences on polling day: that the GST is bad for Australia.
Therefore, we know that one of the three fundamental legs to this, the GST, is an issue of some angst for the Labor Party. We know our share of national population is dropping. Why is that? Because we have elected a Labor government in the Northern Territory and people are leaving. We know the third leg of the relativities of the Grants Commission are a matter the current leader of the federal opposition has some difficulty with. Therefore, there are three risks to our funding stream and all three are on pretty shaky ground, I would suggest.
For the Treasurer to give us these patronising fireside chats about how he goes down and talks to his cobbers, mates and colleagues from these other states, does not mean nothing, because he is a little baby in the scheme of things - he is miniature. He is miniature when you have a potential leader who is quite happy to jettison the five Labor seats of Tasmania. Do not think that the one seat in this place means anything to him. Do not think that the one seat is something that is going to give him any sleepless nights.
There was a lot of noise in this debate about: ‘Well, what do you think about your mate, Mr Tollner?’ I guess the reality is the people standing for elections - we have Mr Snowdon who, I believe has been pretty close to being sued for treason for what he has done for the Northern Territory, particularly for roads. He originates from Canberra and is much at home in that place. Given that in this election year he spent a vast amount of time in New York, I am quite happy to say that Maisie Austin is not only a better candidate, but she will beat him. We go to …
Mr Henderson: I will take a bet on that one!
Mr DUNHAM: You laugh.
Ms Lawrie: Take a bet on that one! How much?
Mr DUNHAM: Well, there are two reasons why I thought that the member for Karama would agree with me. One is her gender and the other is her ethnicity, because there have been long arguments in this place about the rightful place of Aboriginal people and women to determine their own affairs and to participate in the political process. I would have thought that the member for Karama would be a staunch supporter of Maisie Austin and, knowing as I do what most of the members on the other side think of Warren Snowdon, they would find a much better proposition having a local like Maisie Austin there then our man in Canberra continuing to represent us.
Let us come to the candidate for the seat of Solomon: Mr Davidson. If you vote for Mr Davidson, it is a protest vote because that is what he does. This man is anti-development, anti-mining, anti-Defence Forces and he is anti-industry. We can talk the big picture. We can talk about what Mr Howard does versus Mr Latham. We can talk about the domestic picture and you lose on every occasion because, not only have you stood candidates who have not been helpful to us, but some of whom have won and their track record is evident to us - and I include Mr Snowdon in that.
Let us look at track record. The Howard government: real wages increased by 14%. All very well to talk about the workers and how Labor has this disposition to help workers. Under the Howard government, real wages increased by 14%. In the previous 13 years, real wages rose by 2.9%. Who is worker friendly? Which policies are worker friendly? The pragmatic policy that say that we should get the country running, and the country should be efficient and wealth earning, and that wealth should be shared by everybody including the workers? That would seem to be a much better policy then some semantics about collective bargaining and whether you can have secondary boycotts and the like. While it might appeal to many people, it is not necessarily a terribly efficient policy for the nation, and neither does it bestow the wealth that comes from efficiency back onto those workers. Therefore, to run your usual mantra of ‘we care about workers and the Coalition does not’, I suggest you look at the reality of it.
If we go to the federal election, I see that we have a fairly clear and stark choice between the two leaders contending. If you go to the domestic election, we have a fairly clear and stark choice for both the voters of Solomon and Lingiari. I would hope to have a result that sees both Maisie Austin and David Tollner elected. I would see that their election will do more for this place than the many years that Mr Snowdon has serve abysmally the interest of the Northern Territory people. Then, I suppose we could go to the state election - the Territory election.
We have here a parade here of wonderful things that have happened. ‘We are going to oversight the Alcan development’, which I thought was a pretty interesting verb, the verb ‘to oversight’. The Alcan development has happened, not because of any of the policies or initiatives of this government, but because of the ore bodies and the policies and initiatives of the company. Wickham Point is something that was inherited by this government from the good work that had been done by the previous government - and mucked up to the extent that the gas that should have come to Territorians and benefited Territorians is no longer available to us. The railway was also inherited by this government and they mucked that up. They had two jobs to do: organise a booze-up and build some terminals - and they mucked them both up. So badly was the booze-up organised, that it went from being an alcoholic to non-alcoholic to whatever; people could get there then they could not get there; and eventually we found that the railway actually had nothing to do with the Chief Minister. No, it was actually to do with Mr Tyrrell, who took the blame. So, it is all very well screaming and yelling about …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! Both the amendment and the motion go to censuring the Chief Minister on the one hand and also …
Mr Dunham: Well, circulate it.
Mr HENDERSON: It has been circulated. … and also welcoming the plans by Mark Latham and federal Labor. It has nothing to do with the welcoming party for the train …
Mr Dunham: Okay, I can see why you are worried about running you record out, cobber.
Mr HENDERSON: I urge you to have the member confine his remarks to the question before the Chair.
Mr Dunham: No, sit down. Sit down. Do not go and waste your time.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale!
Mr Dunham: I can see why you are worried about its running – parading your potential …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale! There is no point of order, Leader of Government Business. However, I ask you to contain your comments to the amendments before you.
Mr DUNHAM: Okay. There is a strong relationship between Commonwealth government policies and Territory government policies and, to quarantine this debate merely to Commonwealth policies without looking at your sorry track record, is a bit of a problem.
Let us go, for instance, to GP services. If you look at the plan for Royal Darwin Hospital redevelopment that was initiated and funded by this government, you will see, adjacent to Accident and Emergency, a GP clinic on the plans. It now does not exist. What has happened is Labor has said: ‘Oh, we have this really good idea: we will relieve the pressure on emergency services and build GP clinics adjacent to the emergency department’. Well, what a great idea. ‘We will also have more bulk billing GPs’. What a great idea. We had a big mob of them out at Palmerston, and you shut that, too.
Therefore, do not come to us with these policies saying: ‘We care because we are going to increase bulk billing; have more access to doctors’, when we know you could do it - you did not need Mr Latham to tell you - and you chose not only not to do it, but to withdraw services. There is a linkage, my friend. There is a strong linkage between things that are done by the Commonwealth and things that are done by you.
When you drop the ball as badly as you do, do not try to pretend, when the Commonwealth comes up with an idea, that is a good idea and has your full support, because you could have done it before. You are worried about people waiting for dental services. Well, pull your list out and have a look at it. Under your government, there are long waiting lists for dental services. There is a potential GP facility that can go into Royal Darwin Hospital. That did not happen - there were GP services at Palmerston that were shut down.
Therefore, when you run out the parade about really caring about Medicare, I can tell you that the Commonwealth government that has done more for health in the Northern Territory is the current conservative government. I can tell you that I am probably supported by the member for Arafura on this, because she worked in a service that was funded out of new and innovative funding models to provide resources, particularly for remote people. She was a beneficiary of that in so far as she was not only a wage earner out of that money, but she was able to work in a service that dispensed all those services. If you talk about the rhetoric of ‘we care about education’ or ‘we care about health’ or ‘we care about Medicare or bulk billing’, you have to look at your own bona fides because you have not been able to demonstrate that.
Let us look at where this money goes from the Commonwealth Grants Commission. It is in this budget paper and provides very good reading because it deals with the Commonwealth Grants Commission, Specific Purpose Payments and whatever. It is argued by Treasury that it is very important for two services here in the Northern Territory. We mount a particular case, and I quote from page 43 Budget Paper No 2, 2004-05:
- The table … shows that the Northern Territory requires 4.3 times its per capita share of GST funding in order
to provide a standard level of government services. High needs in the Northern Territory are primarily due
to the higher cost and demand for services relative to other states. The Territory needs $6677 more per person
than the national average to provide a standard (or Australian average) level of services. Tasmania,
Queensland and Western Australia also have expenditure needs, whereas the remaining states are assessed
as needing to spend less than the Australian average to provide standard services. The high cost of delivering
government services in the Territory is mainly due to substantial health and education needs.
That is what Latham is attacking. Latham is attacking our money, our relativity; that goes predominantly to health and education. Therefore, do not stand here and parade your socialist credentials to us, with a man who believes that the money we receive for substantial health and education needs - and you know this because these are your budget papers; they are not mine - is at risk with the words that have been spoken by the federal Opposition Leader.
It is pretty easy for this parliament to ask him what he means. Instead of amending the motion to say: ‘Dear Mr Latham, We love you dearly …’, why don’t we just say: ‘Mr Latham, when you said this, it has been put by various commentators that you were just foolish, young and stupid and recently elected, but it is an issue of some concern in the Northern Territory, and we would like to know what you mean by that’. I will bet you that in Campbelltown and Blacktown, they still think this is what this bloke thinks. I will bet you they do! I will bet you he is running this case for all its worth out there about how he grew up in a fibro hut with no dad or whatever it was. He is saying: ‘This is what I think: you guys are doing it tough out here in Western Sydney’. Well, go to Wadeye. Go to Gapuwiyak. Go to Angurugu. Go and have a look at these places. The ignorance of these southern politicians, who can parade the great social conscience they have, because of their parlous socio-economic circumstances growing up in Sydney - heaven forbid! - and missing out on all these wonderful things.
Well, have a look at our Grants Commission submission. I have been out bush with the Grants Commission. I have had to present the cases to them. We have presented oral submissions to them. We have presented an enormous amount of written work to the Commonwealth Grants Commission. It is an extremely important task, and it is important because it delivers big mobs of cash to us, as we have said. You cannot let those words sit there and say: ‘Well, we do not understand them, they are pretty old, but we make the assumption that he was just this young foolish bloke’.
Let us say as a parliament: ‘Dear Mr Latham. You have three days; tell us what they mean. If you do not retract them and tell us exactly what they mean, we do not think we should vote for you’. I believe that if we put some sycophantic set of words about saying, ‘Dear Mark, you are a lovely bloke’, you are missing the point. If he did not mean this, what did he mean, and why do we not get him to retract it?
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I speak for the amendments and against the motion.
Territorians – Australians - have a big choice to make on Saturday in the future government of this country, the future Prime Minister of this country and also, very importantly, in the two federal seats, who is going to represent the Northern Territory. I suppose both the amendment and the original motion are arguing political points, but also commitments, certainly in the amendments that Mark Latham and federal Labor have made in improving the economy and lifestyle of Territorians. That is the choice that people will be making as they walk into the polling booth on Saturday to cast their vote and make their judgment.
However, it really is a long bow. It is a very long bow for the opposition to go back at the fifth week of the campaign. I do not know who dredged up this quote out of the Hansard at the last minute. However, if this is the single biggest issue that the opposition has brought in here today - four days out from polling day - for Territorians, well, they have left their run a bit late. Their research team has certainly fallen away from what it used to be, because this is a quote that is 10 years old, made in a maiden speech to the federal parliament. It has absolutely no bearing in regards to this election campaign, and absolutely no bearing on how Mark Latham and federal Labor would work with the Northern Territory government if they are successful next Saturday.
Mr Dunham: How would you know? Where is your evidence?
Mr HENDERSON: The member for Drysdale says: ‘How do we know’. We do work with the federal Labor leader and with all the federal Labor shadow ministers and members, and we have good, well developed and strong relationships - as you would expect - with the federal Labor parliamentary wing. We have managed to secure, working with Warren Snowdon in Lingiari and Jim Davidson, the candidate in Solomon, and the federal opposition and shadow ministers, a strong commitment from an incoming Labor government to the Northern Territory - right across the Northern Territory. That commitment and those promises will be delivered if a Labor government is elected across Australia on Saturday.
To come up with this quote from 10 years ago at the 11th hour to try and shore up a very struggling campaign by the current member for Solomon, Dave Tollner, is pretty desperate. I really do not believe that it is going to go anywhere. However, if you want to go back and quote current politicians and commitments that they have made, and say that these commitments point to the integrity of the person and you cannot trust them, well, honest John Howard certainly has a lot to answer for regarding his title. Prior to the 1996 federal election, John Howard was promising Australians that there would never ever be a GST. That was the commitment by the Prime Minister of Australia in the lead-up – well, he was not the Prime Minister in the lead-up to the 1996 election. However, if you are trying to draw a parallel between comments that were made in years gone by with the likelihood and the integrity of people, you could go back to honest John and that 1996 election commitment that there would never ever be a GST in Australia. As soon as he was elected, of course, he forgot that and we now have the GST.
We also have that same Prime Minister of Australia, if you want to talk about integrity and honesty, and having confidence. The member for Drysdale said: ‘How would you know that Mark Latham would not ransack the coffers of the Northern Territory. How would you know?’ - a hypothetical. There is one quote 10 years ago to hang a whole argument on and, therefore, this man cannot be trusted to be the leader of Australia, the Prime Minister of Australia. Well, if you compare that, you can run the same analogy to the current Prime Minister. ‘I was not told. I did not know’. Well, who is running the show? Who is running the show when you have a senior policy advisor to the then Defence Minister, Peter Reith, going on the public record - he could be sued for defamation if he is lying and, obviously, not - saying ‘I rang the Prime Minister three times and told him personally there was no evidence - no evidence whatsoever - to support the allegation that the Commonwealth and the Prime Minister was running in the lead-up to the last federal election that children were being thrown overboard’. If you cannot trust the Prime Minister - ‘I was not told. I did not know’. These are the comments he made, calling people liars. Is he going to sue that gentlemen for defamation? I do not have his name in front of me at the moment. I do not think so.
If you are talking about integrity, and the believability of any commitments that John Howard may make to the Northern Territory based on comments that Mark Latham made 10 years ago, well, you can run the same analogy: you cannot trust a word that John Howard says and how do you know that any of the commitments that David Tollner and John Howard are making to the Northern Territory are going to be believed by the people, and certainly if they are going to be enacted if they are re-elected.
The whole thing is a beat-up in the lead-up to the Territory election; trying to find something – anything - to try and claw back Dave Tollner’s diminishing chances of retaining the seat of Solomon. It was interesting how many of the speakers opposite actually stood up - I do not think anybody did – and say that David Tollner has done a great job of delivering to the people of the Northern Territory. There was not one of them who would stand up and say the current member for Solomon has done a fantastic job and deserves to be re-elected on his record.
As my colleague, the Treasurer, reminded me, I had forgotten that overheard phone call from Len Notaras, the then President of the CLP, that ‘there is a 6’6” albatross around our necks’. I had forgotten that particular quote. David Tollner’s representation in Canberra has proven to be an albatross around the neck of the Territory over the last three years.
When the member for Drysdale climbs into Jim Davidson and says that he is anti-business and anti-development – well, put some facts before us. I have known Jim Davidson for about 15 years and he would be one of the most pro-development, pro-business people that I know in the Labor Party. I was very pleased and proud to have had Jim working for me for two-and-a-half years. He has wide respect amongst the business community. He has worked in private enterprise for the best part of his business life …
Dr Burns: And the mining industry.
Mr HENDERSON: And the mining industry. He was the project manager at Robertson Barracks. He would know more people in the construction industry and the private sector than the member for Drysdale has even forgotten over the years. He will do a great job …
Mr Dunham: Well, some of them have been ringing me about him.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Drysdale!
Mr HENDERSON: He will do a great job representing the people of Solomon in the federal parliament. To come in here and say he is anti-business and anti-development really is a heap of rubbish.
Again, part of the rhetoric of the opposition is that all of these policies are uncosted. Well, as of yesterday, Labor has submitted 70 policies to be costed. The Coalition so far has submitted 57. Of Labor’s 70 policies, 47 have included savings measures. The Coalition has submitted only one savings measures and that was a saving proposed by Labor. Therefore, if you are talking about fiscal responsibility - now I have not read the Financial Review for a couple of days but they have been running a ‘spendometer’. You cannot call the Financial Review a Labor rag. That is the last thing that you would call the Financial Review - some sort of ‘Labor rag’. Again, I do not have the quotes in front of me, but I have been reading the Financial Review. I always read the Financial Review. They have been running the ‘spendometer’ and they have been commenting that Labor is putting out costed policies that do include savings measures, and that the Prime Minister is being pretty reckless in his expenditure of the forecast surpluses into the out years compared to Labor, which is at least proposing savings. If you are talking about fiscal responsibility, well, the Financial Review is saying that the promises and commitments by the Labor opposition is exceeding those of the Coalition in terms of their fiscal responsibility.
The Labor opposition has committed to budget surpluses. ‘Surpluses’ is certainly a word that those members on the other side do not have in their vocabulary, because it was many years since this parliament, under a CLP government, saw anything like a surplus. I am not going to revisit the history of the appalling deficit that we inherited from the previous government.
The amendment has been put and circulated. I am not going to go through them again, dot point by dot point, but it clearly indicates the level of commitment that Mark Latham and a federal Labor government will commit to improving the economy and the lifestyle of the people of the Northern Territory. It is an impressive list of public commitments. They will be delivered on and, hopefully after Saturday, we will have two federal Labor members sitting in the House of Representatives arguing and standing up for the Territory, and not being an apologist for the current Liberal government.
To show what a great job Dave Tollner has done as the member for Solomon, without any consultation with the Northern Territory government or the people of the Northern Territory, he is just throwing his hands up and saying that we have an obligation to the nation to house the nation’s nuclear waste. Well, if that is the type of representation that we are going to come to expect from the member for Solomon, Dave Tollner, well, I suppose he will have to stand up to the constituency on Saturday.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the motion before the House. I move that the question on the amendment be put.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! Just as a point of convention. The motion was that the motion be put, as I understand it. That was not even considered.
Ms Martin: That the amended motion be put.
Mr Baldwin: Well, you have not passed the amendment.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: So, you want me to go back and say that the amended motion be put?
Mr BURKE: Yes.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the motion was that the question on the amendment be put.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: So the question now is that the motion be put.
Mr Stirling: We have resolved that in the affirmative. Now it is those in favour of the amendment.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: So we put the amendment. The question now is that the amendment be put.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 10
Mrs Aagaard Mr Baldwin
Mr Ah Kit Mr Burke
Mr Bonson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Ms Carter
Mr Henderson Mr Dunham
Mr Kiely Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Dr Lim
Mr McAdam Mr Maley
Ms Martin Mrs Miller
Ms Scrymgour Mr Mills
Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion agreed to.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
MOTION
Postponement of Business
Postponement of Business
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that consideration of General Business item No 3 in relation to a reference to the Auditor-General to inquire into Metis Consulting contracts be postponed until a later hour.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Appointment of Select Committee to Inquire into Electronic Gaming Machines
Appointment of Select Committee to Inquire into Electronic Gaming Machines
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move:
That this Assembly appoint a select committee to inquire into and review –
- 2. The National Competition Commission report on gaming machines in the Northern Territory and the
current regulatory systems for the Territory to meet its own requirements.
- 3. The primary objectives of the distribution of electronic gaming machines in the Northern Territory are
explicit and unchanged with a view to provide a productive local leisure activity which would deliver proceeds:
- (a) to clubs and licensed venues to improve neighbourhood recreational amenity;
(b) to government, for services to all Territorians;
(c) for the means by which any negative impacts of electronic gaming machines in the community
are minimised; and
(d) to the community as a result of revised regulatory mechanisms that will be necessary to ensure
fairness, efficiency and integrity are maintained.
- 4. The impact of the Gaming Machine Amendment Bill 2004 on the existing regulatory system and in meeting
the primary objectives of distributing electronic gaming machines in the Northern Territory.
- 5. The committee report by December 2004.
- (a) adjourn from time to time and place to place;
(b) send for persons, papers and records; and
(c) sit during any sitting and adjournment of the Assembly.
If ever there was a case for this action it is now. If ever there was a time when the expertise, the resources and the commonsense approach of a bipartisan parliamentary committee was needed, it is now. We have a government that has increased the number of pokies in the Northern Territory, and a licensing minister who is in denial. He is a minister who believes his own rhetoric and spin when he says that the numbers will not be increased. He is also refusing to accept that his decision to now ask for advice and conduct research are a clear acknowledgement of his failure.
It is a simple equation: increased pokies equals increased taxes for the Treasury, and equals increased gambling-related harm in the community. Yet, this government has frozen funding to the groups that deal with gambling-related harm on a daily basis, at a time when the Community Benefit Fund is full to the brim, and this harm will only increase as more machines go into the community. We are, no doubt soon, going to hear again from the minister in his state of denial, and he will explain how successful he has been in actually reducing the number of pokies in the Territory.
When it became apparent to the minister that, maybe, more pokies was not such a voter friendly idea, the minders and the spin doctors went scurrying to see what defence they could come up with. If you listen to the Treasurer, he will tell you that removing the requirement for a takeaway licence will decrease the number of gaming machines in the communities by taking out venues and, therefore, potential machines that will be introduced. It is a good argument until you realise that accommodation hotels and remote wayside inns - which have never wanted gaming machines before, and never will - are taken from the list and city taverns are being added in. You have to hand it to this minister; he has really stood up for Territorians and solved the problem when, really, it was his problem and a political one. In fact, it has not been solved because we have the potential for a significant increase in the number of pokies in the Northern Territory.
He has told those pokie barons down at the Saville Park Suites and the Holiday Inn: ‘Oh look, you guys cannot apply for pokies any more’. Likewise, under this minister: ‘You can sleep well at night now being assured that there will be no pokies at the Rabbit Flat’. Apart from his argument being thin at best, the minister simply cannot be believed. Just ask the people in the industry who this affects. There is no doubt about it; the minister is running with the hare and hunting with the hound. He has told everyone involved a separate story, hoping to get out of this mess in one single piece.
Firstly, there are the taverns. Our minister has gone to them and he said: ‘Don’t you guys worry, Uncle Syd’s looking out for you. I will make sure you can apply for pokies by removing these takeaway requirements, and then everything will be okay’. Then, finding out the pubs in the suburbs which already have pokies are not really keen on this, the government has gone to them and said: ‘Oh, look, do not worry about these taverns getting pokies. Just do not rock the boat, and we will look at perhaps getting more machines for you’. Then, finally, when the clubs heard about that, he has gone to them and he has said: ‘Look, don’t you clubs worry. I will introduce a community impact statement and make sure that it is so darn hard for any of these taverns to get machines, they will not even bother trying’. Well, which story is it? Three different stories; three different audiences. It sure does not kill the perception out there in the industry that, to convince the minister for licensing of your point of view, you do not need the best argument or the most articulate presentation, you just need to be the last person to speak to him.
I will add that this is the only licensing minister in the history of self-government who has presided over the granting of a liquor licence to a hairdresser. He huffs and puffs and waves his arms in the air and says that it is a stupid decision and he would like to change it, but he cannot do anything about it because it was the big bad Licensing Commissioner’s fault. Well, if by his own admission, he cannot stop a hairdresser getting a liquor licence, can you believe a word he says when he says that you will not see pokies up and down Mitchell Street or at the airport? The minister has as good as admitted that he is wrong on this issue . All he needs to do now is to accept this proposition in this motion that we are putting forward. His own actions, and since the decisions to increase the number of pokies are testament to this - and if nothing else I am proud that the opposition has been able to push him in this direction. If it is out of electoral imperative or just plain embarrassment, I do not really mind; we are finally getting some of the consultations research that we have been asking. This is an indictment of his failure so far.
In the minister’s own press release, he stressed the need for research into gambling. The minister identified that he would like to address the problem and address the prevalence of gambling in the Northern Territory. This will identify the prevalence of gambling activities in the communities and who is gambling by such categories as age, socio-economic status, cultural background, place of residence, etcetera. Second, in the minister’s own press release, was the impact of gaming machines in the community. This will provide information on the impact of casino-based and community-based gaming machines in the Northern Territory and their positive and negative effects on the community. Let me get this straight. The minister does not know how prevalent gambling is in the Territory, who does it and how much they do it? Further, the minister does not know the impact of pokies on the community and what negative and positive outcomes of more are. Yet, he can make the biggest change to the distribution regime for gaming machines since they were put into the community, without having the slightest clue of either.
If this matter was before a parliamentary committee, I can assure the House that we would not be playing catch-up like this now. Just as he backflipped in early September by allocating funds for research, he has done the same with the creation of a gambling advisory group. Again, a good outcome. However, when you scratch the surface we are going to see the minister’s true form . He has changed the name of the Responsible Gambling Advisory Committee and now promotes it as his new advisory group - a good move to continue the role of this group and one we on this side of the House certainly support. However, there is one question that remains unanswered: where were they when this minister made the decision to increase the number of pokies, or made the decision that results in a potential significant increase in the number of pokies? Where were they?
I look at the list of the well-respected people and organisations: Amity House, Anglicare, Relationships Australia, Salvation Army - and the list goes on. His own media release says this of the group: ‘Combined they have a wealth of experience and knowledge about gambling in the Territory’. Well, there is no question about that. Therefore, how on earth did he manage to not pick up the phone and ring them while he was thinking about making the changes to legislation that would increase the number of pokies into our communities? He forgot to phone them, did not consult them, now playing catch-up. Did the minister not have time? Did he not know their numbers?
Whatever the result, if we turn our minds back to March this year, the Treasurer has had plenty of time to ring the Tranche 4 electricity customers and explain to them why it was somebody else’s fault that he had to increase their electricity charges. This government and its staff has time for the spin, but none for the real consultation. They have time for this sort of thing, yet they cannot pick up the phone to four community groups at the forefront of problem gambling and say: ‘Hey, I am thinking about increasing the number of pokies in the community. What do you think?’ Sadly, nothing has changed. These groups were there before when he increased the number of pokies. He did not ask for their advice then, and there is no reason to think that he will actually take their advice now, after the event.
Just as this minister has done before, I am just as sure he will do it again in the future. The minister has attempted to blame the National Competition Policy for the problems of his own creation. He did blamed the National Competition Commission before when he put the electricity prices up, and he has done it now when he has made the decision to increase the number of pokes. To blame the NCP then was a pork pie, and it is simply a pork pie now. He has taxed business a whopping 40% on their electricity bills and turned around and claimed that it was all somebody else’s fault: it was National Competition Policy that made him grab more money off Territorians. Now, when he has cynically increased the number of pokies in the community for no other reason than it is to collect tax for the Treasury coffers, he again blames the NCP.
This has to be laid bare for all to see. This deceit has been unravelled when the minister proved what can be achieved when you have the backbone to stand up to the NCP recommendations. You demonstrated that, minister, when you released the Alcohol Framework. Out of 62 recommendations, the minister chose to accept one and leave the rest - the other 61 - in the too hard basket. And what was that single recommendation? Sunday trading. Why was it in there? Because the National Competition Policy review of the Liquor Act said we must give Sunday trading to supermarkets – a National Competition Policy recommendation. That is the point. The minister knocked this recommendation back because he felt it was in the public interest to do so. He could do it then in the interests of the public and the wider community, and he can do it again. All he has to do is stand up and say it: ‘No, I have made a decision on the best interests of the Northern Territory community, speaking to the National Competition Policy, that we will not have any more pokies until I am satisfied that it is in the Territory’s best interest. I have no research, I accept and I admit that. I have no expert committee and I have not consulted with the people who count. So, at this point as a responsible minister, I will say no to the NCP’.
The good news is that it is not too late because this minister simply did not stand up responsibly at that time to the NCP and let that moment pass. However, it is not too late. The minister and the members opposite can still support this motion. It can still be supported. We can return to the days when the important decisions such as this were handled by a bipartisan committee, and careful consideration was made to avoid any adverse impacts on a community. Minister, it is a step forward that you have already constituted an expert committee. It is a step forward that you have commissioned research. Now, all this minister needs to do is to agree to a parliamentary committee to analyse this information, talk to these experts and, most importantly, review this decision to increase the number of pokies. Let us have this debate now because, like my colleagues in the CLP - and, I am sure, many on the other side of this House - I do not want to look back and wish that we had acted before it was too late.
I commend members on both sides of this House to join together to support this motion in the best interests of the Northern Territory.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, it is always interesting to hear the Leader of the Opposition on this topic because, depending on what day it is, he seems to change the line of tack and the argument being put. In fact, there are different views from different members of the opposition on any given day.
Nonetheless, we do not support this motion for a number of reasons. It is difficult, in the first place, to see what benefit that Territorians, this parliament or anyone else, would derive from the motion proceeding, particularly in view of the ridiculously short time frame envisaged in the motion that you would form a committee, it would be able to consult, receive feedback, compile a report and come back in here before the end of the year. It is a ridiculously short time frame in which to be able to achieve anything.
Second, as a government, we have put in place a much more effective package to address a whole range of issues related to gaming machines and gambling, generally, in the community. That package includes new legislation, which has seen more stringent criteria and public processes applied to gaming machine licence applications. On that point, the Leader of the Opposition accused me of going to different groups and telling a different story each time. The story is right except that it applies to himself, because he come in here and said: ‘There will be a proliferation of machines; we are going to flood the community with poker machines’. He went out there and told one group that, and the next group he went to, to he said: ‘Do not worry about getting any of these extra new machines. The criteria and guidelines for getting new community gaming machines is so tight, you will never be able to get through the system’. It is the Leader of the Opposition who has shown a little inconsistency. We know because when we go and talk to these groups, they tell us what the Leader of the Opposition and others have said to them.
Therefore, it is not this government and it is not I as minister who has put a different story. We have put a consistent line to each of the industry groups and key stakeholders within the industry overall. We have gotten across a very solid understanding of what we are attempting to achieve.
I want to wrap these points up because it is not about proliferation on one day, and the next time it is. It is not about proliferation in one breath and, in the next sentence, it is about proliferation. We never said at any time that we would reduce the number of machines. What we have claimed to do and what we want to do is stem the increase. If we look at the dates between 1 July 2000 and 31 May 2004, community gaming machines increased by 48% across the Territory from 650 to 962. We have already, and we will continue to, stem that increase.
Our new research program, developed in conjunction with representatives from the gambling industry and community support services to give us a clearer picture of gambling in the Territory, will allow for more effective management of gambling activities, more targeted harm-reduction strategies and the creation of a new Gambling Reference Group made up of a broad range of community and industry stakeholder representatives to advise government on gambling related issues.
This package will help to ensure our already strong gambling regime remains well managed and well controlled, so that the community can continue to derive benefits from gambling but, at the same time, we can work at minimising gambling-related harm. It is a forward looking and sensible approach which will underpin and strengthen our gaming regime now and into the future. It effectively addresses many of the issues the opposition sought to have reviewed by a select committee.
Other matters the opposition has proposed for review are simply unnecessary. For example, what benefit would be derived from reviewing the 1995 select committee report on gaming machines that followed the announcement by the CLP government that gaming machines would be allowed in community venues? That report called for a comprehensive review of the gaming machine industry to be undertaken in 1998. A review did occur in 1998, under the guidance of Mr Otto Alder, the results of which were tabled in the Assembly. The review’s recommendations, as well as a Productivity Commission Report into Australia’s Gambling Industries and National Competition requirements, formed the basis of the Gaming Machine Amendment Bill 2000. That legislation saw gaming machine ownership transferred from the government to licensees, and made changes in tax rates to ensure venues were not disadvantaged.
The point of this very brief history lesson is that there have been significant changes to the gaming machine regime since the 1995 select committee report. There would be no sense - absolutely ridiculous - to go all the way back to 1995 and see what the select committee said was going to happen when it, in itself, proposed further reviews which have been undertaken, which proposed changes and recommendations which have been implemented. Parliament has been kept well involved and well informed of each of these developments over the years, so there would be little - nothing, in fact - to be achieved from going back to a nine-year-old report to see what the member for Brennan, member for Nhulunbuy – myself - and the former member for Casuarina, Mr Peter Adamson, had to say nine years ago with the changes that have occurred since.
There would also seem very little point in reviewing the National Competition Council Report on Gaming Machines in the Northern Territory, which was finalised in June 2002. The NCC review found that, overall, the positive licensing framework established under our legislation provided benefits to the community, promoted the probity of gaming operations and minimised problem gambling. The review did make some recommendations aimed at improving regulatory processes in achieving probity and problem gambling objectives. I will not go to each of those recommendations, but I will say that government has acted on them in the interests of the Northern Territory. We have introduced legislative amendments that clearly define who can and who cannot apply for a gaming machine licence. They also apply more stringent criteria to the licence application process.
So, rather than looking back over the history of gaming machines in the community, the government would prefer to focus on what is in place in the Territory now, how we can continue to strengthen our regime while maintaining the original objectives behind the introduction of community gaming machines in the first place, to provide economic benefit and recreational activity to the community. Community gaming machines have provided significant economic benefit to the Territory since the first machines were turned on in the Nightcliff Sports Club on 1 January 1996. In 2003-04, community gaming machines generated $15.6m in taxes, used to support services throughout the Territory. Clubs, of course, retain the operating surplus from poker machines in order to improve facilities and services for members, and to distribute among local community groups, sports organisations and charities.
Government recognises how important gaming machine revenue is to the continuing viability of many clubs, and their capacity to provide financial support to their affiliates and the community through the provision of recreational amenities and services. That was always the primary objective of community gaming machines, and it has not changed. If there is any doubt by the opposition on that point, they only need ask the member for Brennan, who chaired that committee. It was one of his first functions on entering this parliament, well before he became a minister. That was the primary objective - it has not changed.
Gaming machine licences were made available to hotels and pubs in 1996. Since then, hotels have been required to provide 10% of their gaming machine profits to the Community Benefit Fund. Those funds are disbursed to the community in a number of ways. Around $700 000 a year is provided to non-profit community organisations through the CBF Small Grants Program, in grants up to $5000. This government has established clear guidelines for the disbursement of those funds after the Auditor-General found that the former CLP government was using the Community Benefit Fund as a pork-barrelling electioneering piggy bank. Under the new CBF guidelines, the government has distributed more than $1.3m to 470 community groups throughout the Territory since early last year.
Community Benefit Funds are also given to agencies for the provision of counselling, support and other intervention services for problem gamblers and their families. I was not sure what the Leader of the Opposition was saying in relation to this point. He seemed to suggest that we cut the funding off or something, but nothing could be further from the truth. A total of $822 489 has been disbursed to Amity House and Anglicare since 2001-02 to support the work they do with problem gamblers and their families. The Community Benefit Fund has also provided more than $80 000 for the development and implementation of the Responsible Gambling Code of Practice, which outlines strategies to minimise problem gambling in gambling venues. The code was developed by a committee made up of gambling providers, support services and government officials. Just recently, I announced a new gambling research grants program.
Apart from Professor Jan McMillan’s research report which the former CLP government commissioned in the mid-1990s but never acted on or released, there has been no research done into gambling in the Northern Territory. The opposition, to this point, has not asked about it either. The fact that it comes up in this debate strikes me as curious. It is no secret that we have relatively little data to inform our decision-making in relation to gambling policy and harm minimisation. We do not have a clear picture of who gambles in the Territory, how much they gamble, or what they gamble on. Of course, the whole point of the research by Professor Jan McMillan, who was commissioned to do that research by the former government, was to get a benchmark for the level of gaming and gambling in the Northern Territory prior to the introduction of community gaming machines, so that the government understood what levels were occurring out there before the machines were introduced in the community, so that there could be a benchmark to measure from that point.
However, they would seem little point in having that research done by McMillan when it was never released. The report was never released, and it was only in recent times that this government released it. This sort of information is critical if we are to manage gambling ...
Mr Baldwin: It did not need to be released; it is a benchmark report.
Mr STIRLING: It was never released!
Mr Baldwin: I know!
Mr STIRLING: You were the minister. You were the dill who never released it! I do not know why we spent thousands and thousands of dollars on Jan McMillan for all of the work that she has put in - all of the trips she made to the Territory ...
Mr Baldwin: It is a benchmark report, you idiot!
Mr STIRLING: She wrote the report for the government, and you locked it away! No one ever released it, no one ever saw it. We could not even get a copy when we were opposition. Taxpayers paid the money for this research - the biggest waste of money you ever saw because no one ever got to see it. I doubt this member over here, when he was a minister, ever read it. He would not have the focus or, probably, the intelligence to read it in the first place.
That information is critical if we can manage gambling activities effectively, target harm reduction effectively, and put in place proper prevention strategies where they can have the greatest effect, work best, and deliver those services to those who need them most - those who are most harmed from gambling and gaming.
Under the research grants program, around $450 000 is now available from the Community Benefit Fund, with applications closing on 15 October. Two initial priority research topics have been decided upon. The first will provide information about the participation rates in different types of gambling in the Territory, the problems that exist, and where interventions should be targeted. The second will look at the impact of gaming machines on the community, providing a balanced assessment of the negative and positive consequences of both casino-based and community-based gaming machines.
This research program and the decisions on the priority projects have been informed by the Gambling Reference Group, originally the working party that developed the Code of Practice for Responsible Gambling. The reference group comprises representatives from support services - Anglicare, Amity House, Relationships Australia, Salvation Army; gambling providers - Clubs NT, Australian Hotels Association, SKYCITY Casino, Lasseters, NTTAB, Tattersall’s, the Darwin Turf Club, International All Sports and Centerbet; and the regulators – Racing Gaming and Licensing.
The support services representatives also have links to the Consumer Affairs Council and the Northern Territory Council of Social Services. This group, importantly, has now agreed to provide an ongoing independent comment and advice to government on a range of gambling matters. They will have a direct say on policy matters and practical issues in relation to gaming machines and gambling, generally, in the Territory. Both government and the Gambling Reference Group are enthusiastic about the value that this initiative can add to how the Territory deals with gambling-related issues.
The development of the research fund, as well as the establishment of the Gambling Reference Group, are important and long-overdue measures. They will greatly assist government and the community to better understand and manage gambling in a responsible way in the future.
I will put all this in perspective. The Northern Territory does have a strong regulatory regime that ensures that the spread of poker machines in our community is well managed and controlled. We have not had the experience of uncontrolled proliferation of machines in the community that has become such a problem in other jurisdictions, and the statistics bear this out.
Based on 2002-03 figures, there are seven gaming machines in clubs and hotels in the Northern Territory per 1000 adults. By comparison, South Australia has 13, Queensland 14, NSW 20, Victoria seven, Tasmania six, ACT 21, WA nil - because theirs are casino-based only. Those figures put the Australian average 2002-03 at 13 machines per 1000 people. The Territory, with seven machines, is well below and just over half the national average.
The Northern Territory government further strengthened the gaming machine regime in June this year with legislation that clarifies who can and cannot apply for machines, and puts more controls on licensees wanting to increase their machine numbers. Under the changes, all clubs remain eligible for gaming machines but, for other venues, only pubs and taverns whose primary activity is the sale or consumption of alcohol on premises are now eligible. The amendments effectively reduce the types and number of outlets that can potentially apply. Those that are eligible are now required to undergo more checks and balances before they are issued with a licence. This includes, for the first time, the capacity for the community to make comment on licence applications.
At the time these amendments were passed in June, the opposition expressed concern about the community not being properly consulted. I did take the criticism on the chin. Whilst the first part of the whole review had been widely consulted, the later changes were not. Since that time and that criticism, I personally visited a wide range of community organisations to explain the changes that the amendments brought about, and allayed any fears of an unfettered expansion of machines in the community. None of the support agencies - or the clubs for that matter - we visited in that process expressed ongoing concerns about the legislation following those meetings.
The amendments in question have been in place since 1 September. I am advised that there has been just one gaming machine licence application under the new regime. It is early days, but it would not appear that the Licensing Commission’s door has been bashed by new applicants as a result of the changes.
Government has developed a regime of processes that will see our gambling industry remain strong, but well regulated. At the same time, we are working to develop new measures to combat problem gambling and we are doing it, importantly, in conjunction with a broad range of stakeholders. This approach is responsible and effective. It will carry us into the future and, as such, we do not support the opposition’s motion which would see a ridiculously lived - in time frame - committee set up from within this parliament to go back and look at a report dated 1995, which recommended and oversaw the implementation of gaming machines in the community.
There is no value in going back over the history. Those of us – the member for Brennan and myself, the member for Daly, as much as he ever understood matters about gambling or gaming - would have some idea. When they wanted to move to 1 machines, the member for Daly wondered where they were going to get the one cent coins …
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: The prosecution rests, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the minister may make frivolous remarks on my knowledge of the gaming industry, but I can tell you, with all my experience, it is far more than his.
He is very sensitive about this motion, and I will tell you why: simply, he stuffed up. That is what happened; he stuffed up. What he did not tell anyone, with the amendments that he made to the legislation was (1) there was going to be an increase in the number of machines in the Northern Territory; and (2) that he had not consulted with all of the stakeholders. That came to light when? It came to light when I sought a briefing from his and Treasury officers. After some reluctance, they admitted that some of the stakeholders, particularly those who deal in harm minimisation from problem gambling, had not been consulted about the amendments. When pushed - and pushed quite hard, I have to say - the Treasury officers admitted that yes, it would lead to an increase in machines.
Simply, when we debated the amendment to the Gaming Machine Act is when we made that statement. We then, if we put this in context - back, I think it was in the August sittings - moved this motion to show that the proper way was to go and consult. Consultation prior to the amendments would have been nice – it would have been really good. However, we suggested that a select committee similar to that which first looked at introducing community gaming machines, and then the same committee that reviewed it. He makes light of another review because of the time frame. We will change the time frame if he is worried about that - make it February if he is worried about December, keeping in mind that this was introduced back in August. He also harped on about the 1995 report.
Well surely, when he was part of the review in 1998 that led to changes and amendments to the Gaming Machine Act in 2000, they looked at where they have come from. That is all this motion is saying: look at where the arguments have come from before the introduction of gaming machines in the community. Are the primary objectives of the distribution of gaming machines in the Northern Territory still being met? That is what the motion is saying and that is all a review would do. What it refers to, obviously, would be all the work previously done by the members for Nhulunbuy, Brennan, and so on. He dismisses it. Where once it worked well when he was a member of it, whilst he is Racing and Gaming minister he is now dismissing it as an effective tool - and one might suggest a bipartisan tool - to look at the conservative way in which the Territory as a whole - not the CLP or the ALP, but the Northern Territory - has introduced gaming machines in the Northern Territory.
He has just rattled off the figures of seven machines per 1000 of population against the 13 machine average around Australia. The only ones that beat us are, I think, Tasmania and Western Australia because they do not have community machines in Western Australia. I believe it is conservative because a very conservative approach to gaming machines in the community comes from a very effective mechanism called a parliamentary committee that had a look at how to do it. Since that time, it made recommendations to parliament which passed laws for the introduction of gaming machines. Then those laws were reviewed using the same 1995 report and others. In 1998 it made the review, and then parliament made the amendments in 2000. What we are saying is that it worked then; why not let it work now? But, no, the minister - because of his pompous nature and because he believes that he knows more than anybody else - says that is not an effective mechanism or tool to use, albeit it was good when he was there as a member of that committee.
The benchmark report that the minister referred to was just that: a set of data that is benchmark stuff that you do - and we did do it. Why did I not release it? Because it was a piece of benchmark data that very few people would understand it in its form. I am glad that we did do it. It was never hidden. In fact, the member for Nhulunbuy never came and asked me for a copy of it - that is how concerned he was about it. However, it was always there. The beauty is that we have that benchmark data so that it can be compared against in the future. I would like to see what he has done in his three years about updating that data.
The Gambling Reference Group that the minister talked about - and I congratulate him for doing it - was, I believe, a good way of ameliorating his stuff-up in the first place: the fact that he had not gone and consulted, had not used a parliamentary committee that we are asking for now - albeit it is probably too late and he has set up some other things. He has covered his tracks - that is the whole point - because he had not gone and asked or told the community that this could lead to extra gaming machines in the community. He certainly had not been to all those community organisations that deal with harm from gambling and other such things. It is a way of covering his tracks; albeit a good way.
Nobody is suggesting, or has suggested, that the amendments that he has moved are necessarily wrong. What we were saying was: why didn’t we get to have a say? Why didn’t the Territory get to have a say? All they saw was a National Competition report that said: ‘These are issues for National Competition, you can have your say’. People had their say, and the next thing they knew there was a piece of legislation being amended without any feedback to them about what the government was proposing. At the time, we said: ‘Well, hang on, what is the rush? Let us have a look at this’.
One way of doing it was to put those amendments to the side for a minute. It was not going to affect anybody. He used all sorts of excuses about competition payments and all the rest of it. Not a problem, really. In the end, he admitted in a briefing to me that it was not a problem, he was not worried about that. But no, he would not put it aside, or go to a committee that he had been part of, which is the effective way of doing the job. We had had bipartisan working parties in the past which were always totally effective - we shared information. We made decisions on gambling in the Territory in this parliament together on a consensus basis. You talk about the sale of the TAB, the introduction of Internet gambling - whatever you like - Sportsbet operators, corporate or otherwise. The minister knows this, and he is quite embarrassed by the fact that he forgot to go and ask some people, including Territorians, what they thought of the effect of possible increases of gaming machines.
In that context, he knows, I know, and I believe this parliament knows, that this motion reflects the right way to go about it. If he is worried about the time frame; well, change it. They have just changed a severe censure motion on them without blinking an eye. Change this to suit yourself, minister - that is what it is doing. I know you are not going to, because you have been embarrassed, and you had to then go and talk to all of those groups. I am glad to hear you say that you have now talked to them. They may not have concerns now, but they certainly did after I and others came out of the briefing given by you and your officers. I do not want to carry on about the minister’s lack of responsible process but, in the context, this was certainly the way to go.
The only other point is that I ask the minister in future, as in the past, that he does the right thing when it comes to gambling issues - whatever they are - to ensure that he involves members on both sides of the House, including the Independents, in any other changes he is considering; whether it be in the gaming, racing or any other area. We have worked well within the Northern Territory as a parliament to introduce new things into the jurisdiction, and I believe we can work well in the future. The stuff-up that occurred here is a real warning, and I hope he takes notice of it and does things in a bipartisan way, as we have in the past.
I have not yet raised the issue of the legislation and amendment that is sitting on the Notice Paper, and has now for nearly three years. However, I could go on about why the minister has not progressed that legislation. I have my views, and he has his views. I could be quite derogatory towards him personally and his views. I have not yet raised it in this parliament, but if he wants to go off in a partisan way on these issues, then I am certainly happy to raise that and to have some potential licence holders publicly starting to ask some questions of him as well.
I ask this parliament to support this motion. It is a tool that has been effective in the past and can be in the future. Minister, bite your pride - go with it.
Motion negatived.
BAIL AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 245)
(Serial 245)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Today I bring a small but significant amendment to the Bail Act that will provide authorised people - be they courts or police officers - to ask a person with a history of criminal activity to demonstrate why they should be given liberty when there is evidence from their past behaviour that the person struggles with the responsibility such liberty asks of them.
The right to be at liberty is the right of any innocent person. It is enshrined in the act and captures some of the most fundamental principles of our criminal justice system. Custody is reserved for penalty or for one of the other reasons that bail may be refused.
The very existence of the Bail Act suggests that the right of a person to be at liberty is not absolute. There are circumstances in which a person who has a right to be at liberty may have that liberty restrained. The reasoning that a bailor may grant a bailee include the likelihood of the person committing an offence whilst at liberty, the need to seek counsel, issues surrounding domestic violence matters, and even the bailee’s own protection. In those matters, bail may be refused for summary or regulatory offences. It is unlikely considering the nature of those sort of offences but, nevertheless, it does fall within the realms of contemplation.
The amendment is aimed specifically at indictable offences. These are what the Criminal Code would refer to as crimes. There are three different types of offences in the Criminal Code: regulatory offences, simple offences, and crimes. It is the latter category to which this amendment turns its attention. There are offences in the Bail Act in which the right to liberty is not automatic. The people who find themselves charged with murder, for instance, do not have a right to liberty; quite to the contrary, they have to demonstrate that right to the person considering bail. From time to time, they may get it but, more generally, they may not. There are people in remand sections of our Territory gaols right now who stand convicted of nothing and have yet to face trial. Under such circumstances, a person may never have been convicted of any offence in their whole life but their liberty is still not given as a right. One might say for good reason.
Therefore, the reasoning for this bill is not unsound. It brings a person who has been repeatedly convicted in the past of a crime, a responsibility, should they find themselves charged with a similar offence again, to demonstrate why their liberty should be restored to them.
The Bail Act tries to reflect the real world. By its structure, it acknowledges that the world is not a place of absolutes - not just black and white. Otherwise, it would be far shorter and would try to do a whole lot less than it does. Understanding this, the bill attempts to capture the flavour of the Bail Act and argues that, in the real world, a person who has been convicted three times in the past three years of an indictable offence of the same or similar nature, has a habit. They could well be described as an habitual criminal.
When such a person comes before an authorised officer, it is not only sensible that the authorised officer’s deliberation should include prior convictions - indeed they can and do - the bill shifts the focus slightly. It says that, if you have prior convictions, repeatedly for the same or similar offences - inside the Northern Territory or not - and you are asking for bail again, then you have to show why you should be at liberty rather than an authorised officer having to find reasons why you should not be. If a good reason for bail is made out to the balance of probabilities, then such bail may still be granted. However, we as a parliament should not blanch at the general proposition that, if you are a repeat offender, you are not automatically entitled to bail should you be charged again. In short, your past catches up with you.
Most people manage to go through life without regularly being charged with indictable offences, let alone being convicted of them. This bill only affects those in our community who have repeatedly breached the trust of the community. If they then ask for the trust to be extended to them again, they must demonstrate why.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Public Accounts Committee – Refer Unsuccessful Prosecution of Owston Nominees
Public Accounts Committee – Refer Unsuccessful Prosecution of Owston Nominees
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move:
That -
- 1. This Assembly refer to the Public Accounts Committee for inquiry and report all matters relating to
the expenditure associated with the unsuccessful prosecution of Owston Nominees No. 2 and
Warren Anderson re mistreatment of animals on Tipperary Station from October 2003 to this date.
- 2. The Public Accounts Committee report to the Assembly by the last sitting day 2004.
I raise this motion neither to support nor condemn the government but to get to the truth about this whole matter which has cost taxpayers a considerable amount of money. There has been considerable debate in and out of the parliament regarding this whole matter. There has also been a considerable amount of public money spent in the prosecution of this affair. Part of that cost has been related not only to court costs, but ongoing legal costs related to defamation proceedings between Mr Anderson and the Minister for Local Government, and also to the cost of feeding the animals.
At the last sittings, after a censure motion had been debated surrounding this issue, I was given a confidential briefing regarding the matter. Naturally, I do not intend to go into what was said but, obviously, there is certainly more to this issue than has either been debated in the parliament or reported in the press. The reason I would like this matter to come before the PAC is because it is an opportunity for the government to:
- 1. show that it really believes in its policy of open and transparent governance;
2. show that it supports parliamentary committees;
3. show that there is nothing to hide and that the public and parliament can have complete confidence
in the processes that the government put into action in relation to this affair;
4. find out if legislation regarding animal welfare is lacking or deficient and, if so, look at ways of
amending legislation if need be; and
5. show that the government is willing to use the PAC not just when it wants to look at the last CLP budget,
when it has issues that could affect itself.
To me, there is no doubt there are two sides to the story and the only way I believe that it can be told is through a PAC process. The government may argue that legal action is still pending and it would not be a suitable time for the PAC to look at the issue. I say we could at least look at the processes that took place without jeopardising any legal action, or to simply agree to the motion and put the date back to a time after legal action has finally been determined. Either way, this matter needs to be brought before the public so they can see for themselves that the money the government has spent on the matter was money well spent or could have been avoided.
This is an opportunity for the government to put its case and prove that it has done the right thing as it said it did in the last parliamentary sittings, and show people it really believes its own statements that this is an open and transparent government. I urge the government to support the motion.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Acting Madam Deputy Speaker, the government will not be supporting this motion. The government has received legal advice from the Department of Justice that it would be inappropriate to have the Public Accounts Committee process running in parallel with legal processes. There is a case before the courts in Western Australia involving Mr Anderson and minister Ah Kit. Material would be provided at a PAC committee hearing that would impinge on the case Mr Warren Anderson has launched against minister Ah Kit. People appearing before the committee would be forced to contravene the ruling by the Speaker about the discussion of matters that are before the courts. I cannot conceive of how we might conduct an inquiry that examines in detail the actions of the Animal Welfare Authority and departmental staff between 9 October 2003 and 13 November 2003 without discussion of matters that will be relevant to the current case between Mr Anderson and minister Ah Kit.
The member for Nelson has received a full briefing on this matter, but government is willing to provide him with another briefing. We have nothing to hide. All government costs and processes associated with the case will be open to full scrutiny under the Estimates Committee process. This matter was also the subject of intense scrutiny during the last parliamentary sittings, including a substantive motion.
I will provide for the House an outline of the events leading to the withdrawal of charges in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction on 5 August 2004 against Owston Nominees No 2 Pty Ltd. As a result of information received from the manager of Tipperary Sanctuary last October, a government-employed veterinarian and animal welfare officer investigated the supply of food to the animals at the sanctuary. The officer reported that there were insufficient quantities of food available at the time of his inspection to feed the animals. The matter was brought to the attention of the Animal Welfare Authority.
Feed was supplied to the sanctuary by the government. During the period from 10 October 2003 to 11 November 2004, 112.68 tonnes of hay were provided at a total cost of $29 211.60. A further order for pellets was made on 22 October 2003 at a cost of $1320. Letters were sent to the owners of the animals on two occasions - 16 October 2003 and 21 October 2003 - seeking immediate action to address the situation. The owners did not provide feed for the animals.
As a consequence of the investigation into the information given by the manager referred to earlier, and because there were insufficient quantities of food on hand when the animal welfare officer inspected the sanctuary, legal advice was obtained as to whether prosecution action was appropriate. The solicitors advising the government sought the advice of independent counsel. Charges were laid consistent with that advice.
Due to the complexity of the case, one of the country’s leading prosecutors with experience in similar matters, a Senior Counsel from the Sydney Bar, was engaged to lead the prosecution on behalf of the Animal Welfare Authority. After speaking to the authority’s witnesses, the Senior Counsel advised that the case was based on reasonable grounds and that, in her view, there was a clear case to answer.
During the hearing of the charges, which commenced last April, the key witness for the prosecution underwent lengthy and probing cross-examination by counsel representing the defendant. The cross-examination and re-examination of the witness was completed on 4 August 2004 when the case resumed after an adjournment. At the conclusion of the evidence of the key witness, the advice of Senior Counsel and other lawyers representing the authority was that a finding of guilt was unlikely. Acting on that advice, the authority properly withdrew the charges. The company made no application to the court for its costs.
The matter was launched in the public interest and, when it became clear that the prosecution was not likely to lead to a conviction, it was dropped - again in the public interest. It is not yet possible to provide a final figure of the cost of pursuing this case. Invoices totalling $120 000 have been paid. There are some yet to be received. The owner of the animals, Owston Nominees No 2, was invoiced, and all accounts for feed were settled as at 10 March 2004.
Enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act requires that the owners and carers of animals take their responsibilities seriously. Where owners appear not to take that responsibility seriously, it is incumbent on those responsible for the administration of the act to take action. The Animal Welfare Authority and the staff who support it have absolutely nothing to hide in this matter. They have operated at all times in the public interest.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this matter is relevant to a case currently before the courts. The Estimates Committee, of which the member for Nelson is a member, will be able to examine all the costs involved in the case. It is not necessary or appropriate to refer this matter to the Public Accounts Committee. For that reason, the government is not supporting this motion.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I point out that the minister has just done exactly what a person charged with a criminal offence usually does when their lawyer sends them in front of a microphone in the media: has a very carefully prepared statement from which he reads, and adds no comments of his own.
This government is starting to quickly develop itself a reputation for using its powers to go after individuals. Again today, I read in the newspaper that that is exactly what the Attorney-General, the first law officer of this Territory, is suggesting that the police should do to an innocent man. Without entering into that debate at all, there is a grave concern about the fact that the law officer will get involved in an individual prosecution and give advice, such as he gave in the newspaper today. It is shocking.
Let us talk about another innocent man. This innocent man is Warren Anderson. Let us not use Owston Nominees No 2; let us just use Warren Anderson because, when the Minister for Community Development decided to go of on this rampant prosecution of Warren Anderson, the press releases he put out talked about Warren Anderson. That is what the purpose of this particular exercise was: to go and hunt down some big game. It was just another type of hunting being applied here by the minister - he wanted a piece of the big game; he wanted to get his scalp. When the minister was presented with what he thought was a classic opportunity, the minister came out with all guns firing. The problem is that, if you go after a big game from time to time, the big game comes back after you. That is exactly what has happened in this instance.
What are the questions we are asking? Well, here is a question the member for Nelson is asking: how much is it costing? ‘We cannot answer that’, said the government. ‘We cannot answer it because it is before a court’. Well, that is interesting. The matter was before the court during the estimates process. When I asked the question there I got a very precise figure. It was $47 000 and something, if memory serves me correctly. He had absolutely no problem discussing how much it was costing Territorians then. I had to leech it out of him. It was a little difficult getting it out of him, but he was prepared to answer the question, because it does not go to the matter before the court. It does not touch on the evidence before the court. It has nothing to do with the evidence before the court. What the member for Nelson is trying to discover is: how much is this circus costing?
During the debates in this House and the subsequent censure motion, defeated on party lines, of the minister responsible - or irresponsible - for Community Development, once again, the costs were made public ...
Mr Ah Kit: Better minister than what you will ever aspire to be, sunshine!
Mr ELFERINK: … $100 000 and something, if memory serves me correctly.
I hear the minister interjecting, and I look forward to the Minister for Community Development standing up and contributing to this debate.
There was no problem with investigating the costs then, and letting Territorians know what the costs were. However, why then, all of a sudden, would a matter before the court become a reason to prevent the costs from being examined? I will tell you why: it is that the protection of this minister is becoming more and more expensive with every passing day. As this matter grinds ever so slowly forward, the protection of this minister is going to continue costing.
All he had to do was to say sorry. In this House, we have had long, complicated and passionate arguments about the word ‘sorry’, and how noble it was to use it when it was appropriate to use. Yet, this minister cannot bring himself to say it in other circumstances. That is a tragedy, because he is refusing to use that word ‘sorry’, is now costing, not him, but Territory taxpayers. What the member for Nelson wants to do is explore the value of each letter in the word ‘sorry’ to Territory taxpayers in this instance. Is that such an outrageous thing for a member of the Public Accounts Committee to do? Absolutely, it is. Why? Because it could embarrass government.
The Leader of Government Business today rose and told us about how much he was interested in advancing open, honest and accountable governance during ministerial reports. I am just waiting for the Leader of Government Business to waltz in here now and say that he continues to support open, honest and accountable government, and support this motion by the member for Nelson. It would be simple to do. He is on the record as saying that this is a principle plank, indeed, of the Martin Labor government. However, when it comes to questioning or inquiring into what the Martin Labor government does, we have seen exactly how transparent they want to be. All of a sudden, the glass becomes very opaque indeed.
The explanation given by the Attorney-General is nothing shy of bodgie, because he omits certain details about the case itself. I will go into that, because it cost money to investigate this matter. An officer was called to Tipperary Station and asked to investigate the sheds there. He was duly shown some empty sheds by a fellow by the name of Freeman. Let us talk about Mr Freeman for a second because, upon on his evidence alone this whole circus was launched into, publicly deriding and attacking an innocent man. What was the evidence? The evidence was that cheques were bouncing and Tipperary could not afford to pay for the feed the animals required. The investigator went down, got some details from Mr Freeman and returned to the office and said: ‘Absolutely, the manager of the place was saying all of this to us – there is no money in the bank. Gee whiz, those animals are going to go hungry’.
What did the bureaucracy do? It did the right thing; it informed the minister’s office. That was when the minister went off half-cocked. I bet you, London to a brick, that that investigation was not complete at the time that Mr Mackinolty and the minister were pumping out media releases about how dreadful Mr Anderson was.
The matter was sent out, oddly enough, to a local solicitor’s firm. Why not the DPP? Remember, we are talking about a summary offence - a misdemeanour in the old name - a minor offence carrying a maximum penalty of, I think, about $20 000 - I could be wrong - but a maximum penalty with no major penalty attached to it in a summary offence. It is curious that the Attorney-General tells us that the matter was complex. Investigating and pursuing summary offences should not be complex. They are the lower classes of offences. They do not appear in the Criminal Code only to be separated from crimes. Therefore, the investigation of them should be a fairly straightforward exercise. It was a straightforward exercise in this instance.
However, the whole thing was predicated on one assumption: that Mr Freeman was being entirely honest with the people he was reporting to. Let us talk about this cross-examination to which the Attorney-General referred. What was discovered during this cross-examination that was conducted? Two things: (1) that Mr Freeman wanted the animals for his own purposes; and (2) as a result of that desire, he had been sacked two days before the complaint was made to the Animal Welfare Authority. That clearly demonstrated an interest on the part of Mr Freeman to engage in behaviour that was detrimental to Mr Anderson.
Had any further subsequent investigation been launched? No. As a result of that, the investigation file was put together and, at all stages, the DPP could have stepped in and taken over the case. The act which governs the Director of the Public Prosecutions empowers the Director of Public Prosecutions to step in and take over a case at any time, especially for a summary offence. The government has stepped outside of the DPP process. They have not relied, in the first instance, on going through the DPP. They have hired private solicitors, so that is going to cost money. That is something that the member for Nelson is interested in.
They then got one of the gun silks in this country from down south who does not get out of bed for less than $8000, as I understand it. They used that gun silk to come up here and prosecute a summary offence; something that the DPP will be entirely capable of. Why didn’t the DPP step in? Because I believe they could smell it for what it was. After laying hundreds of charges in the first instance, they tried to prosecute on a single charge - a hungry rhino. Even that charge could not stand up because their one star witness have been totally discredited..
The whole thing was a circus. The whole thing has been the subject of much debate in this House, as the Attorney-General pointed out. However, what the Attorney-General refuses to do now is to be opened, honest, and accountable about how much this has cost us. This is what the government’s position is: carefully read statements and carefully worded denials. However, at the end of the day, the Territory taxpayer is having to find out how much this cost. I too, want to know how much this has cost Territorians. I too, believe the government should be open, honest and accountable. By coming in here and saying they are not going to be open, honest and accountable, and are not going to support this motion, they are tarnishing the credibility by which they obtained government. They are here on a promise, Madam Speaker. They are in breach of that promise, and they will be condemned for it.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank speakers from both sides. What the member for Macdonnell has raised is that there are many questions that need to be answered. I certainly do not have the answers. I just want the information and a forum where we can fully investigate all the issues that surround this particular case.
I thank the minister for giving me some more detail and I will study those at a later date. However, I do not believe the Estimates Committee is the appropriate forum for this inquiry. I can, perhaps, ask that, if the legal action is still occurring at the next Estimates Committee, will the same excuse be used to say that we could not debate it then; that we could not have parallel discussion on this issue occurring in the court and the Estimates Committee?
I consider it far more appropriate that this matter be referred to a Public Accounts Committee. It would allow a far broader opportunity for all those people involved to be questioned. It would not be limited in time, as would an Estimates Committee inquiry. It would allow a thorough investigation of all the issues. It would also be more satisfactory from a public point of view because they would see the government, if it supported this motion, had nothing to hide; that it believes in open and transparent government, and that they were setting up a special inquiry into this issue because it had attracted so much debate and controversy in the community. I see that this could be an opportunity to use the Public Accounts Committee for what it has been set up to do; that is, look at the way government has expended public monies. As we know, there has been a reasonable amount of those public monies spent on this particular case.
I am not qualified to argue the case with the Attorney-General on the legal ins and outs of whether you could operate the PAC whilst legal action is still pending between the Minister for Local Government and Mr Anderson. However, if that is the case - and presuming this will be defeated on the floor tonight - I will move this motion again at a later date and, basically, amend section 2, which will say that this Assembly refer to the Public Accounts Committee for inquiry after legal action has been completed, in reference to the matters pending between Mr Anderson and the Minister for Local Government. That way, we can leave it on the books until that time occurs, so that the argument that we cannot deal with this matter while legal action is taking place will disappear.
I still think that this is something that needs to go to a Public Accounts Committee. The public would like to hear what actually happened. As I said, I have heard both sides of the story at a confidential briefing. There is not only the issue about public monies being spent, about the process of exactly what happened, but if there are problems with the Animal Welfare Act. This is an opportune time to look at that as well. If it is deficient, and some grey areas need tightening up to make them more clear, then this again is the process that would come out of the Public Accounts Committee.
Madam Speaker, I commend the motion and hope it will be supported.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Establishment of Select Committee – Northern Territory Parks Estate
Establishment of Select Committee – Northern Territory Parks Estate
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move:
- That:
1. This Assembly establish a select committee to investigate the community benefits and merits of the transfer of
the Northern Territory Parks Estate to the land councils, proposed by the government; and that this committee:
- (a) be a bipartisan committee of the parliament comprising three members of government and three
members of the opposition and one Independent member;
- (b) establish its own terms of reference as it sees fit; in doing so it being unfettered in the terms and
scope of its inquiry into the proposal; and
- (c) be given a budget appropriate for it to do its work.
2. The committee report to the Assembly by December 2004.
Unfortunately, this was yet another shot from the lip by the Martin government that was based on very little research and even less consultation. That is why I am urging members of the House to support this motion and to consider this idea further as part of a select committee. Let all sides of parliament review this plan, investigate what this will mean for Territorians, and then report back to the House.
The wheels are falling off this process and Territorians are rightly asking what it will mean for them. Even before the bill was first introduced into this Assembly, two of the much-heralded additions to the estate were withdrawn from the package by the Northern Land Council - those being the Keep River-Spirit Hills area of the Western Australian border and the Nathan-Limmen Gate area in the Gulf of Carpentaria.
The Chief Minister failed to call the bluff of the land council and opted to continue with a package that provided few benefits to Territorians. Despite the government’s feigned optimism, even this reduced package has proved impossible for the negotiating team to reach agreement on in any reasonable time frame. In fact, there is no certainty they ever will. No wonder! Whereas the major stakeholders are the traditional owners and park visitors, both local and from overseas, there appears to have been little, if any, input from either group. Likewise, where has been the input from the Parks and Wildlife managers, for that matter?
The major participants have been the Chief Minister’s select team - none of whom have had any real park management experience - and the two major land councils with some oblique references to the Commonwealth government. Anyone who has negotiated with these two land councils will leave you in no doubt that you can play the Chief Minister’s team off a break. It does appear, regrettably, that that is just what is happening.
Rumours abound that even more of these lands, which were to have been added to the park estate by Aboriginal Territorians, are also to be withdrawn from the package. Will the Chief Minister give us a guarantee that there is no more to be added to the list? I doubt it, because she cannot!
Ms Martin: It is in legislation in the House, you silly nit!
Mr MILLS: This raises another very important …
Ms CARTER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Unparliamentary language.
Ms Martin: Excuse me!
Madam SPEAKER: Unparliamentary language, Chief Minister.
Ms Martin: Sorry, Madam Speaker, withdrawn.
Ms CARTER: Thank you.
Ms Martin: You are wrong, Terry. Read the legislation.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, please do not use Christian names.
Ms Martin: I withdraw ‘Terry’ and substitute ‘member for Blain’. You are wrong!
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This raises another very important point: if the land councils are withdrawing parks from their side of the bargain, what are we pulling back from our side of the table? The answer is nothing. This is a sad reflection on the Martin government’s ability to manage this and any other major negotiation that they have attempted.
As the land councils progressively pull more from their side of the bargain, we are being left with even worse - or what was already - a lousy deal. The Chief Minister is giving away the farm; the land councils have stared her down and she blinked.
This government has failed to negotiate gas onshore for Territorians, and they have yet to work out how to accommodate refuelling of ships at the redeveloped wharf precinct. They gave away the chance to have some control over the Lee Point Defence housing development, and they are doing it again. The Chief Minister is incapable of sitting down and talking business and getting a favourable outcome for Territorians. She is the Territory’s answer to Jack and the Bean Stalk, and gives away the prized cow for a couple of magic beans. I would strongly recommend that any charlatan or conman who finds his way to Darwin would be well served to head straight to the Chief Minister’s office because, if you are selling shares in the Harbour Bridge or seaside views of Alice Springs, I am sure you will have no problem in finding a willing customer in our Chief Minister.
What about the Commonwealth role in all this? Are they included to negotiate a greater Territory participation in the management of Kakadu and Uluru National Parks? Not likely! Could they be being asked to contribute to some of the upfront establishment costs, only to leave Territorians with 99 years of unspecified financial responsibility?
This leads to a very important question: what about costs? The Chief Minister has been virtually silent on this matter, although some her ministers have inferred that costs could be insignificant. As I stand before you, the cost to the current and future generations of Territorians will be anything but insignificant. From the replies to questions in the budget estimates on the costs relating to management, it is clear that joint managed parks are much more expensive to manage than those run exclusively by Parks and Wildlife. This is not necessarily unreasonable, provided that the benefits to Territorians can, to some extent, at least justify those extra costs. However, the Chief Minister has provided nothing to give Territorians comfort in this regard. In fact, the opposite is true.
Additionally, there is the matter of the annual rental back of parks, the ownership of which will be freely transferred to the land councils. We are yet to hear what this grand plan will cost us. I am looking forward to the explanation of how it is cheaper to give away land that you already own, and have no real prospect to losing, and then pay to lease it back.
Then there is the issue of the ongoing role of the land councils. Everybody is aware that the most successful model of joint management in the Territory is at Nitmiluk, where the traditional owners choose to exclude the land council from all other than a statutory role. Obviously, not all owners are as one with the Jawoyn, but the Nitmiluk model appears to have been discarded out of hand by this government.
Given that negotiations are with the land councils only, how can we be sure that the wishes of the traditional owners will be satisfactorily considered, let alone met, in your package? How can we also be sure that land councils will not write themselves into the ongoing management of parks, which we know will inevitably lead to conflict with Territorians and the tourism industry, as has been evident at Kakadu and Uluru? Are there genuine attempts to involve traditional owners and let them derive planned benefits, or is this just an exercise in providing greater empowerment to land councils? Just what do the traditional owners get? Land councils are supposed to support and assist traditional owners. These negotiations effectively reverse the master/servant relationship. Is it any wonder some traditional owners are not happy with this process? The land councils are there to protect the interests of traditional owners. Who is protecting the traditional owners from the land councils?
There are just too many unanswered questions that can only be resolved by putting this process under the spotlight of a parliamentary committee. How are we to protect from Aboriginal-dominated boards effectively acting as another tier of government that is focussing primarily on their agenda of outstation proliferation and management practices resulting in reduction in tourist numbers and experience? Are we effectively handing over the management of our parks from an elected government to a minority indigenous bureaucracy whose objectives probably will not be compatible with other community expectations? Why only two land councils? Is it because they are the equivalent of indigenous unions as far as the Labor Party is concerned?
Territorians own the parks that are being handed over to land councils, and they have not been consulted on their land. There is a persuasive legal argument that some of the parks would be lost in any legal proceedings; but what of the others? Just what justification can the Chief Minister give in handing over ownership of almost every park in the southern region to the Central Land Council? How will this impact tourism in that region? Will Watarrka National Park be subjected to the same restrictions as Uluru, for example? Research shows that around 70% of visitors nominate our parks as the reason they come to the Northern Territory. I would have thought that something so crucial to our economy would have been given more protection than this, particularly with the Chief Minister being responsible for this portfolio.
Above all this - the legality, the morality and the practicality of what is being done - there is just one very important issue that we must no forget - the importance of conservation of these parks. Yet, the Martin Labor government has disbanded the Parks and Wildlife Commission and replaced it with a single public servant. With Labor’s plan to hand over our parks, the Territory needs the expertise of the Parks and Wildlife Commission as we have never needed it before. Now, however, the commission is a one-bureaucrat show, who has to answer to the minister who appointed her. Our parks estate is vulnerable and at the behest of the political whims of the government of the day. It leaves the decision of our most important natural asset - our parks - to this bureaucrat who does not have the expertise to make the important decision of the Territory.
Parks have been marginalised and decimated by the Martin government, and the board that would have driven this exercise in a perfect world has been abolished. How are they able to cope? The CLP believes in joint management of our parks. The contribution to conservation, tourism, and of traditional owners, cannot be underestimated. The difference between us and the members who sit opposite; we know that joint management can be achieved without handing over the title of these assets. We know partnerships can be achieved with traditional owners without another layer of bureaucracy in the middle to interfere.
That is partly what I suspect the Chief Minister is afraid of - any scrutiny by parliament of what is going on here and the deal that the Chief Minister has done with the land councils to get herself elected will be laid bare. This great land grab by the land councils cannot be allowed to continue without the scrutiny of this parliament. Ordinary Territorians are being sold short and the Martin Labor government is complicit in this.
I urge all members to support this motion. Let us slow down and consider what is happening here. There is a deadline for the completion of these negotiations that the Chief Minister has set, and it is fast approaching - and the land councils know this. Chief Minister, your team must be getting close to the stage of seeing agreement at any cost. That is the only option to save face. We have already seen a spectacle of the Chief Minister having a serve of humble pie once recently, and I am sure her minders are keen to avoid another course, whatever the cost to Territorians today and into the future.
Madam Speaker, traditional owners, Territorians who fish, camp, walk, enjoy the scenery, have great pride in taking their friends and relatives from elsewhere to see our parks, or depend on tourism and its contribution to the economy for their living, all have an interest in the future of our parks. Parks must remain for the benefit of all Territorians and not just a select minority who seek to gain from this deal.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, the Opposition Leader has just said parks must remain for all Territorians. That is exactly what the Framework for the Future bill is about. I have never heard such a load of gobbledegook, except for the censure we heard earlier today. The Opposition Leader has chosen to come in here and seriously misrepresent what is an open and transparent process and has not even read the legislation. The legislation is open and transparent. What is in the legislation, the Framework for the Future bill, is what any negotiation is. That is why we brought that legislation into the parliament, open and transparent. Yet, we had – how many minutes?
Mr Henderson: Fourteen.
Ms MARTIN: … 14 minutes of the Opposition Leader simply again making up what he says are facts, and are simply rubbish, to try to argue some fatuous case about deceit from this government.
On this issue, this government has been open and transparent. That openness and transparency is in the form of a bill that is in this House. The details are set out. When you come in here and say: ‘What is in; what is out; are you putting more on the table?’ - what is there is there. Anything that has been withdrawn, we made public. There is no sleight of hand here. There is nothing up my sleeves. There is no deceit. There is no other agenda. There is no obligation. What you see in that bill is what you have. I seriously resent the Opposition Leader coming in here, in his pompous and long-winded style, accusing us of lying to and misleading Territorians - because we are not. I have never heard such a load of pomposity hiding an anti-indigenous Territorian sentiment, which is what this is all about.
When you say our parks must be open to all Territorians, what are you saying? The deal is that every park will be open to all Territorians. So what are you trying to say there? That a change of land title is not going to be access? It is a load of rubbish and you should be honest about your real agenda here, because your real agenda is transparent.
My government does not support the motion that the Assembly establishes a select committee to investigate community benefits associated with the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act. The time for the debate in the public interest argument was during the public consultation phase last September and when the bill was finally debated in this House last November. The opposition was briefed on the bill - you could not tell from what the rubbish we have just heard in here - and did not bother to propose a select committee inquiry at that time. Considering the bill was released for public comment in September 2003, prior to tabling in the Legislative Assembly in October of that year, and then not passed by this Assembly until November 2003, I believe the motives behind this belated call for an inquiry to be nothing but political - to be nothing but political - and the voice that we are hearing from the opposition is an isolated voice in our community.
During the public consultation period, the feedback received was, generally, very positive. I wonder who the opposition is actually representing in the arguments they are putting forward in this House. Key stakeholders including representatives from the tourism, mining, Aboriginal pastoral, fishing and environment sectors, were also fully briefed on the bill. The majority of these appreciate the many practical and positive benefits that flow from the act, and that is not just as far as their own interests are concerned.
There is widespread acknowledgment from all but this blinkered opposition that benefits will flow for all Territorians, and I stress that point: all Territorians. The only dissenting voices came from the opposition ranks, focussed on the narrow aspect of the transfer of title for some of the parks involved in the package. We have just heard a lot of associated gobbledegook from the Leader of the Opposition, trying to present it as reasoned argument.
Let me remind members of how this legislation came about. Members may recall the Ward High Court decision handed down in August 2002, which held that the declaration of the Keep River National Park was invalid. That was as much a surprise to us as to any other Territorian. The finding is a result of the wording of section 12(1) of the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. Before the act was amended in March 1998, that section provided that an area of land could only be declared as a park or reserve if and I quote from the act - and it would have been interesting to have the Opposition Leader refer to the act in presenting some of his arguments because he was simply wrong again and again and again. Section 12(1) of the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act says that all the rights, title and interest in that land was vested in the Territory, or if no person other than the Territory or the Conservation Land Corporation held a right, title or interest in that land. In essence, the Ward High Court decision meant that, where native title rights and interests existed on land over which 49 parks were declared between 1978 and 1998, these declarations miscarried.
Consistent with legal advice from the Solicitor-General, and confirmed by a second legal opinion from eminent external counsel, the government moved swiftly to re-declare 38 of the parks and reserves on 7 November 2002. However, our legal advice confirmed the re-declarations could not resolve Aboriginal land claims or existing or potential native title determination and compensation claims.
A further major impact of the Ward High Court decision is that 11 of the 49 parks declared between 1978 and 1998 could not be re-declared because of section 67(a) of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (ALRA). Therefore, 11 of those 49 parks could not be re-declared. Section 67(a) prevents the grant of estates or interests in any land that is subject to a traditional land claim. Until the Ward decision, it was believed that land claims that had been made since the parks were originally declared could not proceed. Once the Ward decision clarified that original declarations as park had miscarried, it became clear that the land claims could now proceed to hearing before the Aboriginal Land Commissioner. Where is the conspiracy there, I ask the Opposition Leader.
The costs of depending myriad claims under ALRA and the Native Title Act would be very high and would merely reduce funds available for community services for all Territorians. We know the CLP’s agenda is - these Libs from Canberra’s masquerading as Territory Libs. They think that the way they led on Kenbi as a land claim is the way to go. They spent millions of dollars - $20m to $25m. ‘What does it matter? They just keep paying out money on litigations’. That is the moral that we had to work with and rejected it solidly.
The cost of defending a myriad of claims under the ALRA and Native Title Act would be very high. We put that sum as somewhere may be between $100m and $150m. What would it go on? Lawyers. Good lawyers, but lawyers. It would certainly reduce funds available for community services for Territorians - funds to build our tourism capacity, a master plan for our parks, to give our tourists and locals a greater experience in our wonderful environment.
That is the balance. We have the opposition telling me that I should have taken the lawyer option. We could have spent 10 to 15 years in courts looking at all those claims. We could have done that. That was an option; that is what you would have done in government. The other option is to see capacity grow, to develop our parks for everyone to have greater access to some of the wonderful parks of our terrific Territory. But, no, the opposition is now saying we should have gone the litigation way. I said very clearly at the outset of this process, that if we could not get an agreement in the package we spelled out in the Framework for the Future bill, we would, sadly, go to litigation one by one.
Any implication that, somehow or other, there was some underhand deal; that we were rolling over to anybody - and the list that the Opposition Leader has is a long one in his conspiracy theory ideas - is simply not right. I said that very clearly. This is an opportunity to resolve these issues. If traditional owners and potential native title holders cannot agree to this opportunity to resolve these issues, then we will take each, one by one, through the courts.
All affected parks also potentially remain subject to native title claims and/or native title compensation claims. The cost of resolving these issues through the courts would be prohibitively expensive for Territory taxpayers, not to mention the potential compensation costs, which would take many years to settle.
It has been suggested that the Australian government would pick up 75% of the costs of compulsorily acquiring native title rights and interests in the parks concerned. It should be noted that the Australian government offer only applies to compensation payable with respect to past acts and certain future acts. No state or territory government has accepted the Australian government’s offer in this respect. The proposal particularly disadvantaged the Territory where more limited development, by comparison with other states, meant the Territory would bear a greater burden for any development that constituted a native title future act, when compared with a state that would be funded for the compensation effects of past development.
In addition, the proposal does not allow for any reimbursement of legal costs incurred, given that the precise nature of the native title rights and interests will need to be determined in order to calculate compensation.
What is the opposition’s answer to this? They have been arguing that we should compulsorily acquire the native title interests over the 17 parks in question. The advice we received is that this approach would engender continuing delay and uncertainty and, as I said, would prove extremely costly to taxpayers. The compulsory acquisition approach is likely to involve considerable litigation in the federal court determining the precise nature of the native title rights and interests for the 17 parks involved. Compulsory acquisition would also take a long time to conclude. The most optimistic scenario for the hearing of the determinations by the Federal Court is at least five years. However, a realistic estimate is that the determinations are not likely to be concluded for the 17 parks for many more years - probably, realistically, 10 to 15.
Here is an opposition that is just out there saying: ‘Uncertainty, let us just keep uncertainty going. Let us not be able to develop infrastructure in our parks because it will be uncertain. Let us see some parks potentially locked away; we would never be able to go there’ - potentially. The opposition has illogical arguments. We have a transparent process that lays it out in the bill. To have the Opposition Leader come in here and accuse this government of doing deals that nobody knows about and of having some underhand agenda, I find personally, seriously offensive.
It has been standard practice to negotiate ways to manage native title issues, including through indigenous land use agreements. For example, the previous government successfully achieved a negotiated outcome in the railway negotiations, and the Australian government negotiated an ILUA for the establishment of the Defence facility at Bradshaw Station. The establishment and operation of national parks can well work with the exercise of native title rights and interests. The government has proposed a solution which seeks to reconcile the interests of Aboriginal people and the wider community in a way that gives benefit for all Territorians.
I again draw attention to the open manner in which the government has dealt with the process involved with the parks legislation. Now that the legislation has been enacted, there is little flexibility afforded to government or the traditional owners involved in the process. This was deliberate so as to ensure transparency. It means that, as Chief Minister, I can only exercise my powers under the act if the section 10 provisions were fully complied with. It is spelt out.
On that point, we are talking about traditional owners. The Opposition Leader asked: ‘Why are you only dealing with two land councils?’. You did say that in the speech, didn’t you? ‘Why are you only dealing with two land councils?’. Do you know where this land is? Do you know that the land is only within the boundaries of the CLC and the NLC; that there is no land that is a park or a reserve on Groote Eylandt; that there is no park or reserve on the Tiwi Islands? Did you realise that? No, I do not think you did.
To again underpin the idiocy of what we heard in here, you accused us of some kind of conspiracy with the Centralian and Northern Land Council, and funding for elections, or deals with getting over the line because we are just dealing with those two. There was a logic; they represent and are talking to the traditional owners.
You also made the comment that there are traditional owners who are unhappy and who have not been consulted. Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish! Absolute rubbish! This has been a very consultative process and, to come in here and malign the land council - because that is what the CLP always does, and has done for year after year after year – will not wash. They are representative bodies that are enacted under federal legislation and we, as government, deal with them properly. That is what you would expect of government. However, it does contrast starkly with the approach from the CLP.
I go back to the legislation. The only flexibility under the legislation has been on timing - if the Opposition Leader had read the bill, he would understand that - which allowed for the extension to the end of this year to allow full compliance with the conditions of the act to be achieved. In approving that notice of extension, which was publicly announced at the time, I was satisfied that there was already substantial compliance with the conditions specified in section 10 of the act, and that there will be full compliance on or before the end of the year. Where is the conspiracy there?
This government is looking after the public interest; the opposition is only looking after their own political interests. They are backwards looking and they are desperate to find relevance in this issue.
As I stated during my second reading speech, the legislation draws together a range of government objectives beneficial to our community, including job creation - that is a damning one to be accused off isn’t it? - protection of biological diversity, enhancing recreational educational and tourist opportunities, and creating a sound and sustainable economic base for regional development. Allow me, briefly, to list some further advantages for the benefit of the opposition. These include: huge savings from protracted and confrontation litigation that was a feature of former CLP governments; tourism development and an improved capacity to meet tourism demands and expectation; enhanced parks land management; Aboriginal social and economic development including improved opportunities for joint venture partnerships and employment; resolution of uncertainty regarding future developments; the development of constructive rather than adversarial relationships with traditional owners; and the expansion of the parks estate through leaseback of additional Aboriginal land.
How are we, in this proposal, denying all Territorians access to the parks? What we are doing is, in fact, adding land to the parks estate. Then we have a master plan in process. We have committed funds to see further infrastructure once this deal is complete - once we get to the end of the year and it is signed off. We are looking at positively enhancing our tourism and local experience. The rubbish that we heard from the Opposition Leader is simply wrong - it is wrong.
As I have stated previously, at its heart this framework will provide the certainty required to establish a truly world class and fully integrated NT national parks and reserves conservation system. That is not a bad aspiration is it? Not a bad aspiration! And we will do it. That is the difference; we will do it. That certainty will mean that our parks can continue to operate with the necessary guarantee of continued access and enjoyment by all Territorians on a no entry fee, no entry permit basis.
Just as importantly, it will also result in new and exciting opportunities to develop our parks and reserves in ways that fully complement our tourism strategy - and I am proud of that, as Tourism Minister - and will create economic opportunities that are currently not there and not being realised. Significantly, the legislation recognised, for the first time, that one of the objectives of the Territory’s parks system is to maintain and promote traditional values alongside protection and promotion of the value of the natural environment. It is these two elements, environment and culture, that are lynchpins in the future development of tourism in the Territory. It is our unique and ancient cultural heritage as well as the spectacular landscapes, flora and fauna, that attract thousands of visitors here each year. The thousands are, in fact, 1.3 million and growing.
Do you know what? Unfortunately, according to surveys conducted by the NT Tourist Commission, the majority of our visitors believe that they are not able to sufficiently experience Aboriginal culture, and they want improved access to pristine areas. If we are to seriously deal with the future of one of our most important industries - our second biggest industry - we must address this shortfall. This is exactly what we are doing through the parks legislation. We are making sure that visitors, as well as Territorians, will not only have increased access to better managed parks, they will also have access to the traditional and cultural knowledge integral to that country, so ensuring a more enriching and meaningful experience.
All these matters are currently being addressed in the preparation of the parks and conservation master plan, which aims to establish a 15 to 20 year vision for parks and conservation in the Territory - a vision shared with Aboriginal traditional owners, other land holders, and the community at large. The master plan will provide a blueprint for the conservation of the Northern Territory’s biological diversity and associated Aboriginal cultural values, and will pay particular attention to the Territory’s systems of parks and reserves. It will strongly focus on the role of the parks and the conservation of biodiversity, in providing inspiration and enjoyment for present and future generations of Territorians, and for the many tourists who come to the Territory seeking to enjoy our natural and cultural heritage.
The overall goal of the master plan is to provide the basis for ensuring that we pass on to future generations the full range of biological diversity now present in the Northern Territory, together with the priceless legacy of our parks system; not only intact but expanded and improved. The planning process is well advanced and involves extensive consultation with stakeholder groups and the public at large. The master plan web site is currently receiving around 5000 hits each month, and there will be further opportunity for public input once the draft is released for public comment. As part of that process, a series of regional meetings will be held throughout the Territory. Absolutely key to that whole public consultation and to the master plan, are the people we have in Parks and Wildlife. They have been integrally involved in this, and I am very enthusiastic about the parks master planning.
Much of this I have said before, but it is worth bringing home the point, especially as the opposition does not seem to get it. As a responsible government, we put a high priority on the need to balance the public interest in this matter, and to ensure an outcome that meets the community benefit test. The government is adopting a hard-headed and responsible approach that requires the settlement of all existing and potential litigation under a comprehensive agreement based on core principles that protect continued access to parks and reserves for all Territorians.
Allow me to again outline these core principles. They include: the development of a parks master plan to expand and more effectively manage the parks estate; current mining and exploration leases are unaffected and existing applications are being fast-tracked; current tourism operator concessions are guaranteed; all Territory parks and reserves will remain accessible to all Territorians and visitors on a ‘no fee/no permit’ basis; business as usual in parks until the negotiations are completed; where title change occurs, they will be conditional on the land being leased back to the Northern Territory subject to joint management under NT legislation; and those managerial plans will come here to the parliament. The underlying principle of this legislation is to maintain and expand the Territory’s parks estate for the benefits of all Territorians. These benefits are overwhelmingly obvious. This legislation is also balanced by requirements that will protect the interests of all Territory citizens and key stakeholders.
My government is ensuring increased access to the Territory’s pristine environment and unique cultural heritage so it can be enjoyed by all Territorians and visitors to this special part of the world. In doing so, we are establishing a framework for the future, one that will bring economic benefits to the Territory stemming from regional employment and responsible planning for our tourism industry, while also protecting our ecological and cultural inheritance for future generations.
Madam Speaker, the opposition’s arguments on this are unsustainable. If they had genuine concerns, they would have raised them over the last year. To say now that what we need is a select committee to investigate community benefits is political grandstanding, and this side of the House rejects it.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I listened to the Chief Minister’s comments on this motion and, apart from the rhetoric about the decision that has been made by the Labor government will result in greater benefit for Territorians, greater access to our parks, greater recognition of native title ownership, less litigation in the courts, all sounds repetitive and, in the Chief Minister’s mind, obviously wonderful for Territorians.
What I find particularly disappointing is the fact that, once again, the Chief Minister seems to take every opportunity to belittle comments and arguments put by the opposition on such an important issue. The way the Chief Minister attacked the Leader of the Opposition for raising these issues is particularly offensive. The government seems to be incredibly sensitive. I have never seen a Leader of the Opposition or members of the government or opposition in the past jump to their feet calling points of order because of some comment that they believe is an unfair attack on their person. We have reached a sensitivity in this House whereby one has to be extremely careful as to how one uses one’s words.
Where we do have an expert in this House is the Chief Minister who, I believe, is probably more skilled in her choice of words that anyone else in this House, but skilled in a way that is not only offensive, but belittling - and she can get away with it. She belittles the opposition because we raise issues that she believes are trivial or beneath her status. If anyone read the Parliamentary Record, there are the comments that she made in the censure motion against the Leader of the Opposition. Whilst you cannot pick her up for individual words that are offensive, the tone of her comments is patronising, schoolmarmish and offensive in the extreme. Frankly, it is difficult to listen to.
I was thinking about what I could say in this debate, and I wrote one word: consultation. The Chief Minister stands on an argument that the general public has been widely consulted and is supportive on this matter. It is interesting that, in this case, the government has made a decision about what is best for Territorians with regards to the parks estate, and then gone out to sell the great benefit of this decision. They call that consultation.
It is an interesting move because I do not believe the government has been capable of doing it in any other process. Even today, we saw the Lands minister saying: ‘We have to deal with the Myilly Point precinct, but we do not want to do anything that might be against the public interest so what we are going to do is say: “Here is the precinct. What do you reckon? Give us all your thoughts and we will take those thoughts on board and act in what we believe to be in the public interest of Territorians”’.
What they did not tell Territorians, of course, is that the Myilly Point precinct, through land use objectives, had been settled through the hard work of planning officers in the department in 1999. It had been out for public consultation and the land use objectives for that area have been settled. I would be surprised if anything different of any great substance arises. That does not stop the government from saying they have a clean sheet of paper and: ‘By the way, we are going to consult the public. You only have four weeks, but we are a consultative government’.
In this case, the consultation did not occur. There is no point standing up and telling Territorians that you consulted before you made a decision and that Territorians support it. Surely, no one would try to suggest that most Territorians have any deep understanding of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act or the Native Title Act. Most Territorians rely on the faith and good judgment of their government. In this particular case, it was backed up by the rhetoric and glossy brochures that have been put out, and the assuages of the Chief Minister that if we did not do this it would cost $150m of taxpayers’ money and, therefore, we would not be able to deliver health services and education services. Of course, the average person would say: ‘Oh well, an agreement seems to be a reasonable thing to do’. The reality is it is not true. When the opposition stands to question the process that has been put in place, all we get, in the most schoolmarmish fashion – I should not say schoolmarmish fashion, because there were excellent schoolmarms in the past, including you, Madam Speaker – in a very patronising way, the Chief Minister belittles the arguments of the opposition.
Well, I have an argument for the Chief Minister straight back. She said, when she brought forward this package of negotiation agreement, that this was the package, and if we did not get agreement on this package, all bets were off. She repeated again in this Chamber tonight that if she did not get agreement on that package, all bets were off. Well, in that package were a couple of parks which had already been withdrawn. We have a situation in the Northern Territory where the Chief Minister has fallen on her own argument. She is asking Territorians to believe in the process that is being conducted, yet part of the asset that was integral to the process at the outset has been withdrawn. Why has it been withdrawn? It has been withdrawn for reasons unbeknown to me. If the opposition questions the process - including why some of these parks have been withdrawn - all we get is abuse.
If the Chief Minister was true to her word, she would have said, when Litchfield Park was withdrawn from negotiations: ‘All bets are off. I gave you a package. It included 49 parks, some involved transferring to Aboriginal land rights title under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, some were freehold park title, some were joint management arrangements. There were undertakings given that there would be free access. There would be undertakings given that there would be no exclusivity, and there was a package of parks. You now have withdrawn parks for your own reason, because you believe you can get a better deal through litigation or by separate negotiation. Based on my words and my stance, all bets are off. Litchfield Park is either in or all bets are off’.
But no, the Chief Minister is now trying to say: ‘Well, other reasons have arisen and we have withdrawn this park. Limmen Park, because it has great mineral prospectivity, obviously, we will handle that on a case-by-case basis’. It is very hard to be convinced on the government’s argument that the consultation is occurring in a way that Territorians can be comforted.
When the Chief Minister talked about public consultation, I listened to the fact that she is going to consult widely with Territorians after this particular deal is somehow done; and I certainly hope that that occurs. However, the consultation that has occurred to date leaves many questions unanswered. When the Chief Minister said: ‘All you do is bag this’, those questions were put directly and, I believe, with research and genuine concern, to her in the Estimates Committee process. Whilst the Chief Minister can speak and read very authoritatively from documentation that is prepared by her officers, and with legal advice in this Chamber, she was particularly weak when it came to answering questions about the intended or unintended consequences that will arise, or could arise, from these decisions that she has made with regards to the parks estate and the management of the parks estate, the precedence of native title arguments and claims that are being made through the courts at the moment on other issues in the Northern Territory, particularly on pastoral leases, etcetera.
When the Chief Minister says: ‘All the CLP wants to do is go into court and spend $100m to $150m of taxpayers’ money; that is all they ever want to do’, well, that is not true. I certainly hope I can stand in this Chamber one day and that native title is never raised as an issue. It has been very divisive in the past, and this Labor government is experiencing the fact that, on some issues, it can be very divisive and difficult to achieve settlements on.
The Chief Minister says that this is only way a settlement could be reached. We dispute that. We say that there is no question that the aim should be to get a settlement. However, there is also no reason why, as part of government’s armoury and argument, if they believe that they are being unnecessarily hampered in their ability to get an agreement, the acquisition process should not be commenced, in demonstrating the strength of the Native Title Act and the powers of the Northern Territory government in accordance with that act. That is the way it has been done successfully in other areas. It was the way it was done in Darla and, I believe, in the East Arm Port settlement. I am quite sure that the government, on those areas that are currently in litigation - for example, Limmen Park and sadly, probably, in the future Litchfield Park - undoubtedly the acquisition process will be used.
Chief Minister, the argument of the opposition is that, on such a important issue, this should have been put towards a select committee of this parliament. We have had select committees of this parliament currently engaging themselves on any number of issues. It is too trite to simply suggest that, somehow, on an issue as large as the future of the Territory’s park estate - or a large part of the park estate - to have a select committee to deal with these particular issues …
Ms Martin: Did you have a select committee on the railway?
Mr BURKE: Well, if we had acceded to the Labor government - the Chief Minister asked if we had a select committee on the railway. If the Labor government federally had their way - Martin Ferguson who could be a federal government minister - would have had a Royal Commission on the railway. He called for a Royal Commission at the most sensitive stage of the negotiation process for no other reason than to scare off shareholders at a time we were trying to close the deal. That is a person who will be one of that crowd that will supposedly be working in the Territory’s interests if they gain government federally on Saturday - Martin Ferguson. He is very clearly on the record for that.
It is not trivial to suggest this should go to a select committee. We had a select committee on cane toads out of which the member of Nelson certainly did not get much comfort from all the efforts and consultation of that committee. If we could have a select committee on cane toads, why can’t we have a select committee on the future of parks estate? Why can’t we have a select committee on the process that is being conducted, and the overall benefits for Territorians in going this particular path. Of course, if the government had been consistent with the way it has approached things and made decisions in government so far - certainly that is the position they put to the public; that they are very keen on consultation before they make a decision.
In this instance, there was very little consultation. The consultation that has occurred was with stakeholders groups, and those stakeholder groups, I do not believe, are as comfortable as the Chief Minister says. I do not believe the intended consequences - or unintended consequences - of the Chief Minister’s decisions have been clearly enunciated. I do not believe that the Chief Minister has been able to get the accommodation that she claims she would get - albeit if that were the case, Litchfield Park would not have been withdrawn. I certainly do not believe that the ministers who have carriage of this particular decision have the inside knowledge of the Native Title Act and the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act so that they can confidently stand up for Territorians and argue their case.
If we are not going to get a select committee, I look forward to the public consultation. I give the Chief Minister a guarantee: we will have public meetings and explain to Territorians what we believe are the implications of the parks handover. We will see from those public consultations whether or not Territorians are as comfortable and as okay with the path of the process the government is going down, as the Chief Minister claims.
Ms Martin: You will tell Territorians they cannot get into parks anymore, and that their parks are going to just go into rack and ruin, are you? You have to tell the truth, Denis.
Mr BURKE: The Chief Minister says that we have to tell the truth. What we will do, in fact, is …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I have been cautioned repeatedly on using Christian names in this House and I find it offensive that the Chief Minister chooses to do so.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, did you use a Christian name?
Ms Martin: Oh, I did. Sorry, member for Brennan, I apologise.
Mr BURKE: It is only fair and reasonable that the opposition, in calling public forums, will explain to Territorians what exactly was the package that was put forward at the outset, what exactly is the package that is there now, ask them if they have any idea as to why some parks are withdrawn now from that particular package; and ask them if they have any idea of what this settlement negotiation that the Chief Minister asked them to be comfortable with does in fact entail. We can also dwell on areas of native title and, where there are native title issues that are currently before the courts or in mediation, whether those native title issues will have any impact on the negotiations for the parks or vice versa. Most importantly, vice versa. Also, whether the accommodations that the Chief Minister is making now in the courts, not on traditional owners, on traditional claimants – traditional claimants, not traditional owners - will create a precedent for native title issues in other areas of the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, disappointingly, the Chief Minister and the government are not interested in supporting this motion. However, that will not stop the opposition from continually raising it more and more to Territorians whilst it is an issue that is alive.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I actually have some sympathy for the Northern Territory government and the position that the find themselves in. The reason for this is that, to a degree - and we heard it from the Chief Minister’s lips here today - they have a gun pointing to their heads. This is the gun: ‘as a result of the Ward decision, 11 parks were subject to land rights claim’.
The Chief Minister is in this invidious situation where she has to find a way to be able to deal with the parks estate issue and, by her own admission, potentially lose access to 11 parks in the Northern Territory. The parks estate has been built up by repeated Northern Territory governments over a long period of time, and is one of the jewels of the crown of the world regarding what sits in that parks estates. Then you can add on the addition of Uluru Kata-Tjuta and Kakadu National Parks to sit there as the diamond in the crown of the whole parks estate. I understand that they are different systems of ownership and that one is managed by Parks Australia and the other park is managed by the Northern Territory government. However, the government is stuck in this dreadful situation where they have the potential of losing 11 of those parks.
There is already a gun pointing to the head of the Northern Territory government. It is important to go back in history a little and discover why this is. The reason is that, prior to self-government and because we are a territory, we have a system of land administration in the Northern Territory - which fully affects more than half of the Northern Territory now - which is beyond the control of the government. Issues that deal with this particular type of land management rests with the Federal Court and the federal government. Therefore, as a result of the Ward decision, when you find that original claims are upheld in their validity in being allowed to be lodged, this means that the government in the Northern Territory is in a very specific situation - unlike any other place, with the exception of the ACT – which is that we do not have administrative control of our lands.
In any other state, control of lands is an issue for the state government. They have control, through their various systems of title, over nearly 100% of their lands. There are small exceptions to that; there may be acquisitions by the Commonwealth government under certain circumstances. However, as we have seen recently in South Australia, those circumstances are very limited. The Northern Territory government is not in that situation.
The Labor government of the Northern Territory says it finds itself in a situation where they may lose 11 parks and those parks, if they are lost, will become freehold title. They will become someone’s personal property or, in this case, a trust property. When those parks are lost, the gates might literally close on those parks. That is the gun. Therefore, the Northern Territory government thinks to itself, quite justifiably so: ‘How are we going to set this aside? How are we going to avoid losing these parks in question?’ So, the government says to the land councils, the representative bodies of the traditional owners - nominally: ‘What can we do to fix the situation?’.
Bear in mind that, if you look at the CLC Annual Report this year, one of their performance measures and stated aims is to acquire as much land as they possibly can. That is one of the stated aims in the annual report. The CLC and the NLC think to themselves: ‘We are going to go after our mission statement, and that is to acquire land on behalf of our client base, which is Aboriginal people’. They then say to government: ‘Here is the deal: we will not go after those 11 claims, but there are certain assets in your parks estate to which we want access. In fact, we want to own them’.
Therefore, in accordance with the stated aims of the CLC and NLC to acquire land, the government thinks: ‘Here is an option. If we dress it up the right way, we can make sure that access to these parks is open and stays open. Here is the set of conditions under which we are prepared to negotiate. Rather than lose 11 parks, we will put up 49 parks for transfer of title’. The government assures Territorians that the transfer of title works by us giving title to those parks, but there will be certain caveats put on those parks. We will transfer title away from the Crown, the current owner, to land trusts and the parks estate form of title, and that will be a transfer of ownership.
That does carry with it certain implications, one of which is that, under the conditions proposed by the government, they can only exert their influence to a certain degree. One area in which they can exert their influence is the current access rights by tourist operators and the like are to be protected until those rights come up for renewal; then the owners of the land have the option of deciding who has access and whether or not they are going to renew. This is privately-owned land, so there may well be a commercial reason for allowing certain tourist operators into an area.
By transferring the ownership of the parks from the Crown to private hands, you are allowing greater authority of ownership rights to be exerted. Those ownership rights will be exerted. Why? If I was in that position, that is exactly what I would do. As a private owner of property, I would want to see how much I can extract out of anyone who wants to re-negotiate a right of access to my park. If someone wants to open up a business in my park, I am going to try to negotiate the best possible deal on behalf of the owners. That is a fiduciary obligation on the part of the land councils.
The land councils will be placed in enormously powerful positions. The traditional owners will be, too. What is happening is that, over time, we will see greater and greater ownership rights exerted over these parks. As the conditions that the Chief Minister has outlined change, those ownership rights will exert themselves more and more to the exclusion of other operators in the area. That will happen over time.
The other thing that will happen is that, as an owner, despite the fact that I have made an agreement with the government of the day that I promise to do this, this and this, I will constantly be looking for ways to exert my authority more and more. We see this reflected in places like Uluru Kata-Tjuta where there are increasing exertions by the owners, as is their right, to try to limit access in certain areas - access to the climb, where people go - and, before you know it, especially over a period of decades, access is becoming increasingly limited.
Part of the deal as described by the Chief Minister is that parts of existing land trusts are pulled into the parks estate; and that is good. However, as those pristine land trusts and areas have ownership already which is exclusive, that is now a choice of the owners. In principle, the owners of those land trusts have a choice as to whether or not people enter those parks. The government is saying that, as part of this deal, we have a concession being made to us. You can only make a concession if you are in a position to give it. That is exactly the position these owners are in. That position is going to apply to 49 parks, over time.
As part of the approach this government is using, they also saying: ‘We are negotiating this outcome and we are not going to require the claim of right to be tested. We are going to accept that the claim you are putting in our parks is legitimate and we are going to negotiate - so we are already removing the first hurdle, which is you asserting your claim. So we accept that your claim is legitimate and, as a consequence, we are going to enter into negotiations and come up with a deal’.
There is another issue. Because of the nature of this particular title, native title will not be extinguished. You are going to have two particular forms of title over different properties. You are going to have land rights for freehold title, and you are going to have native title sitting next to it. This presents the government with a huge complication, which was acknowledged in the estimates process. What happens when native title holders are trying to exert rights independently of the actual title holders of the land trust instruments? It becomes a very difficult situation, indeed. The subordination of native title on existing and ‘non-change of users’ systems such as pastoral leases, means that pastoralists can keep operating. However, I am not entirely convinced that that subordination occurs in this instance. Second, and more importantly, if it does not exist, that means you could find, very quickly, native title holders trying to exert some sort of right independently of the land trustees, and the beneficiaries of that land trust.
Consequently, you need to do something about the native title now. We are not going to extinguish it; so what are we going to do? According to the government, we are going to suppress it, presumably for the length for the lease. Therefore, part of the deal the native title holders have to agree to is that they are going to sign a document, an ILUA - indigenous land use agreement – that says their native title is now suppressed - it goes away - for the duration of the title of the lease. How long is that lease - 49, 99 years? Ninety-nine years. What happens as a matter of legacy in 99 years time? When the lease comes up, that native title suddenly resurrects itself. It has full validity. So long as there can be sufficient evidence to demonstrate the park claimants have continued to exercise those things which establish the existence of native title, then we are going to be setting up a future generation that has big problems.
This government talks about legacy and those sorts of things. Here is a very important legacy that they are setting up: when these leases expire or are up for renegotiation, this title is going to resurrect itself. When this title resurrects itself, people with a claim of right are going to want to exert that right. Therefore, this is the mental picture we have: we are going to have Aboriginal people in the courts fighting other Aboriginal people over the nature of the title of these parks. We talk about protecting the parks for time immemorial - negative. We are talking about protecting these parks for the terms of their leases. The legacy that we are going to develop is an acrimonious legacy, which is going to, ultimately, find its way back into the courts, in spite of the best effort of this government.
If you look at the Lhere Artepe approach in Alice Springs, the CLP had taken the position that negotiation is the preferred option in the first instance. However, when that fails and pressure builds, there is a place for acquisition. The Attorney-General has made this assertion himself recently in the Alice Springs News: if the system becomes too difficult and the problem with the associated bodies become too complex, then acquisition is something that we will have to look at. The Chief Minister herself says that, if we cannot nail this down properly within the terms of the legislation, then we will go down a litigious process. The government has been more patient than the former CLP has - at the expense of Territorians in my opinion; but that is their choice, they are the government. The government has been more patient with native title claimants and those people they acknowledge to have native title rights. However, at the end of the day, the government knows full well that its only option, if the system breaks down, is to have the matter heard by the courts. That only difference between the CLP and the ALP on this is where you intervene.
There are also two important questions that apply themselves to the parks estate and the arrangement that the government is engaging in. The first one is: how much is the asset worth? I would argue that it is priceless, but I am sure the Valuer-General would put a valuation on an asset like the Territory parks estate. However, we are talking about an asset that belongs to the Northern Territory government. How much is it worth? I would guess hundreds of millions of dollars. It is a very valuable asset, even in its dollar value. That is what the government is saying that we should transfer title of. I would be, and am, concerned as a person in the Northern Territory that, if the government of the day decides to give away an asset valued at hundreds of millions of dollars, it does so carefully. The Chief Minister assures us that she is doing so carefully. Okay, the jury is out; we will wait until December.
The second one and the one that I do not understand is: how much is the lease-back? All the government has to do is tell us how much we are paying for an asset we currently own. When I say ‘we’, I am talking about the Crown, the people of the Northern Territory. That is going to cost taxpayers; so where is that money going to come from? That is something that the government has ...
Ms Martin: Where is the money for your salary come from?
Mr ELFERINK: From the taxpayer. However, the point is …
Ms Martin: Oh, good point!
Mr ELFERINK: … I know what my salary is, Chief Minister. This is the important issue: I do not know what the lease-back value is. My salary is a matter of public information. Why is not the value of the lease a matter of public information? Why? Because I would suggest that the value of the lease is going to be not cheap, and it is going to cost the taxpayer quite a bit of money.
Ms Martin: Moratorium until 2010.
Mr ELFERINK: And after 2010? That is only six years time. What I am saying - five years, three months - that is nothing. After that, it is going to cost, and it is going to cost taxpayers. The only thing the moratorium achieves is that, in the life of your government, it is not something that you have to worry about in terms of budget implications. The problem is that this is typical of Labor spending: ‘We do not care if it does not cost us now, as long as somebody else pays the bill later’. That is another aspect of this that I am deeply concerned about.
Another issue is the CLC’s and the NLC’s representation as bodies. The Chief Minister is quite correct; you have to talk to the CLC and the NLC - the act requires it. However, there are issues that do concern me that may resurrect themselves as other problems inside these land councils, in litigation in the future. Those problems deal with, for argument’s sake, the fact that the right people are signing the ILUAs.
I will give you a classic example and I will put a name to it. Herman Malbunka is a traditional owner of the Watarrka National Park and did not get an opportunity to sign the ILUA. In fact, when I spoke to him a day before it was going to be signed, he was quite ignorant of the fact that some of his land, where he claims to have title interest, was going to be signed away by people who he says did not have title interest. I am not an anthropologist, but what I do know is that that sounds like the beginning of a legal battle at some point in the future. If, indeed, it is true that Watarrka does fall within his traditional country and he has missed out on an opportunity to sign that ILUA and he disagrees with the terms of the ILUA, then he has an equitable interest that has been ignored by the land councils. What reassurance can the Chief Minister give me and Territorians that the documents that are being signed by the land councils and the traditional owners are the right documents and are going to avoid litigation inside the CLC into the future? I would like to be reassured on behalf of Mr Malbunka, my constituent, that he is being properly looked after by his representative organisation.
There is nothing the government can do about this because, as I said at the outset, the Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act is beyond the reach of this government to influence. Therefore, this government is slightly seriously disempowered in native title and land rights. It does not have the ability to get itself involved at a level which any other state government could do. That is why this government had to go down the processes it has had to. It is the reason the former CLP governments chose to test the veracity of claims against the Crown land with some vigour.
Ms Martin: No, you did not.
Mr ELFERINK: You have just been telling us that we spent all this time in court. Well, what the hell do you think we are doing if we are in court? We are testing the veracity of claims.
Ms Martin: Not always. What do you think the railway corridor was? Larrakia land next to Darwin High - never tested their interest. What about Rosebery/Bellamack – never went to court.
Mr ELFERINK: Which only goes to prove the CLPs position, as I said at the outset: negotiate first, litigate second. The fact is that we showed a little less patience in the same position that you have; that is the only difference between the positions - the only difference. What you are trying to do is spin it and doctor it in all sorts of ways.
The problem in the Northern Territory - and this goes down to the very issue of our land management capacity here in the Northern Territory - is that we do not have the capacity to effectively govern the land inside the Northern Territory, and the legislation which governs land inside the Northern Territory. It is not this government’s fault; it is not the CLP’s fault; it is what rests in Canberra and what we have to work with. This government, as well as any future Northern Territory government - so long as we are, basically, not a state - is going to continue to struggle with the same issues.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I suppose what comes out of listening to the debate tonight is how complicated these issues are; they are not simple. They certainly arouse plenty of passion, and they are matters that need to be debated fully. I have on record that I support the government’s proposal in relation to how we develop these parks that were subject to either land claim or traditional ownership rights. I do not step aside from that, as I believe that is the way we should go.
I see the advantage in having a committee look at some of these issues, not necessarily to hold up the works or to create a political opportunity for some people. However, there are issues out there that relate to the philosophy of how we run parks. If you look at Australia in general, the parks were run by the Crown for all the people in their state or in Australia. We have moved away from that. I am not saying that is a bad thing. We have moved away where we have parks now which are leased from traditional owners and that is a new philosophy, you might say, in the management of parks in Australia.
I am not sure that we have always had an opportunity to debate that out in the open so much. It is a change that many non-Aboriginal people certainly would not have seen before, especially if they had come from southern states where I am not sure any parks down south are leased from Aboriginal traditional owners. All parks, as far as I can remember, were owned by the Crown and they managed those parks.
In the Territory, we have a different system. I do not think you have to be too old to understand the amount of controversy when Ayers Rock became an Aboriginal national park. There was a lot of controversy and, from memory, there was an election over it. It was certainly an issue that aroused a lot of passion in the community. We have since then had Kakadu National Park and, from the Territory’s point of view, Nitmiluk and Djukbinj which is on the eastern side of the Adelaide River. We have certainly moved from a lot of controversy about the way our parks were seen - that they were basically parks under Crown control – to parks now leased back from the traditional owners.
However, there are a couple of concerns arising from those changes. One is guaranteed access. I know the Chief Minister said there would be in debate earlier this year. The other is guaranteed free access - no fees to access those parks. People would appreciate if those issues were clearly agreed upon in the management plans so that the conditions under which they access those parks at present will not be changed under new arrangements.
I said in my statement that I have concerns about the land councils. I mentioned, from personal experience, concerns I have about the Northern Land Council. I have to admit that the land councils would not be regarded in the general community as open and transparent bodies. They are fairly difficult to access at times, even for people who are Aboriginal, unless you are part of the inner core. I know that people on the fringe find it difficult at times to get answers from them and, where there are disputes, it is not always easy to have their opinion conveyed as a legitimate one.
A select committee would provide an opportunity for people who have an alternative point of view. The member for Macdonnell mentioned the traditional owner for Arltunga who said he has not been consulted or represented in these discussions. A select committee would at least be allowed to investigate whether the processes we are putting in place have ensured that the traditional owners of these lands are the correct traditional owners, or at least question that by asking questions of the land councils. If these people come to us and claim to be a traditional owner, at least the committee could ask the land councils in an open forum. I know there are some matters regarding traditional ownership that should be dealt with in camera, but there are other matters that could be discussed in an open forum.
That would give the community a sense of security or a belief that, if we are going down this path or joint management and Aboriginal ownership of these parks, we have ensured that we have spoken to and reached agreement with the right people. Surely, that should be something over which we do not want to make a mistake. Once mistakes have been made about traditional owners, I can tell you from personal experience, it is extremely hard to reverse. I hope that those matters are clear and have been sorted out before any arrangements have been made.
I hope we can work through these issues. It is one issue concerning land rights that has caused much division in the community at times. There are certainly many accusations around election time about the race card, etcetera. I hope that we can genuinely work together to come up with a bipartisan proposal in relation to the management of these parks. We were given a difficult proposition on how to deal with the parks after the Ward decision, and we have to reach a way of managing those parks.
It would be legitimate enough to say that many people would like to know how much it will cost. I do not have a problem with that but, as part of the open and transparent processes, people would like to know how much it will cost because that money goes back to Aboriginal people to help them improve their livelihood in their communities. I do not have a problem. I would much rather see money go to them than a bunch of lawyers. I am not knocking lawyers because they have to feed their families, too. However, if we are going to spend money, I would rather see this money go back into helping Aboriginal people become more self-sufficient.
As I said, I see some advantages in the system we have. Probably the one park that convinced me was the Gregory National Park which, as you know, at the moment is split into a small narrow park and has a very large section further to the west. I believe the arrangement will be that that centre part will become part of the park. It will be interesting to know what access we have to that centre park. These things I would like to hear about in the debate.
I know the management plans are going to come back. I hope they do not come back as 38 management plans in one day, and be told that we have three days to look at them all. I hope this parliament has time to look at management plans …
Ms Martin: One by one, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. … because that is what I believe is very important. If we have concerns about the management plans, we really need to make sure, as parliamentarians, we read those management plans and discuss them with the public - whether it is the bushwalkers, the tourism industry, the fishing industry, whatever. I believe we have to make sure that these management plans are looked at by us and discussed with the public. I have a lot more faith if we have the ability to do that and come back to the parliament and say we do or we do not agree with these management plans, because we have the power to say we do not agree with them, as a parliament, and they may have to go back for renegotiation.
The select committee has some benefits. It may clear the air from the point of view of the public. I have spoken to people about the parks issue, and explained the difficulty that the government has. I see and tell them of the benefits for many of these Aboriginal communities. Most of these parks are remote. Not many of these parks are that close to major areas. These people in these areas do have limited opportunities to create some work and a certain amount of independence where they live. I believe it is important for those people. I have spoken to people about the issue such as we would gain some more land and, in many cases, Aboriginal people will have more work opportunities.
Yes, we will not have land controlled by the Crown; it will be a leasehold arrangement as we have in Nitmiluk, which I believe is 99 years. We have a similar agreement in Djukbinj, and I have not seen any particular problems, although one would have to say that there are a lot of concerns about Katherine Gorge National Park, when it was first mooted that it was going to be leased back from the Aboriginal traditional owners. Again, you do not have to be too old to remember signs up and down the main road to the national park protesting about the changeover. A lot of people felt some of those concerns.
I look back now – do we have a good situation, has anything changed, have we been disadvantaged? I do not think so. Perhaps in Uluru, there has certainly been a move to restrict a little more than people would like. Perhaps the member for Macdonnell has raised some legitimate issues about people having more control and, therefore, there is less access. How you handle that in these negotiations, I do not know. I am certainly not a lawyer who has land experience. However, he did raise an issue which at least was a reasonable issue.
It is a complicated issue, an emotional issue, but it is an issue, I believe, as mature Territorians and mature parliamentarians, we have to deal with head-on. We have to make sure everybody has a fair go and a fair say and, in the end, we hope we come up with a solution to this matter which will be for the benefit of everybody. Also, we must not forget, a benefit for the environment, because national parks, generally speaking, are places to preserve the environment.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the motion. I also support the model the government is putting forward. However, we need to make sure the processes are fair, and the best way to do that is through a select committee talking to the public.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank contributors to this debate: the members for Brennan, Macdonnell and Nelson. I acknowledge the Chief Minister’s contribution and the proposition that we place before this Chamber; that is; to debate issues of primary concern to the Territory both now and into the future - the issue of leaving a legacy. I am loathe, in time to come, to reflect back on a decision that has been made in this Chamber that I had an opportunity to contribute to, and allowed the opportunity to pass.
I must say that what we have proposed is a mechanism whereby the whole community can be taken forward on this matter. We, largely I believe, are at a crossroads, and our whole community needs to be brought to this new place. We are all Territorians, indigenous or not; those who have come recently and those who have been here for generation upon generation. We are faced with the most difficult of conundrums that is tied up to the most emotive of issues; that is, the ownership of land. Even the concept of ownership is a difficult one. What frightens me more than anything is the Chief Minister’s own words, which I find rather embarrassing. If you reach out and touch the argument or touch that precious position that the Chief Minister is holding onto, she will barb up and attack the person who dares to criticise …
Ms Martin: Just your lies, Terry, that is all!
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! The Chief Minister well knows that if she wants to accuse the Leader of the Opposition of being a liar she can do so by substantive motion, otherwise she should not use the unparliamentary language.
Dr Lim: And she should withdraw.
Ms MARTIN: I withdraw, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker.
Mr MILLS: I will continue on and will not be drawn into such a low level of activity. The higher issue here is that we, as a whole community, need to be taken forward. That is why we propose a means whereby the wider community can be taken to a new place.
A lot of this is fuelled, in fact, by approaches I have had from traditional owners. I am sure that the Chief Minister would wish to spin the position that we take in ways that suit her political agenda. However, there are very deep and serious issues here that I am sure, with the approach the Chief Minister is taking, she would not have the capacity to hear or understand or have sensitivity to. There are a range of traditional owners who have made an approach to me as I have travelled around the Territory, that have really staggered me. I have learnt a lot. There are many people out there - indigenous and non-indigenous - who are unsure and, even worse than that, very afraid of the process that has been put in place and where it is actually going to take us.
For that reason, I am concerned that the government, with its superior numbers and inferior attitude in regards to this debate, can so easily wipe this off. I am very concerned with the capacity of this government to spin and to run this argument in a way that creates the impression of consultation. I am afraid that the approach of this government and this Chief Minister, and the attitude she brings to bear on this matter, has brought the very concept of consultation into disrepute.
To actually create a solution to a problem, and then decide upon that and go out and, basically, sell it with the vast resources you have up there on the fifth floor and other places that you have resources centred - to spin and run your line is the greatest concern. I am more and more being put into the position where I believe I will be standing up for Territorians right across the Territory - and that includes traditional owners who have expressed their grave concerns about this very process.
For that matter, I urge members opposite who can hear and understand what I am saying - and there are some who would - that we are faced with a most difficult of issues. If this Chief Minister can attach herself to a process that is called consultation - when this community discovers what is being done and an opportunity has been missed of a significant magnitude, this will be a moment that the Territory will live to regret.
I urge members opposite to support this motion so that we have the capacity to take our entire community forward and, in the interest of all Territorians - I say that deliberately; all Territorians - that we will be able to come to a place where we will be able to walk confidently - 99 years plus into the future - with some certainly. We are not just talking about guaranteed access and political point scoring; we are talking about a responsible approach to the most difficult of issues. I am urging members opposite to support our motion.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Pool Fencing Scheme – Refer to Public Accounts Committee
Pool Fencing Scheme – Refer to Public Accounts Committee
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move –
- That the Assembly refer to the Public Accounts Committee for investigation and report into the following matters:
its amendment;
- (b) the cost to the Northern Territory of the pool fencing scheme after its major
amendment;
- (c) the cost of all advertising and promotion of the scheme;
(d) the costs incurred by Territorians, who attempted to comply with the schemes, that have not
been recoverable under compensation packages because of the criteria applied by government.
- And the committee report to the Assembly by the February sittings in 2005.
I am aware of the volume of business we have on the Notice Paper this evening. I and the opposition will endeavour to keep this matter as brief as we possibly can. Nevertheless, it needs to have some debate.
The thrust of this motion is, basically, to find out how much the taxpayers of the Northern Territory have had to pay for the government’s approach to pool fencing legislation in the Northern Territory. We already have had evidence tonight on repeated occasions that, when we try to extract from government the costs of things, the government becomes very evasive indeed. I am curious to see whether they are going to be honest about the amount that this has cost Territorians today.
I am aware of the amount that is outlined in Budget Paper No 3, but those are merely speculative amounts. There is another element in this matter, the area that paragraph (c) of this motion is interested in, which I wish to dwell on the longest.
However, paragraph (a) of this motion wants a reference to the Public Accounts Committee for investigation and report into the amount of the original pool fencing scheme prior to the original major amendments. That is the cost to Territorians applying or getting pool inspectors or pool police employed, and getting the whole structure put into place which was done very hastily and very quickly without a great deal of thought as to the consequences of how the system was going to work.
Secondly, paragraph (b) requires a referral to the Public Accounts Committee for investigation and report into the cost of the Northern Territory Pool Fencing Scheme after its major amendment. We have an initial scheme which we want the Public Accounts Committee to have a reference to look into. Then there is the cost of the scheme afterwards in terms of how much the changes have cost in the added bonuses for people who suffered under the original scheme; for the extra payments that have been made to people; and the provisions of other services surrounding the provision of the new system, including education programs and those sorts of things. It is a fair request as a matter of the public account as to how much they cost.
Also, in paragraph (c) is where I will pause for the longest amount of time: because of all advertising and promotions scheme, the cost incurred by Territorians who attempted to comply with the scheme which have not been recoverable under compensations packages because of the criteria applied by government.
The problem with much of the cost is the hidden cost that has been inflicted on Territorians. This was the great complaint of Mr Loadman, who felt that he should have been allowed much greater powers to appeal the process in relation to pool fencing schemes, and clearly was dissatisfied. He took the extraordinary steps of writing to all members of parliament about the shortcomings of the appeals process. Costs have been incurred by people who prepared themselves to comply with legislation that subsequently changed or, for whatever reason, purchased fencing and material in an effort to comply with the legislation. The government will restore funding under certain criteria, but there are many people falling through the net. I hear repeatedly around the traps that many people feel hard done by.
The appeals process under the legislation is nothing shy of useless because it does not go beyond government; it does not have any body or authority overseeing issues in relation to providing compensation for people. Therefore, if the government says, ‘No, forget it’, that is it, end of story. It is worthwhile doing an investigation and calling for submissions, as the Public Accounts Committee is capable of doing, and visiting various towns to determine how many people had to buy all sorts of material to comply with the legislation. If they had chosen not to comply, it would not have cost them a brass razoo in the end because their pool, under the new pool fencing scheme, would have easily complied with the much lower standard that was applied by government.
A lot of these people will not be able to satisfy any of the criteria the government introduced, and will be out of pocket. This is effectively a form of indirect tax. Because the government has set minimum standards, Territorians have gone out and spent money to comply. The standards were then removed. That expenditure must be accountable. This parliament should be able to determine from Territorians how much indirect tax they paid and how much they suffered under this legislation.
I am not belittling the importance of child safety or pool fencing. What I am doing is asking the question the government does not want to answer: what are you going to do for those Territorians who fall outside the criteria? The short answer is: nothing. If the government refuses to refer this to the Public Accounts Committee, the short answer will continue to be: nothing, and they do not want to know.
I want to know. As I said in the long debate on reviewing this legislation, these people have a right to compensation from this Labor government for being forced into a situation on which this government changed its mind. You can almost admire a government for saying: ‘Right, we are going to take a really hard decision and stick to it’, because that has a certain amount of credibility attached to it. However, this government did not do that. This government realised that there was a lot of heat in this for them, so they stepped away from it. People who are generally law abiding tried very hard to try to meet the standards set by government, and those people are going to miss out. That is sad because we are never going to know, unless the government supports this motion, how much that is worth to Territorians - how much Territorians have been slugged as a result of this government’s mismanagement of this issue.
I would like to know if the government is - in the interest of being open, honest and accountable, which they said they would be - going to find out from Territorians exactly how much they had to pay to meet their failed attempt to impose this legislation on people.
I urge honourable members to turn a benevolent eye upon this motion. I urge the government to send this to a Public Accounts Committee so they can examine what they have wrought on the community of the Northern Territory, so that they might try and find a way to settle this issue which still has a lot of people feeling very unsettled. I urge government to support this motion, give the reference to the Public Accounts Committee, and let us find exactly how much this has cost Territorians, both directly and indirectly.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the government will not be supporting this motion. Might I add, if the member for Macdonnell has concerns, then he has available to him the opportunity to contact my office and to pass on details of people out there who have all these concerns that he says they have, so that I can then forward them to the Swimming Pool Safety Section and have those concerns looked at so that we can make people more comfortable in informing them how the legislation applies and what the processes are.
The administration of the earlier Swimming Pool Fencing Act and the current Swimming Pool Safety Act have already been subjected to scrutiny by this House in a review conducted by my department through two Estimates Committees. As always, information will be available in the department’s annual report. The estimates process, just a few months ago, provided the opportunity for members to examine in detail the costs, and to inquire into any matter relating to the administration that gave them concern. There is nothing to hide, and nothing that has been hidden in the way that this legislation has been administered. I must say that, after six months of the new act, we have achieved a considerable amount and the act is functioning very well.
The government believes that it is important to encourage pool owners to comply with the appropriate standards. The new grants scheme provides pool owners with a significant incentive to ensure their pool complies with the new legislation sooner rather than later. The Northern Territory is the only jurisdiction which provides pool owners with an incentive to upgrade their pools. The government believes that the new grants scheme is the best method to maximise compliance by pool owners with the standards as quickly as possible. Pool owners who have already done the right thing and upgraded their pool will be eligible for the grants scheme upon application. The ongoing education and awareness campaign will encourage people to upgrade their pool to the appropriate standard, and that they maintain compliance.
I receive weekly updates from the Water Safety Branch on progress, and I am more than happy to share this information with this House. A total of 6599 applications for compliance certificates were received under the previous Swimming Pool Fencing Act 2002 between 1 January 2003 and 15 March 2004 when the new Swimming Pool Safety Act came into effect. Since 15 March 2004, there have been a further 1259 applications made for either the new community safety standard or the modified Australian Standard.
Since 1 January 2003, when the original act was introduced, there has been a total of 7646 pools inspected. As of today, there are just 182 inspections outstanding. Since 15 March 2004, when the new legislation came into effect, 919 certificates have been issued for pools that meet the modified Australian Standards. Provisional compliance certificates have been issued in 110 cases. These occur where a purchaser agrees to take on the responsibility of upgrading and enclosing within an agreed time following a sale. A further 302 interim compliance certificates have been issued to property owners who intend to install a new swimming pool. There have been 174 community safety standard acknowledgement notices issued where occupiers have certified their own pools. A further 51 provisional notices have been issued to allow purchasers to take on the responsibility of certification, and 65 temporary notices to allow property transfers in circumstances such as deceased estates or divorces.
There were 1467 grants to a total value of $1 053 285 processed until 15 March 2004. These grants have been made to pool owners, who have been provided with financial assistance to make their pool safer under the Swimming Pool Fencing Act 2002, between 1 January 2003 and 15 March 2004. Since 15 March 2004, there have been 1451 pool owners provided with financial assistance to make their pool safer. These two figures provide a clear indication that the new legislation is working as intended. Almost the same number of people have upgraded their pool fences in the period since 15 March 2004, as occurred in the previous 15 months. The total value of all grants processed since 15 March 2004, including top-up to existing grants, is $1 884 358.
Whilst the member for Macdonnell would have you believe that I am the pool god of the Northern Territory, and that the legislation was designed particularly to make the government not responsible, the statistics speak for themselves. In short, there are 5277 swimming pools that now provide a higher standard of safety for children than they did less than two years ago. Compare that, if you will, with the situation that the opposition presided over when it had the responsibilities. The Northern Territory had the worst drowning in private swimming pools statistics in the southern hemisphere - not Australia, the southern hemisphere. Children under five living in the northern suburbs of Darwin were 30 times more likely to drown in a backyard swimming pool than die from meningococcal.
The Swimming Pool Safety Act is meeting its objectives, and the support of the community for the legislation is clear. On that note, I would like to thank the commercial television and radio stations in the Northern Territory for the number of free advertisements provided by them to promote our water safety awareness program; in particular, the high number of free advertisements provided by Channel 7 during the Olympic Games. It is unfortunate the opposition does not show the same level of community support.
It is not necessary to refer this matter to the Public Accounts Committee. To repeat: the administration of the earlier Swimming Pool Fencing Act and the current Swimming Pool Safety Act have already been subjected to scrutiny by this House in a review conducted by my department and through two Estimates Committees. As always, information will be available in the department’s annual report and there will be another opportunity to scrutinise the scheme as part of the Estimates Committee process this government introduced.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, predictably the minister has said: ‘No, I am not going to do it, I do not want to have a look at this’. He tells us what the cost to government is, but that is not what this motion seeks to achieve. What I want to know is the cost to Territorians, and that is two completely different figures, because the government is not going to pay for many Territorians’ decisions to try and comply with the earlier legislation.
If this legislation was so good, why has the minister absolved himself - and included all his department - from criminal and civil liability? The fact is that the government does not want the Public Accounts Committee to look at these issues. The government does not want the real cost to Territorians to become public knowledge. To say that he has supported swimming pools by spending somewhat over $1m in various grants - fine. However, the thrust of this particular motion is to find the real cost to Territorians, those costs that Territorians have incurred and not been compensated, not have any appeals process put in place where they can seek compensation, and not have any single liability or criminal liability rest on the minister’s head.
The minister has absolved himself from any sort of public inquiry. He says this House has the ability to review this. No. This House had ability to look at the departmental review, by his own words. That is not what I want, and that is not what Territorians want. What I would like to know and what should be known is exactly what - without the departmental filter and the minister’s filter - the cost of this legislation has been to Territorians. That is what this is trying to achieve.
The minister has simply sidestepped by saying: ‘Oh well, we are giving money away to those people who comply with our criteria’. That is good. However, there are all those swimming pools that fall outside the criteria for compensation. The minister has also not spoken about other areas where costs have been incurred by Territorians: those people who have not been able to arrange finance and transfer properties; and the cost of excessive monies due to bridging loans because properties could not be transferred. None of that is compensatable. The cost of those materials purchased prior to the change of legislation is not compensatable because the government decides it is not testable. I think it is testable.
What I am asking the Public Accounts Committee to do is to look at all of these aspects that the government has refused to turn its attention to, and has refused to allow the public have look at, or for the public to get any air to make their grievances known. To swan in here and say: ‘You can contact my office any time’ - people do not want to do that because they do not trust this government and this minister. They would, however, trust a parliamentary committee which is independent of government. But this government is not interested in relation to parliamentary committees and being open, honest and accountable which they promised Territorians. What they are interested in is covering their backsides.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Sessional Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development – Referral for Disposal of Nuclear and Biological Waste
Sessional Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development – Referral for Disposal of Nuclear and Biological Waste
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Acting Madam Deputy Speaker, I move:
- That the Assembly refer to the Sessional Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development:
- 1. The disposal and storage of waste products by the Northern Territory government institutions, including:
- (a) storage and disposal of all biological material;
- (b) storage and disposal of body parts;
- (c) storage and disposal of any radioactive material; and
- (d) storage and disposal of any chemical product.
- 2. The committee report to the Assembly by the February sittings 2005.
All of us value the environment - particularly here in the Northern Territory where we live - which is recognised worldwide as being one which is almost pristine. From our environment we gain the advantages of good health and spiritual wellbeing from the beauty of it and the places that we can go to which are isolated. We gain from the economics aspects of our environment. Many people in our community have been able to capitalise well on this with regards to fishing and tourism. Of course, one of the most important aspects of the environment for all of us is the fact that it is a legacy which we leave to the children of the Northern Territory, and something that we should take very good care and be very mindful of.
Events in recent times have turned our attention particularly to the issue of the disposal of potentially harmful waste. These issues have included where the Commonwealth, states and territories will store their medium- and low-level radioactive waste. All members would be aware of the situation which has seen the federal government make a decision now that, rather than having one place for storage of radioactive waste material in Australia, all states and territories must now be responsible for storage of their own waste. That is something that we need to be across in the Territory, and we need to plan for the future.
Another issue has been what the impact of a national centre of excellence in pandemic and bio-terrorism containment will mean for the Territory, and Darwin in particular. This has been a Labor promise and there have been details in the NT News on this matter.
These are important issues, and the CLP opposition believes that, as a parliament, we should refer them to the Sessional Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. This is a committee that has the resources to be able to inquire, in a non-partisan way, into these important matters.
With regard to part (a) of the motion, which deals with the disposal of biological material, the Labor promise to set up a research centre in Darwin poses concerns. I am now going to read most of the article on the matter from the NT News of 22 September 2004. Members will see, once I have tabled this, that the candidate for Solomon, Jim Davidson, stands behind and is supportive of Kim Carr, who is a federal member of parliament. I quote:
- The Territory would be the front line in the nation’s defence against bio-terrorism and pandemic disease
under a $60m Labor plan announced yesterday.
Federal ALP science spokesman, Senator Kim Carr, said a Labor government would establish a national
centre of excellence in pandemic and bio-terrorism containment.
He said it would see up to 80 top scientists and a further 80 postgraduate students working to prevent
potential biological terrorist attacks and the outbreak of exotic diseases.
‘We are under-prepared,’ he said in Darwin yesterday.
‘We have seen, in the case of pandemics in terms of the avian flu, that we really aren’t prepared to deal with
a major outbreak.
‘And there are a whole range of nasty bugs out there that can be put in our water supply. They can be
airborne and, of course, can be used in a range of ways against the community.
‘The bio-security of the nation is as important as other elements of the security of this country’.
Labor has committed $20m to the project and will seek up to $40m from other sources over five years.
The centre will study rapid-spread viruses including SARS, dengue fever, avian flu and biological agents
such as anthrax and smallpox.
It will be headquartered in Darwin and north Queensland, with a possible site being the Australian National
University’s North Australia Research Unit centre in the northern suburbs of Darwin.
Senator Carr said the centre itself would be protected from potential terrorist attacks and nearby residents
would be shielded from possible disease outbreaks by stringent controls.
‘These centres are established under very tight regulations to make sure that the very best in security is
provided,’ he said.
I will finish my quote there. That article raises a number of serious concerns, including the fact that a centre like this is going to have to have on site a number of serious infections in the media that they use for research. They are listed in the article - SARS, dengue fever, avian flu, anthrax and smallpox - as examples of the type of contaminants that will be housed in the northern suburbs.
There are no details as to how the research will be done; whether there will be lab animals that will be infected in the course of research. The fact that the federal member has to even raise those issues - that we need not worry; that there will be protection from terrorist attacks; and the need to shield nearby residents from possible disease outbreaks – in this article should send shivers down the spines of people living in the northern suburbs. I personally cannot think of anywhere more unsuited for such a place to be located. Of course, the local members who are situated in the northern suburbs, because they are all Labor members, have kept very quiet.
I am quite sure that, if it had been a CLP or Liberal government which had proposed such a place to be established in the northern suburbs of Darwin in the next few years, there would have been an absolute outcry from the surrounding local members. However, at this point, as the member for Greatorex says, they have been mum! Shame on them for being mum, because this is not a responsible promise that is being made, and it is going to raise issues of how the biological waste products from an agency like this are going to be dealt with when the time comes. These are the sort of things that the sessional committee could be looking at.
With regards to item (b), the storage of body parts, I discussed this matter with departmental staff during the briefing, for which I would like to thank the minister for providing. In the not-too-distant future, all Northern Territory body parts and human tissue, such as aborted foetuses and amputated limbs, will be frozen and sent to Adelaide for high temperature incinerator disposal. Personally, I do not have a problem with this. However, there may be Territorians who, for cultural or spiritual reasons, are uncomfortable with this. Such consideration should not be taken lightly and, by referring this matter to the Sessional Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, we would provide an opportunity for individuals and community groups to express their views on this delicate matter if they so choose.
With regard to item (c), radioactive material, we are all aware of the recent decision by the Prime Minister not to build a national repository for low- to medium-level radioactive waste and, instead, due to the refusal of all states and territories to host one, each state and territory must now store their own radioactive material. The question is: where will the Territory store ours? This is a question which the sessional committee should decide. They would have the power to ascertain the current and future demands for such storage. They could be given such resources to inquire into where the best place for such a storage area in the Northern Territory would be. I know that, at the moment, one such storage place is right in the heart of Royal Darwin Hospital. Currently, there is a concrete bunker at the hospital in which sits a safe. Inside the safe are items contaminated by radioactive matter, which will remain radioactive for up to 50 more years.
We have to ask ourselves: is it appropriate to store nuclear radioactive waste at Royal Darwin Hospital year after year? I do not know the answer to this; I am not an expert in the field. This is why sending such concerns to the sessional committee is a good idea. What other radioactive waste is there in the Territory? Is it being stored properly? Is it being transported through the Territory? Are there risks? Is it safe? These are important questions which could be answered by an inquiry of the committee. Because we are now at a situation where the Territory has learnt that we will have to store our own waste, and that is why we need to make very careful decisions about this important matter.
With regard to item (d), chemical products, modern life sees the domestic, commercial and industrial areas of our community using vast quantities of chemicals. Many of these chemicals can be detrimental to the environment unless they are disposed of properly. One example is oil. I wonder how well we are coping with the collection of waste oil and its disposal. Are businesses, such as car service places, storing the waste oil and having it taken away for recycling? How well are they doing? Are they doing the right thing? Is it time for a review of this, given the significant increase in the population of the Top End during the past 20 years? This is the sort of thing the committee could consider.
What about the disposal of a particularly dangerous chemicals? Members will recall the unfortunate spill of cyanide on the Tanami Road recently. It was sad to see all the dead birds at the spill. Perhaps they thought it was water and flew in for a drink. It was a very sad photo to see in the paper. What happens with the disposal of these sorts of chemical in the Territory? Questions such as these are being asked all around Australia at the moment. Here in the Territory we have the added concerns of the imminent establishment by Labor of a centre for pandemic and bio-terrorism containment in our northern suburbs - if Labor should win the election on Saturday. These are important matters, and I urge Territory parliamentarians to support this motion so that these matters can be inquired into and we can be informed as to what is happening and what should be done to keep the Territory safe and beautiful.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Environment and Heritage): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to say first that government is opposing this motion. However, before I go through the opposition spokesperson’s motion, I want to clear up what she was saying about the bio-terrorism unit, which is logistically responding to an outbreak. Let us make it clear that no viruses such as SARS and the avian bird flu will be stored or researched anywhere in Darwin. The Howard government is already researching these viruses through its bio-security CRC. This CRC is based at Queensland University and has sites in Geelong, Sydney and Perth. Again, what it is showing is ill-informed scaremongering, and further proof that they will say anything to try and distract from their appalling stance on nuclear waste.
The fact is that it is an ill-conceived, sloppily put together motion. How sloppy? Well, they have asked us to launch an inquiry into disposal of all biological wastes. All biological wastes? What is that - grass clippings, orange peelings? - you name it. However, more on that later. This is a motion put forward by an opposition that would do anything to throw up a smokescreen to hide the fact that the CLP’s federal member for Solomon wants a nuclear waste dump for the Northern Territory. This is a motion that the CLP is trying to use to justify its opposition to our Nuclear Waste Bill.
This is a bill that bans nuclear waste in the Northern Territory, and all the CLP is speak out against it. You have to ask why. It is a simple test: either the opposition wants a nuclear waste dump or they do not. Before he saw the legislation, the Leader of the Opposition called it a political stunt. However, in recent days, he has decided that the threat is so great that the legislation needs to be strengthened. He has realised just how dangerous the member for Solomon’s obligation comments have been. The Leader of the Opposition has not told us how he would strengthen it. If he has inside word for his Liberal colleagues, then he should tell us how they are planning to get around this legislation, and let us know immediately. Help us protect the Territory from the member for Solomon’s obligations, and protect us from the nation’s nuclear waste.
This motion is a distraction designed to divert attention away from the Howard government, which is doing and saying anything on nuclear waste to try and get re-elected. No amount of backsliding on the part of the member for Solomon can hide the fact that, as late as July of this year, Dave Tollner said and I quote:
I think we have an obligation to Australia to store the waste here …
And:
- I think we have a national responsibility to all Australians to store it here.
They are direct quotes from the member for Solomon.
It was immediately after these comments that the Howard government abandoned its plans to build a site in South Australian. As I said, Dave Tollner must be a very proud man in South Australia - and popular. No amount of backsliding will cover up the fact that the member for Solomon gave the green light for John Howard to dump on the Territory. Now he can seek to twist and turn all he likes, but the fact remains Dave Tollner thinks it is the Territory’s obligation to host John Howard’s nuclear waste.
This government takes the contrary view. If the CLP was serious about waste issues, they would have stood side-by-side with Labor and said no to John Howard’s plans. The opposition, on one hand, says that the bill is not necessary, the Coalition government has ruled out the Territory and, on the other hand, says that it must be strengthened.
However, how can we trust them? Just look at their form. As recently as June this year, the dump was absolutely going to be in South Australia according to Peter McGauran, the federal Science Minister. However, in July of this year, according to the Prime Minister, it was absolutely not going to be in South Australia but could be anywhere else on Commonwealth land. By September, it was not going to be anywhere on the mainland; it would be offshore, according to the federal environment minister. However, still the minister refused to rule out the Northern Territory islands. All this has led me to wonder whether Antarctica would be next on the list of John Howard’s hit list. But Dave Tollner was already one step ahead of us. On 29 July this year, the Sydney Morning Herald quoted the member for Solomon saying John Howard had not ruled out anywhere, including the Antarctica.
What of Mr Campbell, the federal environment minister? Surely we can trust him when he says: ‘No need to worry, the dump will be on an island somewhere’. What kind of island would they be looking at? One off the coast of New South Wales, one in the Barrier Reef? I do not think so. What kind of island will they pick? A remote one and a scarcely populated one? The Territory islands stand out.
What we have here is the bizarre logic of the CLP falsely asserting that we cannot handle our own waste but, at the same time, refusing to join the fight against bringing masses of nuclear waste here. What we get from the opposition is a hastily put together, poorly drafted motion to try to hide from the real issue. This motion is so vague and open-ended in its term of reference as to be completely impractical. As I mentioned, the opposition wants the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee to report on all biological material stored and disposed of by Territory government institutions. Let us just see where this would take the committee.
The term ‘all biological material’ could mean anything from kitchen scraps to garden cuttings to influenza vaccines. Does the opposition seriously think that it is a matter of public importance for this Assembly to be investigating how many chicken bones our public servants throw out after lunch? I think not. I do not believe that even the opposition are that silly. However, it is what their motion suggests, and it is just proof of how little thought and effort they have put into this. It is proof that they hurriedly put this together to try to hide from their appalling stance on the nuclear waste dumps.
Ms Carter: No, ask them about this one.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I listened to you, now you listen to me.
Dr Lim: Well, you are reading it out. Why don’t you just give us a copy and be done with it?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Why don’t you stop bleating?
Dr Lim: Give us a copy and we can read it ourselves.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Greatorex.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: The silliness of this motion runs even deeper. The referral to the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee contained in this motion lacks any purpose other than to report on storage and disposal. The practical benefits of any such inquiry are, therefore, completely obscure. Report on what? Is the committee to determine how much waste is generated by government institutions; how and where it is stored; the method by which it is disposed of; or where it goes? A little clarity here would go along way.
If the opposition exercised their minds a little more and took a little more care when they drafted this motion, it may make a little more sense. Even if we put the sloppiness in the drafting of this motion aside, there is no real issue or problems identified by the opposition that would warrant support of this motion. Where is the environmental catastrophe looming on our doorstep because of the waste produced by government agencies? There are at least eight acts placing controls of storage and disposal of the waste identified in this motion. I will just list them here for the benefit of the opposition: there is the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act, the Water Act, the Public Health Act, the Mining Management Act, the Radioactive Ores and Concentrates (Packaging and Transport Act, the Radiation (Safety Control) Act soon to be replaced by the Radiation Protection Act, the Dangerous Goods Act and the Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act.
Government subjects its own agencies to the controls contained in these acts, just like any private company. If the opposition felt so strongly on waste produced by government agencies, why was the incinerator at the Royal Darwin Hospital not referred to the Environment Committee of this Assembly when the CLP was in government? It is not as if the Environment Committee was overloaded with work. It dealt with three issues in all the years of the CLP government. Why did not the member for Greatorex, who lauds his achievement as chairman of this committee, find time to investigate this issue?
The incinerator at the Royal Darwin Hospital was a risk to the environment, and your government knew this but did nothing. It took the Martin Labor government to commit $1.6m to replace the ageing incinerator with the state-of-the-art autoclave which sterilises the waste by using high temperature steam, and then shreds it to ensure its complete safety. It is then removed to the Darwin City Council’s Shoal Bay waste disposal site. The incinerator will now be removed for a low-load boiler that will supply the clinical areas with steam.
For many years, the diesel-fuelled incinerator was fired up on a daily basis to destroy medical and related waste. Not any more. The incinerator was used for the very last time a fortnight ago. No longer will a fire be deliberately lit within the confines of the main ward block at RDH in equipment that was subject to opening and closing many times each day. As a result of the efforts of this government, the risk and safety profile of RDH will be greatly improved. No longer will toxic gases be emitted to the atmosphere around the hospital campus and surrounding suburbs because of an ageing, shoddy incinerator. In comparison with the incinerator, the emissions from the small diesel boiler will be very small. The low-load boiler will also allow a large boiler in the services building to be shut down each night, resulting in some cost savings, less pollution and more efficient use of hospital resources because less time will be spent on larger machinery maintenance programs.
We have shut the incinerator down, but the opposition still does not get it. We have the opposition and the member for Solomon publicly spruiking this notion that radioactive waste is being incinerated. Where do they get their information – from reports commissioned when they were in government? As recently as 29 July this year, the Leader of the Opposition said on radio:
- The question I’ve been endeavouring to get up is: where is it disposed of, and how is it disposed of at the
moment? The answer to that question is this: there is an incinerator in the northern suburbs and it is burnt
in that incinerator.
Wrong! Your shoddy incinerator has now been decommissioned by this government and, while such practices may have occurred under your watch, it is not happening under ours.
The Territory produces a very small quantity of short-lived, low-level waste from the privately-run nuclear medicine facility at Royal Darwin Hospital. This waste is placed in a secure storeroom for several days, where the radiation levels decay to normal backgrounds levels. It is, therefore, considered to be no longer radioactive and is disposed of safely with other clinical waste from Royal Darwin Hospital. No other health facility in the Northern Territory produces radioactive wastes from medicines. Therefore, categorically, no radioactive waste is incinerated.
It is one thing to be living in the past but at least get your facts right. The opposition clearly has a mindset here. They cannot get beyond their own dodgy practices when they were in government. They cannot conceive that a government may actually care about people’s health and the environment and choose to do something about it.
In proposing this motion, the opposition is obviously ignorant of information that is already in the public domain and which, with little effort, they could obtain for themselves. They have also listed chemical waste in this motion. Again, which of the myriad of chemical substances to which they refer, I am not sure. Nevertheless, information on chemical waste disposed of into the environment is already publicly available if the opposition cared to look. The Territory participates in the National Pollutant Inventory, a national program that all states and territories implement. The inventory requires major waste generators to report on their emissions to land, water and air. This information is made available each year on the Internet.
Territory government agencies emitting waste to the environment make their reports to this program just like any private business. The Martin Labor government has made reporting to the National Pollutant Inventory mandatory. It is a legal requirement with penalties for failure to comply. What was the CLP’s approach? Voluntary reporting. You could report if you wanted to, but, hey, no worries if you do not.
If this lazy opposition bothered to log on to the web site, they would see the reports on emission from Royal Darwin Hospital and Power and Water Corporation. Indeed, if the opposition cared to look at reports for the previous years, they would see that the CLP’s dodgy incinerator at Royal Darwin Hospital emitted into the environment, among other pollutants, mercury, lead, carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide - waste which will not pollute our environment under this government.
I have listed the legislation dealing with waste. However, since this motion is really to divert attention from John Howard’s plans for a waste dump, I will reiterate that the Territory has a very comprehensive range of acts that deal with radioactive materials from the mining industry, and our own very small quantities of low-level radioactive waste for non-mining activities. All aspects of mining, including processing of ores, containment, storage and disposal of products and waste materials within a mine site, are controlled through the Mining Management Act. Mining management plans required under this act address the engineering, environmental health and safety aspects of a mining project. The mining management plan provides for the management of any radioactive substances that are subject of, or part of, a mining process. Mining management plans establish the standards for reporting the performance of a mine. They are reviewed, updated and audited on a routine basis.
As members well know, the Ranger uranium mine in Kakadu is the only facility currently operating in the Northern Territory that deals with radioactive materials within the terms of the Mining Management Act. Any waste generated through the mining process, including material that is radioactive, is disposed of on the mine site. Northern Territory WorkSafe regulate the transport and storage of the radioactive products from the Ranger mine, through the controls established in the Radioactive Ores and Concentrates (Packaging and Transport) Act. In order to ensure the necessary standards are maintained, the transport company involved in the transport process have thorough risk assessments and safety procedures in place. Northern Territory WorkSafe undertake safety management inspections. It has implemented safety induction training for employees on the safe handling of uranium, including the use of appropriate personal protective equipment through to implementation of the company’s emergency procedures. As well as the general safe packaging and transport of the materials, NT WorkSafe also issues manager’s occupational licences for these purposes under the same act.
Where deficiencies in legislative controls have been identified, it has been this government that has fixed them, through the new Radiation Protection Act. The current Radiation (Safety Control) Act sat on the books since self-government in 1978. Within three years of coming to government, Labor has completely overhauled these controls, introducing new legislation which reflects modern best practice.
This government has always accepted the need to properly manage our own small quantities of low-level radioactive waste, but we do not accept John Howard’s plans to dump his nuclear waste on the Territory. That is why we are also about to …
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move so much of standing orders be suspended as to allow the minister to conclude her important informative remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: That is why we are also about to have an act that prevents us from having to deal with the nuclear waste of the rest of the nation. In line with this approach, government has had a systematic look at the storage of radioactive materials in the Territory, and we will continue to do so. I can tell you that, unlike the ill-informed scaremongering from the opposition and the member for Solomon, our examination of existing practices indicate that radioactive substances are well managed.
If the opposition have any doubts about this they should go and talk to their federal colleague, Senator Scullion. Last week, at a forum to discuss environmental issues in the lead-up to the federal election, Senator Scullion stated he had been fully briefed, had personally inspected the small amount of radioactive waste stored in the Territory, and he was satisfied that it was safe and well managed. ‘State of the art’, I am told was the term he used.
Current controls require all organisations which use, possess, sell, manufacture, handle, purchase, or dispose of radioactive substances and irradiating apparatus to be licensed. Licences are issued on an annual basis. Non-mining radioactive substances in the Territory are enclosed within scientific equipment. A range of industrial machines utilise radiation sources for purposes such as assessing bores, measuring the density of materials, and even some industrial smoke detectors. These instruments are disposed of overseas by manufacturers, and are no longer accepted by the two licensed secure store facilities in the Territory. Under current legislation, a total of 204 licences were issued during the period of July 2003 to September 2004. This includes both radioactive substances and the apparatus such as the X-ray units that can omit radiation under controlled circumstances, but which are not radioactive substances in themselves.
Of the 61 licensees based in the Northern Territory, the majority are held by the private sector. Thirty-two of the private sector licences relate to the licensing of employees for the handling and use of radioactive substances. Operators of industrial X-ray units are also licensed in this category. The remaining 23 private sector licences are issued to corporate entities. These organisations are responsible for ensuring that all their employees meet the required conditions of the act and regulations. Six licences have been issued to the Northern Territory government departments for utilisation of density gauges, soil moisture gauges and one medical isotope. Specifically, the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development holds three licences; the Department of Health and Community Services holds two; and one is held by the Department of Employment, Education and Training. Only two of the 204 licences issued in the Northern Territory under current controls relate to radioactive waste. One of these is the secure storage facility at RDH; the other is a store utilised and maintained by the Department of Business, Industry and Resource and Development as storage for 15 industrial gauges containing a closed radioactive material. This system of licensing provides control of information about the nature, distribution and management of radioactive materials, including radioactive waste, in the Northern Territory. With the commencement of the Radiation Protection Act, these controls will be strengthened further.
The scaremongering by the opposition is all the more regrettable, given that the Department of Health recently provided the members for Port Darwin and Greatorex a briefing on waste issues for the health sector. The opposition already knows that the NT produces a very small quantity of short-lived low-level waste from nuclear medicine, and that radioactive waste is not incinerated. The opposition already knows that the Northern Territory has the lowest volume of low-level radioactive waste in Australia - about two cubic metres - which is safely and securely stored at Royal Darwin Hospital.
The opposition also knows that general clinical waste from Top End hospitals and a range of private clinical providers is treated at Royal Darwin Hospital in an autoclave unit. Any waste that cannot be autoclaved is centrally collected and transported interstate via refrigerated transport for incineration. This occurs on a monthly basis. All clinical waste from Alice Springs and Tennant Creek is similarly sent to Adelaide. If this government’s vigilant approach turns up a problem, it is fixed. We will have improved legislative controls to assist, and we do not need a committee to do the work already done by government.
Finally, the subject matter of this motion clearly relates to issues that are beyond the responsibilities or concerns of the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee; particularly public health and safety. This motion fails on a number of counts. It is sloppy and poorly drafted as to be of absolutely no use in the important work undertaken by the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee. It seeks to have the committee investigate issues that are beyond its charter. It attempts to divert attention away from the opposition’s failure to stand up to John Howard’s plans to dump on the Territory. Finally, it assumes that this government has simply carried on with the shoddy practices of the past when they were in government when, in fact, the Martin Labor government has instituted real improvements through the Radiation Protection Act and the closing down of the incinerator at Royal Darwin Hospital. For these reasons, the government will not be supporting this motion.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, we will continue the fight against nuclear waste in the Territory and keep the Territory’s environment pristine.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, what diatribe! Thirty minutes of well read out speech written by a public servant quoting all the regulations - the book. That public servant will make a better minister for environment than you, member for Arafura. What a pathetic performance from a minister who is supposed to be in control of the environment. For 30 minutes, you lambasted a member of parliament when he is trying to ensure and reassure Territorians that the Howard government is not going to impose a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory.
That was clearly stated by minister Ian Campbell, the Minister for the Environment. He said it over and over again when he was interviewed on 30 September on 8DDD. He said very clearly that it was not going to happen, and gave an undertaking that it was not going to happen. What happens? The Labor party gets up and starts to scaremonger. I listened to the member for Lingiari on the ABC just recently, and he was hysterical about the whole thing. What is true is that there is not going to be one here.
Then what? On 22 September, there was a Territory Labor Party election advertisement spoken by the NT Chief Minister, Clare Martin, in which she said:
- The Territory is a great place to live and visit, with clean and unspoilt environment. That is why my government
is fighting to make sure Australia’s nuclear waste is not dumped in the Territory …
That is the same day when the minister declared, unequivocally, there was not going to be a dump:
- Labor’s Jim Davidson will put the Territory first in Canberra and work with my government to stop any proposed
dump in the Territory …
And so on and so on and so on.
The same day this article appeared in the paper. The Chief Minister wants a pristine Territory, yet she is prepared to support a bio-terrorism research centre in Darwin right smack in the middle of the northern suburbs. The minister said: ‘Oh, do not worry about that, that centre is not going to be a problem. Not a problem. We are not going to have any toxic viruses housed there’. Won’t there? Read that article:
- Senator Carr said the centre itself would be protected from potential terrorist attacks and nearby residents would
be shielded from possible diseases outbreaks by stringent controls.
What is the problem? Are we going to be attacked by terrorists or are we not? Are you worried that those viruses will not escape? If you are going to do research on smallpox, you are going to have smallpox there. If you are going to research anthrax, you are going to have anthrax there. You cannot do research on a computer sitting at a desk; you do not get any results.
Remember the calicivirus and what happened? There were very stringent controls for the calicivirus but it got out. Thank God it was a benign virus against human beings, otherwise we would have had a disaster of humungous proportions. That is where you guys have to start thinking. ‘Bio-terrorism $60m pledge’. That is a lot of money, a lot of research and a lot of viruses. How can you say everything is going to be safe?
This motion talks about sending a reference to the environment committee to look at several issues that need to be closely examined. We talked about disposal of biological material. Obviously, you have to be sensible about it. The minister talked about grass, which is being ridiculous to the extreme. We are talking about hazardous biological material. There are pathology specimens, pus swabs, bacterial swabs, and blood containing pathogens that have been cultured in hospital laboratories. The briefing that I received from officers of Alice Springs Hospital and the Top End assured me, to a large degree, that things are going to be well handled. However, when I asked about blood cultures that are autoclaved and I asked for assurance whether the cultures could be entirely sterilised - remember a blood tube is approximately a centimetre in diameter containing 3 ml, 5 ml or even 10 ml of blood. Being put through a normal autoclave process at 134C under pressure and steam, does not necessarily sterilise that volume of blood.
Sterilising a metal instrument is quite simple. It is metallic and, at worst, it might be coated with a microfilm of bacteria that will be killed by the autoclave process. However, a blood tube may not be. Nobody has bothered to check whether the infection still exists in the post-sterilised blood. That blood, if it is thought to be benign, is buried in a landfill. Minister, you cannot give me a full assurance that the material in the landfill is sterile. You cannot say that. In the Alice Springs Hospital system, some 50% of the waste strain is biological waste, and I assume the same percentage would apply to Royal Darwin Hospital. Many of the waste is just bagged after it has been autoclaved and shoved into the dump in Alice Springs or Shoal Bay in Darwin.
On the second point of storage and disposal of body parts, there are cultural issues involved in that. I do not know how you deal with that; no one spoke to me about that during the briefings. I understand that body parts are triple bagged in plastic bags and stored frozen in plastic containers until there is volume to be transported to Adelaide for incineration in a refrigerated truck. That is because we do not have an incinerator capable of doing it properly. We had to decommission the Alice Springs Hospital’s incinerator, and now this government is decommissioning Royal Darwin Hospital’s incinerator. I hope that you are exploring developing a high temperature incinerator somewhere in the Territory to deal with this waste. You need to look at that. Do not cart it to Adelaide all the time. You are looking at 2000 miles of travel for these body parts. What happens when the trucks break down or the refrigeration breaks down?
Only the third part of the motion deals with radioactive material, and the minister spoke about that. There are two cubic metres of radioactive material in the basement of Royal Darwin Hospital. While she told us it is state-of-the-art technology and we can house it perfectly well, she did not say how long the material will last. I was advised at my briefing that it will last at least four generations of Territorians, if not longer. For the next four generations of Territorians, the Royal Darwin Hospital is going to house at least two cubic metres of radioactive material. Is that a safe? Is a hospital the right place to put it?
Mr Henderson: That is where you used to store it. You had no problems with it when you were in government.
Dr LIM: I am asking you. You are the ones who have decided that you are going to put up such a you-beaut system. Tell us what you are going to do about that.
With regard to chemical product, obviously there is another issue there. The minister for terrorism announced that it was an eco-terrorist who decided to spill or pour all that cyanide on the Tanami Road and then, for 18 months, chased the perpetrator and found that there was no result - absolutely no result. Have you your processing in order nowadays to ensure that we do not have any more such spills and accidents in the Territory that produce so much damage?
The minister spoke about the various acts and regulations that control the handling of waste material of one form or another in the Territory, with responsibility spreading across many departments: DBIRD, WorkSafe, Mines and Energy, Health. I was assured by officers of WorkSafe that the Occupational Health and Safety procedures that they use are similar to those used by other departments, for instance, when they handle radioactive material. Would it not be better if we could have all those departments working under one authority? WorkSafe should be the one to take up all the responsibility and run with that, and be the lead agency to ensure that it is all done properly. That might be a better way to go.
Uranium ore is one issue on which the minister failed to comment. Uranium ore is transported from Ranger uranium mine at least once a month to the port of Darwin. I am advised that the ore is loaded into 44 gallon drums and then loaded into a 40’ container, which is then transferred by road transport to the Port of Darwin where they are then stacked at the port until such time as they can be shipped out of the country. I am not quite sure how well the department is involved with this – it should be Mines and Energy and, hopefully, WorkSafe as well - and how well they police this whole process. You have 44 gallon drums containing oil inside a 40’ container. I ask the question: is there any radiation detectable outside the container?
Mr Henderson: No.
Mr Vatskalis: No, not even outside the drums.
Dr LIM: Do not know the answer - not sure?
Mr Henderson: No, the answer is no.
Dr LIM: The minister was not at the briefing that I was. I can say to the minister, or the ministers who are muttering in the background there, that the answer is: they do not know. No measures have been taken …
Mr Henderson: Wrong! The answer is no.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I think …
Dr LIM: No, I am talking about …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I am speaking now! There has been dialogue across here. Let us talk to the Chair.
Dr LIM: Well, I am talking to the Chair. I am just commenting on the minister’s interjections. He can refute my statement anytime he likes when he speaks. Until then, I maintain that, at my briefing, I was told that no measures have been taken and that they do not know.
I asked another question: when the container are stacked down at the Port of Darwin, side by side, and there will be an aisle in between the containers, what happens to a person who walks through that aisle, surrounded on all sides by the containers of uranium ore? Will the person be irradiated? The answer was: ‘We do not know, no readings have ever been taken’. I asked for readings to be taken specifically and to be reported back to me before this debate took place, but I did not get an answer. That remains unanswered.
I know that some time this month there will be a trial shipment of uranium ore from Roxby Downs to the Port of Darwin. I assume it will be coming on the train - more containers on the train; that is good. I hope that this transhipment by train from Roxby Downs to Darwin goes perfectly normally, and will help in showing that our Port of Darwin is a very useful facility that can cope with such exports also. I look forward to a report from the minister for the environment or transport to tell us how that transhipment was performed and that everything was in order. I look forward to hearing that some time in the November sittings.
The worst part about the whole motion today was listening to the minister responding to the member for Port Darwin. She went through a whole diatribe of getting stuck into the member for Solomon when, indeed, it is the opposition that wants to make sure that we have a good process in place to deal with all the waste that we produce in the Territory - from biological waste to body parts, radioactive materials and chemical products that can prove to be toxic to the environment.
At the end of the day, I suppose we all have to live in this Territory. We are all generators of waste material of one kind or another. Some of the waste material we generate comes from beneficial purposes, whether that be radioisotopes that we use, to having body parts excised or drawn out our bodies for medical reasons. We have to deal with those products very responsibly.
Finally, I would like to close on the matter of the bio-terrorism research centre. It is important to understand that a centre such as this cannot be built in the northern suburbs. This proposition by the federal Labor Party, supported very strongly by the minister of this government, will have it built at the NARU site - the Northern Australian Research Unit - in Tiwi. That is right smack in the middle of the suburbs. That is very close to the Royal Darwin Hospital, where you have a very dense population of people housed in a single building. You do not want to have such facilities so close to people because you are going to expose them to a lot of danger. The Chief Minister said in ad: ‘Oh, we have such a pristine area, we will not have anything that will be detrimental to the Territory’. What were her exact words? ‘The Territory is a great place to live with its clean and unspoilt environment’. Well, if this does not spoil the environment, I do not know what would.
Imagine walking past a centre that says bio-terrorism research centre. You would wonder whether it is safe to walk past the front door. The imagery is enough to say that this is just not on. I suggest to you that, for this Labor government to support the Latham government to build such a facility in the Territory, is just foolish. I look forward to the government saying to the Latham government: ‘No, we cannot have that, or else you put it way out in the boondocks where it will be safe for Northern Territorians. We do not want to have such a facility in our suburbs’.
With those few remarks, I will conclude. It is worthwhile having a reference to the environment committee to look at the whole thing closely. Some of us have had briefings from the officers of various departments to get information that will help us to make up our minds. A select committee would be able to delve into it a lot more closely and be able to institute investigations.
As I said earlier, I was waiting for some responses from officers who gave me the briefing about irradiation of persons who walk down between containers of uranium ore, and that still has to come. A reference to the environment committee would allow the committee to conduct research on this. It would be able to come back to us with appropriate recommendations in parliament, which can then be put to the government for action.
Obviously, one of them will be the development of a high-temperature incinerator somewhere in the Territory that would deal with a lot of our biological waste and, perhaps, even body parts which are now being sent by road to Adelaide in a refrigerated container. Travelling 2000 miles is a long way, and the potential for something happening during transport is obviously higher, the longer the distance you have to travel.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, needless to say, I am disappointed to learn that the government will not support this motion. Instead, the minister has provided us with a speech which essentially said: ‘Trust us, everything is all right and you are very wrong to be quizzing the government and the parliament on what is happening in regards to this issue’.
As far as I and the opposition is concerned, there was value in having a bipartisan look at the issues of waste disposal here in the Northern Territory because, for example with regards to biohazards, we Territorians have had dropped on us this Labor proposal to build a bio-terrorism laboratory in the northern suburbs of Darwin. This will be bang smack in the middle of the suburbs. One of the minor things that will occur, of course, is that property values in the vicinity of that laboratory will plummet, because who on earth is going to want to have their house or property against something like that?
The other thing, of course, is that Darwin - in case you have forgotten - is subject to cyclones. How is that going to cope when we get a whopping great cyclone coming through the place and you have a lab full of petri dishes and the like swarming with bugs and things like SARS, dengue – what else have we here? - anthrax and the like. Oh, that will be nice. It is disappointing that we cannot have a look at that.
The minister has given us a response of ‘Look, do not worry’, pat on the head, there is going to be no problems with regard to this laboratory and the fact that it might cause some problems with infecting the local inhabitants. Well, if that is the case, why on earth did your Labor person, Kim Carr, make the comment that ‘residents would be shielded from possible disease outbreaks’? That is handy. On one side we have Kim Carr saying: ‘You will be shielded from disease outbreaks’ and, on the other side we have the minister assuring us that there will be no such things kept in this laboratory.
Well, I have to wonder how on earth do you study something like bio-terrorism with - I quote - ‘80 top scientists’. What on earth are 80 top scientists going to be doing in there – playing dominoes or something like that? They are going to be looking through their microscopes. They are going to be injecting small furry animals with diseases. These things are going to be here in Darwin in the northern suburbs and, quite frankly, it is beyond me to understand why this Labor government even cooked up this idea, let alone supported it. I seek leave to table this newspaper article.
Leave granted.
Ms CARTER: That is that particular issue and that one should be going to the environment committee to be looked at and ticked off. Maybe it is true. Maybe they are going to have this lab in the middle of the northern suburbs that will not have any infective organisms in it. I doubt it. I cannot trust the minister on that statement. Prove it to us. Put it to the committee and see what happens. Maybe all my dreams come true and Labor will not win on Saturday and we will not have to worry about it.
On another matter; the issue of waste things like body parts. I do not recall the minister really touching on the issue of how Territorians feel about body parts, foetuses or things like that, being transported interstate for disposal. There is an opportunity there to ask them about that and even to let them know about it.
Nuclear we have discussed. The Australian Prime Minister and his government have given assurance that the Northern Territory is not going to house a site for national nuclear disposal, and CLP support that, just as I am sure you do. You should cease this furphy. You get very upset about politicking and people doing things like that to issues like this coming up to elections, and here you are doing it. You should be ashamed of yourself because you carry yourself as though you are holier than thou on these sorts of things. You know it is not going to happen, but you keep trying to frighten Territorians into believing something otherwise. The CLP does not support such a site. You do not support such a site. The Prime Minister said there will not be such a site. So, move on.
This is why we have asked for this issue to go to the committee because the Territory is going to have to look at the issue. The Territory is going to have to decide where we are going to put our waste, and you should let it go to the committee so we can have a bipartisan look at it.
The minister also pooh-poohs the issues of chemicals. I guess it is just this ‘trust me’ attitude. Once again, I cannot believe that this lab is not going to have any sort of organisms that we should be frightened or concerned about. With regards to chemicals, the minister says that is fine too. My view still stands that it would not hurt to put this to the environment committee. Given the huge increase in population in the northern suburbs and Darwin over the last 20-odd years and the development of Palmerston, let us make sure everybody is doing the right thing. Let us make sure that the systems are in place.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this motion was put on the Notice Paper in an effort to examine these issues. Instead of a sensible contribution from the minister, we got her scare tactics speech. She knows there will be no national nuclear dump in the Territory but keeps on with the furphy for political reasons. We asked about the bio-terrorism lab because it is your idea. On behalf of Territorians, we should be given the details. This is the sort of thing the committee should look at.
I would like to thank the member for Greatorex for his valuable contribution. Again, I seek the support of all members in this motion.
Motion negatived.
SENTENCING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 126)
(Serial 126)
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move postponement of debate on the Sentencing Amendment Bill (Serial 126) to a later date.
I would like to make a few remarks. I understand that government intends to introduce an alternate bill which appears to address my concerns and those of many groups and individuals who have supported the aims of my amendment. At the outset, I should say that I am disappointed that the government does not support the bill as it is; it was designed to extend a basic human right to Aboriginal girls in the Northern Territory to be free of sexual interference from men who are often in domineering or authoritative positions.
To remind members, my bill was quite straightforward: in sentencing a man convicted of sexual assault against a minor, matters of Aboriginal customary law could not be taken into account. When I first announced I would act to offer legal protection over young Aboriginal girls, I was staggered by the immediate response and unconditional support for my bill. The strongest backing came from ATSIC when it decided not to fund the Pascoe appeal in the High Court as it conflicted with its policy supporting families. Naturally, ATSIC promotes customary law, but it also maintains the rights of women and children should always come first. This was upheld by ATSIC’s Family Violence Strategy, the ATSIC National Social and Physical Wellbeing Committee and the ATSIC National Women’s Committee. As well, the ATSIC Acting Chairman, Lionel Quartermaine, and Commissioner Alison Anderson publicly supported this position.
The NPY (Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara) Women’s Council, comprising women from across border communities in the Territory, South Australia and Western Australia, commented that they were:
- … all too aware of the abuse that is inflicted on children and young girls in our communities.
They also said one of the main objectives of their council’s Domestic Violence Service was to ensure that the Australian legal system protected Aboriginal women and children from violence.
Last year, the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee inquired into Aboriginal customary law. The committee noted that promised marriages were usually between senior men and girls under 16, raising policy issues of fully informed consent and the imbalance in power relationships.
The Chief Minister’s own Domestic Violence and Aboriginal Family Violence Advisory Council has discussed customary law with regard to the protection of women and children. Council members were concerned that NT courts appeared willing to accept evidence from Aboriginal male defendants and their lawyers on aspects of customary law that mitigated sexual offences against children. Members believe this sends a negative message to children, young women and police officers involved in such matters.
Alongside those organisations, many individuals approached me claiming it was critical to uphold the various United Nations conventions on human rights and those of the child.
When I first introduced the bill, there was criticism that I was seeking to outlaw customary law marriages, and this could not be further from the truth. I was merely aiming to protect Aboriginal girls from exploitation. I believe that many aspects of customary law are flexible and can accommodate the wider law. As I understand it, the government’s bill will allow members of Aboriginal communities, including women and girls, the opportunity to place their views on customary law before the court if customary law is to be used by the defence. This should encourage Aboriginal girls to speak up in circumstances where they are in fear, with the knowledge that their rights will not be devalued to those of the man.
I hope the instances where the need to enforce the government’s bill will be rare, although there does appear to be anecdotal evidence that exploitation of young girls by senior men through customary law institutions is quite common.
When the government’s amendment is passed, I call on the government for a concerted awareness campaign directed towards Aboriginal men, women and children to ensure that they are aware that all societies must protect their young, no matter what may be other cultural traditions. This is not an attack on Aboriginal culture because many Aboriginal people, particularly woman, have been quite vocal on this point.
In its response to the Law Reform Committee’s report, the government said it would explain government policy to those communities in which Aboriginal customary law, in this regard, is still strong. I look forward to this government honouring that commitment. I hope the government bill addresses the issues and concerns raised by the Pascoe case and those of the organisations I have cited. If it does not, I will bring on my bill. I cannot stand by as a mute witness to the abuse of children, irrespective of their ethnicity.
I move to defer consideration of the Sentencing Amendment Bill until such time as the government passes its amendments, and there is time for feedback from organisations.
Motion agreed to.
INTERPRETATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 190)
(Serial 190)
Continued from 19 May 2004.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the bill provides for the inclusion of examples and notes, where appearing in legislation, be considered as part of the legislation for interpretive purposes. It is a tradition in other Australian jurisdictions that the Attorney-General bring forward portfolio-wide or issues-focussed miscellaneous legislation to provide clarity, amendment and update to the laws within the administration of this portfolio.
For example, the New South Wales Attorney-General brings forward a crimes miscellaneous amendment) bill in each of their parliamentary sessions, and a court legislation amendment bill as needed. This mechanism is useful in that it means minor changes do not get left behind. It also saves time and resources by updating legislation through a process of omnibus legislation, rather than requiring individual amending bills.
Changes to the interpretive process for legislation fit well into this category. The government will soon bring forward the Miscellaneous Justice Portfolio Bill, which will include a range of minor changes to legislation within the Justice portfolio. It will include the necessary changes to the Interpretation Act.
The government has discussed this with the member for Nelson in light of the bill he has brought forward today. The member for Nelson rightly points out that the practice in other jurisdictions is to make greater use of explanatory notes and examples in legislation. The intention of the parliament must be as clear as possible. The Department of Justice is finalising the Justice legislation for debate early in the coming year, and I will be only too happy to discuss the proposed bill with the member for Nelson prior to its introduction. We suggest this is the best course of action in order to pick up the issues that have been brought forward by the member. I offer very much a spirit of collaboration in making sure that your concerns are picked up in the finalisation of the bill we will be bringing forward.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, in light of the Attorney-General’s comments, it is appropriate that we wait to see what the government’s proposed bill contains. On the basis of that, it is not necessary for me to make any further comment.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his comments. I should say at the outset that I know the Parliamentary Counsel will be very much looking forward to this bill being passed tonight, as they have put a fair bit of effort into it, and they believe it was a piece of legislation that was certainly needed.
It is about trying to make the intent of law clearer, as the minister said. I suppose it sits comfortably with the idea of having explanatory notes as well. Once again, even though these were what you might say minor matters – although I do not say that they are not important - in the light of some of the bigger issues we deal with, you would probably regard this as minor. However, it is important if we are to make our legislation clearer to those people who use it, like ourselves, those people who try to understand what we are doing in this parliament, or who have to access this legislation - anyone from members of the public to lawyers, to all sorts of people who require to go through the acts that we pass in this parliament.
I am happy that the government is looking at presenting its own legislation. I suppose I would have been happier if, once again, people on this side of parliament could introduce their own legislation without always having to have that ring of confidence behind it by the government. However, in this case, the minister has said he will introduce something similar. I would support that as well, and just let the public know that, due to our concerted efforts, in consultation with Parliamentary Counsel, we have done our best and it looks like we will achieve something, but perhaps under another name.
Motion negatived.
LAW OF PROPERTY AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 231)
(Serial 231)
Continued from 19 May 2004.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, the member for Nelson proposes a range of new measures to regulate the sale of residential property in the Territory. The government has given consideration to the measures proposed, and is aware of the measures to regulate, to varying degrees, vendors and the sale of property in other jurisdictions.
The government will always support measures that provide consumer protection, so long as they are workable and have broad community support. A balanced approach to the regulation of sale of property is required, and the government takes the view that the bill proposed by the member for Nelson certainly goes some way towards achieving that. The Department of Justice will shortly complete a discussion paper concerning the issues of vendor disclosure that I foreshadowed last year. The government proposes this discussion paper be developed and circulated for public comment. The member for Nelson has undertaken consultation of his own, some of which has been forwarded to my office.
The comment I received convinces me that we must tread this path carefully in order to achieve the right balance. For example, we do not want to compromise affordability for new home buyers. Territory Housing has examined the proposed legislation and advised the additional reports required regarding bore status and septic tanks will increase purchase costs further, and may make home ownership not affordable for some low or middle income owners. The Real Estate Institute has also provided comment which, I understand, has resulted in some redrafting on the part of the member for Nelson.
The government will not rush into regulations before considering all the issues further. The proposed discussion paper is well placed to canvass issues that are involved, such as whether we move to separate legislation. The member’s proposal to amend the Law of Property Act which deals with standard law regarding property, needs further consideration. It may be determined that vendor disclosure legislation, or legislation dealing generally with the sale of residential property, needs to be considered in a consumer protection framework as a stand-alone act.
The cooling-off period and whether one is desirable is another issue to consider. Whilst cooling-off is a beneficial component of this type of consumer protection legislation, the original bill provided for a cooling-off period of five business days - which I note is to be three days on the basis of the submission from the REINT. The bill provides for a penalty equal to 0.25% of the purchase price if the purchaser exercises the right to rescind during the cooling-off period. I understand that REINT does not support the imposition of a penalty for exercising the right to rescind during the cooling-off period.
Another question to consider is whether the legislation should apply whether or not the property is listed for sale with an agent.
Given the issues I briefly outlined here, the government has determined that it is not justified to support the bill before the House, even if we were to amend it. Further public consultation and discussion needs to be finalised before we take this important step. I propose that the legislation introduced by the member for Nelson become part of that process. The government’s discussion paper could incorporate the comments this bill has already received from bodies such as the Real Estate Institute. It would also benefit from a review of the impact any similar legislation has had in other jurisdictions. The reason for this approach is to ensure that we get it right.
Madam Speaker, the government cannot support the bill. I urge the member to withdraw his bill in order for the consultation to be undertaken using his model as a focal point, along with a discussion paper to be completed and released within the coming few months.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, it is the case, as the Attorney-General said, that some concerns have been expressed by the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory. We also have been provided with the copies of the same correspondence, as I understand, that was provided to various ministers’ offices. We share not only some of the concerns of the Real Estate Institute, but also some of those raised by the Attorney-General this evening. In fact, we would go one step further and say that not only do we share concerns, but we have a number of objections.
It is not necessary to outline them all, but one the Attorney-General touched upon was the possibility of housing prices increasing for purchasers. That is not a situation that any government or prospective government should contemplate, and it is objected to on that basis.
It is also objected to on the basis that there are difficulties with the cooling-off period. In particular, the cooling-off period should apply to corporations in the same way as it applies to individuals. The member’s advice to the Real Estate Institute is that corporations should have obtained legal advice. What the member fails to appreciate is that cooling-off periods were not designed for individuals or corporations specifically for the purpose to obtain legal advice. There are a variety of reasons why a corporation may not wish to proceed with a sale and they are factors that the member, obviously, has elected not to consider, or he does not understand them. In any event, we object on that basis.
Thirdly, the insistence of requiring that a purchaser forfeit 0.25% of the purchase for simply not exercising his or her legal right to withdraw from a sale is bizarre, and it continues to take many of us by surprise. Notwithstanding, as I understand it, submissions put to the member to urge him to reconsider his position, for reasons best known to him, he has elected not to. It certainly is the case that lawyers and conveyancers, as well as the Real Estate Institute, have expressed dismay about this yet the member has marched on regardless. They are some but not all of the objections we have to the bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): I heard it all then, Madam Speaker! If the member for Araluen had bothered just to ask I would have told her, the conveyancing people support it 100% …
Ms Carney: Sorry? What was that?
Mr WOOD: … and they support the 0.25% …
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Nelson is lying. I have a letter …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Ms CARNEY: … from a conveyancer in the Northern Territory who does not support it. The member for Nelson should withdraw his remark …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Ms CARNEY: … that 100% of the conveyancers in the Northern Territory support this because it is wrong …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen!
Ms CARNEY: … quite wrong!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I want you to withdraw that accusation of lying. You know that is unparliamentary.
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw the accusation.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I said the conveyancing association, which is represented by Trevor Tschirpig …
Ms Carney: He did not actually say the association.
Mr WOOD: It is sometimes difficult, Madam Speaker, but we shall march on.
This piece of legislation has taken nearly three months to prepare and it is obvious, from listening to some comments, that people do not understand what we have put here and why we have put these things in.
Ms Carney interjecting.
Mr WOOD: The member for Araluen can laugh but you will find, member for Araluen, that penalties for recision during cooling-off period apply to at least three states in Australia: Queensland, New South Wales and the ACT. We have not just thought of that off the top of our heads.
The reason that it is there is partially to protect real estate agents from having people sign contracts for several houses so that they can lock up the potential sale of those houses by say, signing off on five houses. This tries to stop that happening, because you could have people who could not sell their house for three days, and then the real estate agent will say ‘I am not interested’, or the purchaser can say: ‘I am not interested in buying that house’. That is one reason that 0.25% is in there.
The other reason that 0.25% is in there is because we feel there is a carrot-and-stick approach: ‘If you are going to sign a contract, we want you to sign it knowing that you are serious about what you do and there is a small penalty’. It is not a large penalty. It is 0.25% of the purchase price, so it is not a large cost.
When you get that advice from the conveyancing association, which represents conveyancers of the Northern Territory, you listen to that advice and take it into account. Amongst the Real Estate Institute people, there were some people who queried it. We also got support from the Real Estate Institute on that matter.
The other issue which the minister and the member for Araluen mentioned was in relation to the affordability for new home buyers. In the case of the Northern Territory Housing Commission, they do have a special loan you can get - I think, up to $10 000 - for things such as the certificates you need. The bores and septics would be part of that, as they are covered under the HomeNorth scheme and they are not increasing the price of a house.
You have to remember that this is to protect the purchaser, the one who is buying the property. If you say to get a bore certificate will increase the price of the house and they go along and find the bore is stuffed and they have no water, they are not going to be very happy $15 000 later for a new bore. I would rather be paying for the cost of a certificate to prove that the bore pumps water and it is drinkable, rather than find out you have to install a new bore.
The same applies to a septic tank. Septic tanks cost between $4000 to $6000. If you find you have to pump it out every two weeks because no one checked to see whether it works, you have a higher cost on the first home owner.
If, in the first year, the house goes under water – and I can tell you a good story about a place in Howard Springs where a purchaser from Nightcliff bought a beautiful home and, two weeks later at Christmas, he had water about two foot deep right through his sunken lounge room. So did the house next door. They were told that it was all okay. In fact, one of them sued the conveyancer. These things would have been up-front. What was the cost of damage to the house? It certainly would have been cheaper to have a certificate to prove that the house would not be flooded.
Whilst it may increase the price of a house marginally, a bore certificate to say how much water the bore pumps is not going to cost much money; it will protect the buyer from high costs they could incur if things go wrong. If they know that the bore is not too good, at least they know up-front and they accept that. That is what this bill is about: telling people before they purchase a property that a list of checks has or has not been done. It does not mean a house has to comply with the Cyclone Code; if you do not have any certificates, you tell people so that they know when they purchase it. If the chook shed out the back was constructed by the owner, they need to know that it was built without any approvals – as long as they know. That is what it is about: vendor disclosure to get rid of buyer beware.
If there are problems with the HomeNorth scheme, let us adjust it. The whole idea of this bill is to protect the consumer. For what you might call a fairly small issue affecting a relatively small part of the market, let us see if we can get the HomeNorth scheme adapt to what we are trying to do today.
There are a few issues that are relatively minor. We looked at the cooling-off period and changed it. Originally, we had five working days; it is now three working days. We did that in consultation with the Real Estate Institute. We had long consultation with the conveyancing industry. We took on many of the issues that they raised. We took it back to Parliamentary Counsel and worked through those issues. We did not make it up as we went along; we used other legislation and tried to adapt it to Northern Territory circumstances. We used people in the industry and we had a lot of support from the community that this is well overdue.
One of the other things that this bill would practically made redundant is gazumping. You may have signed an intent to purchase a house and someone else, under existing laws, can come along and make a higher offer. You are gazumped unless you are willing to make a higher counter-offer. Because you have no contract until you sign, you cannot be gazumped. You go to the vendor and ask for copies of the certificates, then you can check their accuracy and your finances, and then you sign documents. That is when the contract occurs. There is no intent to purchase and no gazumping.
A number of people contacted me when we were originally looking at this bill from the gazumping perspective because they were pleased that something like this was going to occur. This started because I received representations from a lady who had been gazumped. She went to buy a house or a property in Humpty Doo, had shaken hands with the real estate agent, gone to the bank to get the money out of a trust account and, basically, the real estate agent said to her: ‘Oh, a great purchase, madam, you really have a good buy here’. She really had a good buy, because his boss came in and said: ‘We have just had another offer over that’, and she lost the property. I felt that something had to be done.
I had a phone call from Roper River, from a family who was trying to buy a small cattle station. At the very last minute, someone came in with a bid and they could not outbid them.
Of course, that also takes away some of the bad taste that is left in people’s mouths with real estate agents, because when real estate agents gazump someone, they are certainly not going to get the business from the person they gazumped. They are never going to go back to them ever again. It takes that away, so it helps the real estate industry have a better relationship with people they are dealing with.
I will read a few things. This is from a real estate agent in Humpty Doo. In fact, he probably will not mind me saying he is probably the cause of me actually looking at this bill in the first place. He said:
- You are on the right track, but your proposal needs more detail and needs to be broadened.
O’Brien Conveyancers:
- I write to congratulate you on the above initiative. It is well overdue, with both of the major parties giving
lip service to the needs of vendor disclosure, but not working hard enough to bring it in. My institute forwarded
a copy of the bill to me this morning. You obviously realise the importance of housing to most of us, and have heard
of many instances which have caused much stress to both vendors and purchasers, as well as agents and conveyancers.
I believe this bill is good enough to go forward as it is. If the government felt that those minor issues like the 0.25% need more discussion - and they have had this bill for nearly three months, and so has the opposition - why did they not raise some amendments tonight? Why did they not put forward their objections in the form of amendments? I am not going to die over the 0.25%, but it was an issue that was put forward to us, especially by the conveyancing industry, that it had a role to play. I discussed with the HomeNorth people, or the Northern Territory Housing Commission, about these particular issues, and they can be adjusted to suit this legislation.
I believe it is important legislation. People are going to spend their life savings on a house. If the cost of that means we have to pay some money out for certificates, so be it. However, in the end, the money spent on those certificates would certainly be saved by a long way if some of the things they get were not as they thought. That is the real essence of what we are trying to do with this legislation.
I would like to thank the people who have helped with this bill over this long period of time, especially Arthur Keates from Parliamentary Counsel. He has worked on this bill tirelessly over that period and put a lot of effort into the first draft, and then the amendments, based on comments of the Australian Institute of Conveyancers and the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory.
Even though the Real Estate Institute may have had some doubts about certain things, we are bringing legislation in not just for them, but for the consumer. Therefore, it does not mean we have to necessarily entirely agree with every point that the industry makes. This legislation is about trying to do the best for the community. Sometimes, industry might have their particular reasons, and I might not agree with them, but that does not make it bad legislation.
I will put this legislation to the vote. I have laid on the table some amendments with which I will not be going to the committee stage. They included, basically, a couple of extra points. One was an occupancy permit - again an issue brought up by the industry - which we put in. Another one was matters regarding the Swimming Pool Safety Act - again, from the industry – which we included. We took up the issue the minister mentioned regarding when it was listed and who it was listed with in the amendments. Clause 4 talks about omitting ‘advertised for sale listed by an agent’ and substituting ‘listed for sale by an agent or first advertised for sale’. That was, again, from the Real Estate Institute. Also in clause 4, from the Real Estate Institute, was where we changed from five days to three days and tightened up on some wording in the legislation.
I believe the bill as prepared is a good bill; it should be supported. I will be telling people that it was not supported, because it is a bill that will protect the consumer. Surely that is good in its own right? Just because it comes as Independent, I do not believe is a reason to knock it back. If you look at the minor technicalities people have said that they think we need to look at again, I say really is an excuse to bring forth their own bill. They want the gold medal; I get the silver or bronze. I am happy with that. I suppose in the end, if this legislation comes up in another form I will be happy with that, as I said on the previous bill. I certainly tell people that is what we tried to promote. It is a bit like the hoon legislation, which took a while - nearly nine months after I first introduced that legislation to parliament.
The sad thing is that, by the time the government presents its own legislation, a number of people will not be protected by that law. They are going to have to wait until legislation drags itself through this parliament again. It is going to be another nine months before we see legislation. If this legislation is so good, as the minister said, why is there not a first reading next week? I am sure the issues that we are talking about here are so minor it can just do with a little tinkering around the ends. We could have this out before Christmas. If it is that good, let us bring it out before Christmas. Let us put it on the Notice Paper before the end of this sittings. I believe it is important. If we really care for the people who are buying houses, let us protect them from throwing their money down the drain if they buy a dud house full of white ants, the bore does not work, and the septic tank is stuffed. Let us do the right thing by those people and, if the government says this is good legislation, introduce theirs now. Let us prove to people that what has been said by the government today will really happen quickly.
Motion negatived.
EVIDENCE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 209)
(Serial 209)
Continued from 19 May 2004.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, before I get to the specifics of this bill that we are now to consider, I want to make a few remarks about the process members are engaged in tonight on this General Business Day. There is a pattern to all of the legislation that members have brought forward, in that each and every one of them has received very serious consideration from government. We have tried to give you a serious response and have acknowledged the input that each of you had to the response that the government is formulating. Quite often, there is a kernel of a really good idea, and we have certainly acknowledged that in each case. Three years ago, when I first spoke in this House as the Attorney-General, I invited members to contribute as a parliament to the formulation of legislation. We have stuck to our approach all the way through - I have certainly tried to. I want to acknowledge that this process is a valued process in the parliament as a whole.
I now turn to the bill. The bill introduced by member for Araluen would require evidence from vulnerable witnesses to be heard in closed court. The bill is only a partial response to a multifaceted and difficult problem. The government has a bill before the House that deals with vulnerable witnesses in sexual assault cases. The government bill provides a better range of measures for protection of our most vulnerable witnesses in these types of cases. In conjunction with the work being undertaken by the sexual assault task force, the government bill indicates our commitment to improving the position for vulnerable witnesses, and creating a better court process for those types of offences to be heard.
Whilst I do not intend to canvass it here as we will have that opportunity in the current sittings, it should be noted that the government bill does provide for children and other vulnerable witnesses to give evidence by pre-recorded statement. It introduces time limits for the prosecution of sexual offences; abolishes oral examination of children at commital proceedings for sexual offences; and also introduces new provisions into the Evidence Act regarding the questioning of witnesses - and child witnesses, in particular. In saying this, clearly the government bill goes further than the bill we are discussing today, and provides for a range of responses. I note the member for Araluen welcomed the government measures by media release on 9 August 2004.
The member noted her bill provided for courts to be closed when sexual assault victims give evidence, and that this is part of the government bill. Both the member for Araluen and I acknowledge this is an issue that all members of this House are dedicated to improving. The member said in her media release:
- In relation to children’s evidence, all jurisdictions have been actively seeking to minimise the kinds of harm to
children by enacting a variety of measures to avoid them having to give evidence or give it only once, and it is
pleasing that the Territory government has agreed to be part of that.
On the basis of her praise of the government bill, it is clear that there is no need to support the member’s bill.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I say this with respect. I understand the Attorney-General is quoting from a media release I issued. I did not praise the government’s bill. I remind the Attorney-General that my final paragraph was ‘often the devil is in the detail’. In fact, I had not seen the bill at the time I issued that press release.
Dr TOYNE: Oh, you did a little bit. You did a little bit. Come on.
Ms CARNEY: Do not be cheeky.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order, but you can rebut in your summing up.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, on the basis of what the Attorney-General has said, he invites me, I guess, to not press this bill because his view is that the amendment I sought has, for all intents and purposes, been achieved in the Evidence Reform Children and Sexual Offences Bill which will be debated later this week. While I am flattered again that the government has agreed with another bill I introduced, it is worth mentioning that it only has half of my bill correct.
I remind members that I sought to ensure that a court is closed when vulnerable witnesses give their evidence by amending section 21A(2A) of the Evidence Act. The amendment proposed by government in the evidence reform bill to which I have just referred, will have the effect of ensuring that vulnerable witnesses can give their evidence in a closed court; and that I welcome. However, the amendment proposed in this bill would have improved things further for vulnerable witnesses. The government has fallen short of agreeing to this, and I will outline why shortly.
It is appropriate, to that extent, that I explain to Territorians and members why it was that the amendment that I sought in its entirety was required. Section 21A(2A) of the Evidence Act provides that, notwithstanding the protective arrangements a vulnerable witness could use outlined in Section 21(2) such as sitting behind a screen, using CCTV or having a support person sit with them, the court may make an order that a vulnerable witness is not to give evidence using that arrangement if it is satisfied that it is not in the interest of justice for the witnesses evidence to be given using that arrangement. Hence, special or protective measures are available, but they do not exist as of right because the court can say - usually upon application by the defence - that it is not in the interests of justice. The factors that the court needs to consider are outlined in section 21A(2B).
I note with great interest the Attorney-General’s reference to what he said three years ago. I did not catch all of what he said, but it was something along the lines of if he receives good ideas, he will act on them. The government does not want to agree to my amendment to provide special measures to vulnerable witnesses as of right, which is a good idea. I invite the Attorney-General, if he wishes, to come up with his own bill. Certainly, he may base it on mine. He likes to do what I suggest on occasion, but in a different way, so I invite him to amend it.
Instead of borrowing my wording, he could look around the country and to jurisdictions outside Australia. However, there is one close to home, and that is the Victorian Evidence (Audio Visual and Audio Linking) Act. The government could amend section 21A(2A) of the Evidence Act by coming up with this, which is a suggestion that he and his staff may wish to consider in due course; that is, the definition referred to in the Victorian act:
- (a) in the best interests of the child; and
(b) consistent with the interests of justice …
That seems to me to get a very nice balance of ensuring that the interests of justice are maintained but, at the same time, requiring that the best interests of the child. Or, if the Attorney-General wanted to be more flexible, he could say ‘of other vulnerable witnesses’. It is the balance that is not contained, in my view, in the existing section 21A(2A) of the Evidence Act. While I am flattered that he likes to borrow from me in the normal course of events, I repeat that I invite him to feel very free to borrow from the Victorians.
When I introduced this bill, I referred to the fact that sexual assaults under Labor are on the increase in the NT. I referred to the fact that the Attorney-General created a Sexual Assault Task Force in December. In a media release by the Attorney-General on 17 December, he said:
- … work already under way to improve court processes for vulnerable witnesses like sexual assault victims.
I also said in my second reading speech that this is not a major bill; however the protection should be provided without the fettering of defence counsel and the decisions of the court.
I have been consistent on this issue. By the time I am an old woman, this section of the Evidence Act will be changed. I take the liberty of quoting from my maiden speech on 16 October 2001. Members may or may not recall that I came up with what I would describe as my wish list; the things I would change if I could. This was one of them. The Attorney-General referred to his comment three years ago that, if he heard reasonable ideas, he would act on them. He has not; that is why I introduced the bill. He was given enough time, with all of the resources available to government to look into this, and he still has not come up with a sensible explanation or an excuse as to why this section of the Evidence Act is not being amended, in light of the increasing research that supports the view that the justice system should be improved.
In that regard, before I get to my maiden speech, I will refer the Attorney-General to a relatively recent publication from the Victorian Law Reform Commission about sexual offences - the final report. The Chairperson of the inquiry was Professor Marcia Neave, a lecturer of mine at the University of Melbourne some years ago. I refer the Attorney-General to page 262 of that report, in which she states:
- Research shows that the provision of support can be effective in minimising the trauma of giving evidence, improving the standard of evidence, and increasing confidence in the criminal justice system. It may also assist in increasing reporting and conviction rates.
Professor Marcia Neave is well respected, as is the work she undertakes for and on behalf of the Victorian Law Reform Commission. If the Attorney-General does not believe me, he should believe the likes of Marcia Neave and others. In any event, I now go back to my maiden speech, when I said:
- ... if a victim or a witness wants to be physically separated and protected from the accused, they should be allowed
to do so as of right. It is plainly wrong for a judge or a magistrate to disallow a witness or a victim physical
protection from the offender when giving evidence if such person feels vulnerable. There should be no judicial
discretion in this area. I can assure the government, and possibly some defence lawyers who are in the
gallery this afternoon, that the safeguards already in place for the accused are adequate and do not warrant
change. This proposal simply gives vulnerable witnesses and victims the opportunity for protection if they want
it. I know of too many victims who have been prevented by a judge or magistrate from utilising the protection
intended by the legislature.
Of course, many crimes of violence are perpetuated on women and children. It is an absurdity, is it not, that on the
one hand, we as a community encourage women and children to report sexual and physical violence, yet on the other,
we make the process of giving evidence as intimidatory and as awful as possible? The amendments I have suggested
are necessary. The benefits are immeasurable and the rights of the accused are not compromised. These
suggestions transcend party politics. The proposals are good law and good public policy. The amendments are
simple and easy to achieve, and I urge the Attorney-General to implement them.
In the overall scheme of things, it is not considered, I suppose, terribly significant by others. However, I can tell you that, for a number of victims and other vulnerable witnesses in the Northern Territory, it is an important issue. I have met them; I have acted for them; they still continue to speak to me about these issues. I say to the Attorney-General it is not just the member for Araluen or the CLP saying this; it is real. Again, I urge him to consider his position. With those comments I will conclude, Madam Speaker.
Motion negatived.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 212)
(Serial 212)
Continued from 19 May 2004.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, the member for Macdonnell has two bills before the House relating to assaults upon emergency workers. The member’s bills are, unfortunately, deficient as they fail to capture a full range of conduct that could interfere with the work required to respond to an emergency situation.
The real focus of the legislation that aims to provide better protection for those in our community performing an emergency response, and providing all necessary assistance to a person in need, must be a focus on the act of the assistance itself. Assaults that occur in the context of an emergency or a response to a life-threatening situation, have the potential to endanger not just the person responding to the situation but also the victim and other persons.
An assault provision, as framed by the member for Macdonnell, will only capture the act of conduct and not omissions. It does not cover conduct that may impede a person carrying out a response to an emergency situation. The proposed creation of the summary offence of obstruction may attempt to fill that gap, but will be insufficient to deal with the serious case of obstruction, particularly where real harm eventuates as a result of that obstruction.
While we already have a section in the Criminal Code requiring the provision of assistance in a situation where a person has opportunity to render such assistance, the government proposes to extend the law. The government has examined the member for Macdonnell’s proposal, as well as assault provisions available in criminal law in all Australian jurisdictions. None of the existing law does more than pick or choose professions where an assault on a member of that profession provides an element of aggravation. This piecemeal approach is an inadequate approach to the problem.
I inform the House today that the government will soon be introducing legislation that provides a penalty of imprisonment for up to five years for any person who unlawfully assaults, obstructs, hinders or otherwise prevents a person providing rescue, resuscitation, medial assistance or succour of any kind. The legislation will cover assistance to people in situations where an emergency may be affecting property such as in the case of a fire. There will be a further level of aggravation where the unlawful act results in endangering the life of, or causes actual harm, to the person subject to the rescue or the assistance with the penalty of seven years. The government’s proposal provides for appropriately strong penalties for these new offences.
It is clear that the creation of a summary offence only of obstruction, as proposed by the member opposite, is not strong enough. I look forward to presenting the government’s legislation shortly. In the meantime, the government cannot support the bills before the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, it is not like I did not know this response of the government was not coming. However, I have to say I am pretty disappointed. Simply because this could have been a law by the end of the week. Ambulance officers and emergency workers could have been protected by the end of the week if you had presented an amendment to this bill - that simple.
You could have done the same thing that you did with the censure motion amendment today. You could have said: ‘We amend it by removing all words after that’, and bring forward your package. However, you have chosen not to do that. You have chosen to come in here and sell a pup to the emergency services workers and to the …
Mr Henderson: Rubbish!
Mr ELFERINK: Not, it is not. The Leader of Government Business says: ‘Rubbish’. The fact is that you are going to have to introduce a bill. We have no time frame as to when this bill is going to occur. I remind honourable members that, when I had before this House a bill dealing with habitual drunks, I was convinced by the Treasurer to allow that bill to be defeated. They were going to reintroduce it and find a practical way to do it because they could not agree with the details of what I had suggested. The result is that - I do not know - 18 months down the track, two years down the track, there is not a skerrick, not a sausage - nothing, nyada, nyet! That is the point with this government: they are not to be trusted.
The minister now says: ‘Oh, we are going to reintroduce a better, stronger bill’ Good! However, the problem is that, in the meantime, between now and whenever you choose to do it - and then it sits on the Notice Paper for however long. I note there is a bill sitting on the Notice Paper now that has been there since 2002 …
Dr Toyne: Your bill just will not work.
Mr ELFERINK: Then bring in an amendment. Come and get a briefing. Never do you have the right ever to come in - and any other minister of this House - and say: ‘You blokes did not get a briefing’. You have not made one phone call; you have made no communication. You said at the beginning of the last second reading speech: ‘Oh, I appreciate the hard work that members put into this and we want to acknowledge their effort’. Rubbish! You have no intention of acknowledging anybody’s efforts. You have no intention of doing anything decent in relation to this sort of stuff. You are playing politics with it.
So, do not sit in here and say: ‘I am going to do all the right things all the time’, because what you are saying and what you are doing are two different things. What you are saying is that you are going to introduce your own bill, but what you are doing is leaving ambulance officers, emergency workers and those people they try to rescue, exposed for a longer period of time. You are going to come in and introduce your own bill - whenever that may be - and you are going to call it the Good Samaritan Bill and cast a wider net. I actually think that the wider net is a good idea, but that does nothing for ambulance officers, emergency workers and those other people in the meantime. Without a time frame, the position you have taken is a pup - is a total pup. Ambulance officers and emergency workers throughout the Northern Territory are going to be very disappointed in your response because they deserve better.
The reason I am raising this issue with a little passion, I suppose, is because this happens on a daily basis. I used to do volunteer ambulance work in Alice Springs for quite a few years. Quite recently, I jumped into a back of the car, with the assistance of the kind folk at St John Ambulance who were kind enough to take me along for a ride. They told me stories and I learned of things that were of great concern to me. This does not happen once in a blue moon; these officers are hindered regularly.
Therefore, in the six months, a year, or however long it is going to take the Attorney-General to get his stuff together and get himself organised, it is going to continue occurring, and there is going to be no protection for the people who are doing the job or the people who are tyring to help. That is the frustrating thing. I would even accept, if the Attorney-General would condescend to contact me and talk to me about this particular issue, the stuff going though on urgency because it is happening on a daily basis.
What really is occurring is this government has been caught napping. I will tell you why it has been caught napping. On repeated occasions, such as when the member for Araluen presented the fire bill, the minister realised he was caught napping so he brought in his own improved bill; as he did with the hooning legislation from the member for Nelson. I have already proposed a bail amendment bill today and, when I announced that publicly, what was the response from government? ‘Oh, we are going to do that anyhow’. That fact is that this government has already run out of ideas. It is two or three years old and it has run out of ideas.
Every single time that a bill comes before this House, you guys have taken it. You re-jig the edges but, at the end of the day, you are already flat. At the end of the day, you guys have already run out of juice. That is the problem here. These guys are being grabbed by the nose peg and being led to the edge of the river, and then they are saying: ‘Oh this is not ours, we cannot look at this because you are suggesting it. We will introduce our own bill and it will be better and brighter than what you have shown us’. Well, at the end of the day, they have failed Territorians miserably and, in this instance, they are failing to supply proper succour to those ambulance officers and emergency service workers who are going to be left swinging in the breeze while this government gets itself organised.
The government’s response to this bill has been nothing shy of disgrace. The government’s contempt for ambulance officers and emergency workers, through their churlish political games, have left them exposed. Believe me, I will be letting them know - and letting them know thoroughly and completely - about the government’s pigheaded approach in relation to this legislation.
Motion negatived.
POLICE ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 213)
(Serial 213)
Continued from 19 May 2004.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, in response to the member for Macdonnell’s proposed legislation, I do not think he is going to be happy again, I am sorry to say. There is merit in this proposal by the member for Macdonnell. The government will be moving to adopt the sentiment of what he is trying to achieve here because there is an anomaly in the current legislation governing the laws on how a civil legal action can be brought against the police - an anomaly inherited by this government.
However, it is not just an issue isolated to the Northern Territory. Indeed, I am advised that it also has been a problem in other jurisdictions around Australia. However, whilst well intentioned, the member for Macdonnell’s bill does not provide a solution to the problem it seeks to address. Let me explain.
The Northern Territory Police, as an organisation, is responsible for the action of its officers when they are acting in good faith. Under existing legislation such as the Northern Territory Police Administration Act - and reflected in similar legislation in other parts of Australia - when a person is seeking punitive damages and wants to sue the NT Police, legal action must be against the NT Police as an organisation. However, in somewhat of an anomaly, the legislation also dictates that the complainant is compelled to also bring a civil action against the police officer as an individual to this legal action.
This is where the problem lies; not least the weight of pressure it can put on an individual officer who is required to provide his or her own legal representation. Other jurisdictions with this legislative anomaly have moved to fix it by requiring that civil legal actions be brought against the police force as an organisation. New South Wales, for example, has put in place changes aimed at fixing the problem, and the approach that they have adopted will help guide the way forward for the NT.
During this year, NT police and government have been in discussions about a range of issues relating to the Police Administration Act, and work is under way to modernise this legislation. I am optimistic that a range of amendments to the act, including amendments to address the legal anomaly under discussion today, will be ready early next year.
Legal advice provided to government through the NT Police is that the suggestions proposed by the member for Macdonnell would not achieve the goal of overcoming the legislative anomaly. The proposed changes would not overcome the problem now faced and, in fact, would still see individual police officers requiring separate legal representation in the circumstances I have outlined.
I am pleased that there is an apparent consensus that the problem needs to be addressed. I acknowledge the work of police management, NT Police Association, and the sentiments of the opposition. It is a complex area. There has been a lot of work to look at reform of the Police Administration Act. I am hoping to bring the amendments to the act that will address this issue to parliament in November. That is not a cast iron commitment, but that is the timetable to which I am working to see passage early in the new year, so that this issue will be picked up as well as a range of other issues in that act. The clear advice I have received from the legal people within the police force is that this bill does not fully clear the issues and the anomaly that the member for Macdonnell has foreshadowed. I can say that when we present the legislation not only will this be resolved, but a number of other workability issues will also be picked up.
In a spirit of cooperation, I commend the shadow minister for proposing this bill. He will be pleased to see that the intent of what he is trying to achieve will be picked up by the government. At the end of the day, it is the outcome that is important, which is the change to legislation, and that will be achieved early in the new year.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): A miracle, Madam Speaker, on the grounds that, yet again, it seems to be a marvellous accident of history that, as the opposition raises the issue, the government has an answer just around the corner; just a moment away. It seems that they are only inches behind us sometimes.
The intent of this bill was simply to protect individual police officers from being sued. The minister read the advice from the department and talked about punitive damages. That is one type of damages. There are nominal damages; normal damages for loss. Punitive damages are, quite specifically, punishment damages that are awarded by a court for certain types of behaviour. The information about punitive damages is all very interesting, but there are other forms of damages that can be awarded. The minister seems not to have turned his attention to that. He also has not explained what the anomalies are.
The bill is very straightforward in what it does, and is a reproduction of what you find in the swimming pool act and God knows how many other items of legislation. It simply says that police officers are not individually civilly liable for acts in good faith. An act in bad faith means that, if a police officer acts with malice or, in one fashion or another, with contempt or villainy in his heart, this bill does nothing to protect such a police officer. All this really does is make the police officer a much smaller target for a vexatious type of action by somebody who is seeking to pursue a police officer. If you are subject to the normal laws of negligence, then there are a whole raft of different tests that apply and standards that have to be met. In good faith, all it does is create a much smaller window for people to pursue an individual police officer.
In my second reading speech, I made it quite clear that I would fully expect that the vicarious liability of the police department would continue to apply - and the minister agreed with that position. However, sadly, to be so dismissive in terms of giving me a lecture on punitive damages - well, what other damages are contemplated that he had not discussed? My bill covered punitive damages and the other types of damages that are available. He has been given this briefing, but I am a little concerned if he understands the differences between the different types of damages for which police officers could be pursued.
The second thing is the anomalies that he talked about. Well, what are they? What are these anomalies? I have no idea. He has not telephoned me. He has not sought a briefing, or in some way tried to communicate to me in any fashion that he has a problem with this bill. Once again, he has an opportunity, by bringing an amendment to this bill, to be able to bring this succour to police officers in a very short period of time. But no, he chooses to reject this bill and reintroduce something in November. How long is it going to take to go through? When is the next election?
Let us say the next election comes in May, March, or November - who knows? It could happen at any time, and the Police Association, in my opinion, has been sold a pup as well. The pup that they have been sold is simply that the police minister said: ‘Yes, we are going to go and look at this and we are going to fix all this’. When he presents it, it will sit on the Notice Paper for a few months, and then drops off the Notice Paper because the parliament is prorogued. How would that protect police officers? Then there is a new government, and that might be a CLP government, an ALP government, or a Greens government - who knows? However, that government starts with a clean Notice Paper. What happens? The opportunity that has been presented to police officers tonight to protect them from this sort of action failed, and police officers are not protected; they go back to the old system. That is the concern with the minister’s approach here tonight; that the government has not taken an opportunity to correct something that the minister has acknowledged as a problem. That is sad; these things sometimes happen
However, I would really like to think that if the Attorney-General, the government as a whole, and the minister for Police believe the bills have merit, then they should endeavour to contact members who bring those bills before this House and try to find a way through it. I am not doing this to be funny or cute; I am doing this to try and correct a situation that I see is wrong. I am told that there is a problem with my bill. If that was the case, the minister could have telephoned me or said: ‘Come in for a briefing. This is the reason there is a problem with your bill. If you do this, this, and this, it can be corrected, and then that problem can be resolved and we can have the thing set as law by the end of this week’. That is the sad thing: that the government chooses not to go down the path because the government needs to be seen to be governing. Woe betide them if there is anything so much as hint of supporting a bill presented by any other person than the government itself. That is the politics of it.
However, while the government is playing politics, police officers and - in the case of the bill just dealt with - ambulance officers and emergency workers are left swinging in the breeze. That is the shame; that, as this government plays politics, other people suffer.
Motion negatived.
SUMMARY OFFENCES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 214)
Continued from 19 May 2004.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thought the bills were cognate and we had been dealing with the two together. Well, if they are not cognate, the government has already indicated it is not supporting the bills. This is the second of the two bills. We are not supporting this bill.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): That is it, hey? Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this is very frustrating because the government clearly is not organised at all. This stands as a separate bill; it has a different serial number. As the Attorney-General should well know, if something has a separate serial number and there is no motion before this House for it to be heard as cognate, then it is a separate bill; it stands by itself. It stands there for the same reason that I reintroduced the Criminal Code Amendment Bill. The minister gave a reply which was basically two lines long. ‘I do not care’, says the government, ‘You are not getting your way and you can all stick it up your nose. We do not care about those people who work in the field of emergency services and bringing succour to those people in the Northern Territory who are injured’.
This is an attempt to stop people hindering those ambulance officers and emergency workers in the course of their duties. The government dismisses it with two lines. I am disappointed in the government’s attitude. As I said before, I will certainly be letting people know what this government’s attitude is. As I pointed out in the last debate in relation to the police, once again, ambulance officers and emergency workers have been sold a pup for exactly the same reason. What have they been sold a pup on? Quite simply this: this government says, ‘At some point in the future, in a time frame we have not announced, we will introduce a bill which will effectively do the same things this particular bill does’. By the time it gets through, this government will probably have gone to an election and it has dropped off the Notice Paper. The bill is lost into the ether of history and nothing happens for those workers out there in the community.
It is interesting for this government to be so dismissive of those workers because, as a Labor government, you would expect that occupational health and safety issues and the rights of people who go about doing their occupations unhindered, would be something this government would warm to very quickly. Indeed not, because of the politics of refusal and bloody-mindedness is the politics of this government. Whilst they are fiddling, Rome is burning and, as far as they are concerned …
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: I hear the minister sigh. ‘It is all dreadful. We all have to go home and go to bed’. Well, I do not care if it is 10 pm - at the moment 10.30 pm - or 2 am. I care enough to bring a bill into this House to at least be treated with some sort of dignity. The minister himself said, not two hours ago in this place, that he always was concerned about approaching opposition bills with an attitude of concern and understanding that they are trying to do the right thing. Now he is treating these bills with contempt because it does not suit him; it is getting late and he wants to go to bed.
Well, there are ambulance officers out there tonight who will not be going to bed tonight. They will be driving into places which are downright unpleasant - some of the town camps in Alice Springs, for example. Whilst they are on duty tonight they going to be hindered, interfered with, yelled and screamed at, spat at and dealt with, with contempt. They are going to go to places like the Keith Lawrie Flats and are going to have to sit out on the front driveway. Do you know why they sit on the front driveway and say: ‘Bring that injured little girl with a stake through her foot out to the front’? It is because the last time that they were there, or the time prior to that, somebody broke in and stole their ambulance, and the ambulance was damaged.
These people have a right to be able to go about their business and do their job unhindered, and that is what this bill attempts to do. It attempts to help those people in those situations. As the minister yawns and sucks air through his teeth tonight saying: ‘Oh my God, it is 10.30; it is late’, at 3 am he is going to be in bed, and is not going to care what is happening on the streets of Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin. What is going to happen is that those ambulance officers are going to have to put up with more rubbish.
This bill has been sitting on the Notice Paper since August this year – August. Since that time, an ambulance has been stolen in Alice Springs, and people have failed to get proper medical attention delivered to them. Why? Because ambulance officers have been stuffed around by some of the people they even try to help. And this minister has the audacity to try to dismiss this piece of legislation with two lines: ‘Oh, I thought the bill was going to be cognate …
Members interjecting.
Mr Baldwin: If you are tired, go home!
Mr ELFERINK: And the government interjects before the member for Daly.
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Absolutely! You had a chance to …
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: … try to govern the Northern Territory …
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Macdonnell, direct your comments through the Chair, please.
Mr ELFERINK: Absolutely, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. If the minister and the Labor Party are too tired to do their job, then perhaps they should stop thinking about being here. I have a great deal of sympathy for those emergency workers. Where are the contributions of the other members? The whole of government’s contribution in relation to this bill has been two lines. Where are the other members? What about the …
Mr Baldwin: Where is your contribution?
Mr ELFERINK: … the member for Barkly, who has ambulance officers in his electorate stuck with the same problems …
Mr Baldwin: The police minister, emergency services - where is your contribution? You are woeful.
Mr ELFERINK: That takes me to a very good point: where is the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services’ contribution …
Mr Baldwin: You do not care about the emergency services. That is your problem. You do not care, and if you are tired, then why don’t you go home?
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Daly, could we please hear the member for Macdonnell’s comments on the matter.
Mr ELFERINK: The government has been …
Mr Henderson: More ambulances on the road when the CLP were in power?
Mr Baldwin: You do not care about them otherwise you would have contributed. You are weak and woeful! Weak and woeful; that is what you are!
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, when I brought this bill to the House, I laid on the table a copy of Outback Ambulance. I forget the issue number, but it spoke about an ambulance which had also been attacked in a town camp in Alice Springs. If you read the article, it is hair raising. People use the term ‘war zone’, and that is exactly how ambulance officers describe the environment they work in. I know because I have seen it. I have seen it when I was a policeman, and I saw it the other month when I was out with these ambulance officers.
These ambulance officers deserve better than us playing politics in this House. That is what this is about; it is protecting them. I know full well that this bill will not go all the way; it will not dress them in a suit of armour that makes them impervious. However, it will give them a sense of reassurance that we, as a parliament, have the courage to protect those who protect us whilst we sleep in our beds. This bill will go some way of changing policy in the ambulance service so that ambulance officers no longer stand off about making complaints. I can tell you, they put up with so much and so few complaints are made. I would like to see a policy change in the ambulance service where complaints are far more regular, and where people go to gaol for hindering ambulance officers. However, you need to create the legislative environment for that to occur.
It exists in part with the assault provisions under the Criminal Code and in other parts. To create a general offence of hindering an ambulance officer is not that hard. We do it for police officers. It is a simple section in the Police Administration Act which says: ‘It is an offence to hinder a police officer in the course of his duty’. That is not too hard. There is no major impediment to that occurring. You can do exactly the same thing through the Summary Offences Act for ambulance officers. It is that simple!
It could have been easily fixed by the government bringing an amendment into the House tonight if there was a problem with it …
Mr Baldwin: It is a dereliction of duty.
Mr ELFERINK: I would have accepted their amendment, as I indicated quite publicly recently. They have become derelict - and I thank the member for Daly for the word - in their duty to protect the workers that the Labor Party traditionally says it wants to protect - the blokes and girls at the coalface. They are the ones the Labor Party is supposed to be protecting. To their eternal shame and disgrace, they are too busy refusing to allow a CLP bill to go through and are leaving these people exposed. Tonight, those ambulance officers are going to be out on the streets while these guys are in their beds, and they have failed them.
Motion negatived.
Mr Baldwin: Totally derelict!
Mr Stirling: Get back on your green cans; it is getting warm.
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I ask the member for Nhulunbuy, who has had a drinking offence against him, to withdraw that mark.
Mr Stirling: Why? It is out there getting warm, mate. What is unparliamentary about that?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, would you withdraw any comments on whether or not a member …
Mr STIRLING: It might be a can of lemonade. I withdraw, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Mr BALDWIN: No! Totally misrepresented …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Daly, it has been withdrawn. Please sit down.
Mr Baldwin: I should hope so. A member who has had a drinking offence against him …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please sit down. Member for Daly, please sit down; let us move on.
Members interjecting.
Mr Baldwin: You mob are derelict and tired! That is your problem. You cannot go out at night. One way …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Daly! Member for Johnston! It is General Business. Let us continue, please.
SUMMARY OFFENCES AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 232)
(Serial 232)
Continued from 19 May 2004.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Family and Community Services): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, although the opposition shadow Justice and Corrections minister introduced this bill, the government believes that petrol sniffing is a social problem and should not be treated as a crime.
The government will not be supporting this bill, and to outline our reasons for this, it is easiest if I read from the bill, clause 8:
- A person who administers a restricted substance to himself or herself is guilty of an offence.
Penalty: $2000 or imprisonment for 2 years.
That extract alone makes our opposition to this bill self-evident. That they came up with a proposed solution that involves prison sentences speaks volumes. I simply do not believe that this bill has the support of the community.
In establishing the government’s policy, I have talked to the police, health professionals, lawyers and, more importantly, the wider community. They are not saying to me: ‘Send petrol sniffers to prison’. I have received a couple of papers put together by Alice Springs Youth Services. They are fantastic papers; they were compiled by the Alice Springs Youth Accommodation and Support Services in conjunction with the Reconnect program in Alice Springs and the Safe Families project at Tangentyere Council. It has been endorsed by the Community Harmony project, the Alice Springs Safe Communities Regional Committee and Alice in 10. They are all very well regarded organisations in Alice Springs that deal with the curse of petrol sniffing on a daily basis. I met with most of them last week in Alice Springs.
In this paper, they conclude that criminal sanctions should not be applied to problems that are of a medical or social nature. If the member for Araluen claims that this bill is not about sending sniffers to prison, why put it in there? Why would you put a two-year prison sentence into a bill you say is not about sending people to prison? She did not have to put it in there but she did.
Last week, I outlined the Labor government’s plan to tackle petrol sniffing. We are banning petrol sniffing, and I heard the belittling comments from the member for Araluen earlier today making light of that comment. However, we are giving police the powers that they need to combat petrol sniffing. They can seize petrol if it is being abused. They can apprehend sniffers and take them to a place of safety. We are giving courts the powers to order compulsory treatment programs for chronic sniffers. We are empowering communities. Communities will work with the police to come up with places of safety in each community, and will be involved in treatment programs. We have immediately allocated an extra $2m this year, and we will be funding the programs, services and facilities necessary to support this legislation into the future.
Many years have been spent talking about petrol sniffing and what to do about it. For years, nothing was done. I am delighted that, finally, we have a government that is doing something about it, and I do not mind saying that it makes me very proud.
Prior to becoming minister, I was the chair of the substance abuse committee. Last year, I tabled that committee’s interim report. The final report is about to be tabled by the current chair, the member for Nightcliff. The government takes this report so seriously that we have already allocated money towards implementing its recommendations on programs and services. As soon as it is tabled, we will look at the recommendations and how they can be implemented and complement our legislation.
I am aware that the member for Nelson has made comments that he thinks we should have waited for the substance abuse committee to table its report before we considered a policy like this. I can see his point. As I have said, it is a very important report, and that is why we have pre-emptively allocated money towards implementing its recommendations on programs and services.
Ms Carney: Oh, that is too cute. That is so creative: ‘We have pre-emptively decided’.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You can laugh, but what did you do?
I can say that I did not really need to wait for this report to make the announcement we did last week. The things we announced were obvious; they should have been done years ago. I had to respond to this bill today, and I was not simply going to say that we would wait and consider the report before stating that prison for sniffers was wrong. I also point out that we were looking at everything we announced last week back in May, and I detailed it in a parliamentary report.
Our package is about banning petrol sniffing and getting sniffers on track. Banning it certainly goes some way towards discouraging petrol sniffing being taken up in the first place, but we do not pretend that this alone will stop it occurring. Prevention is the key …
Mr Dunham: Like a cotton ban; it does not really exist does it? It is all gammon.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! The member for Drysdale continues to interject against standing orders.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not think there is any point of order, member for Karama.
Ms Lawrie: There is. There is a standing order on it.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Look, he can interject all he wants. The hypocrisy with you and members on your side calling for a bipartisan approach on this issue, and then you make light of what we are trying to do. The hypocrisy is all on his side.
Mr Baldwin interjecting.
Mr Dunham: You call it a ban on petrol sniffing and it is just a gammon ban. It does not exist.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Your legacy stands for itself. I would not even talk about it. Your legacy stands for itself. We will have a whole-of-government approach towards prevention …
Mr Baldwin: Similar to the cotton ban? You were pretty good on that one. No law against it, but it is a ban.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Daly, please! Let us hear the minister’s comments.
Mr Baldwin: Tell us how the ban works. Come on, you are on your feet.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You are an insignificant little parasite, you are.
Police, schools and health clinics will be involved. Our approach is to do all we can to prevent substance abuse being taken up in the first place and, when it does, we will do all we can to stop it becoming a chronic problem.
The shadow minister for Corrections has claimed that we copied her policy. I cannot think of two policies that are further apart. Her bill today is about sending our kids to prison; our policy is about keeping kids out of prison and getting them back on track. Many people, including many working within the community sector, may or have expressed reservations about our youth policy being too harsh or punitive. I believe the great majority who are working at the coalface ...
Mr Baldwin: Explain how you have banned it, while you are on your feet.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Look, talk about something you know about. You know nothing about this, so I would be quiet, if I was you. In respect of the crisis ...
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister for Family and Community Services, could you just grab a seat until there is quiet in the House.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Well, I am trying to deal with this. If you could stop them on the other side from interjecting.
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister for Family and Community Services, could you be seated please. Member for Daly, if you continue to interrupt, you leave me no other option but to name you. Could we just have a bit of quiet at this late hour.
Mr BALDWIN: Sorry, could I have a clarification, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I am not allowed to interject, is that what you are saying?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Daly, at the moment, you are on a warning.
Mr BALDWIN: I am on a warning?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are on a warning.
Mr BALDWIN: Could I ask what for?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: For continual interjections, member for Daly.
Mr BALDWIN: Point of clarification. Could you tell me am I not allowed to interject?
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Daly, your constant interjections are interrupting the minister’s opportunity to speak. I ask you to refrain from doing that, otherwise you give me no other option but to name you.
Mr Baldwin: Okay.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Members interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. They did ask us if we were responding, and I am trying to respond to this bill. I believe that the great majority working at the coalface in respect of the crises we are trying to deal with are now very supportive of the path we are travelling on.
There is a further period of weeks between now and the next sitting when consultation will take place, through which suggestions for finetuning of the initiative can be made. Those from the community sector who maintain their criticism tend to be people who are one or more steps removed from the coalface. They raise objections framed in individual rights and the need to treat the whole community as the patient, rather than just the individual petrol sniffer. This approach, which has basically been the status quo approach for many years, implicitly characterises petrol sniffing addicts as rational and responsible citizens and the communities they are living in as safe and socially functional. The reality is that petrol sniffers in communities where it is endemic and rampant are not susceptible to any softly, softly holistic therapy.
The provision of better recreational facilities and education and employment opportunities alone will do nothing to fix the problem, which is not to say that those things are not an important component of any global strategy. Of course they are but, without a change in the law enabling the police to step in to stop the actual practice of petrol sniffing, and the courts to mandate detoxification and rehabilitation regimes, nothing is going to change.
When the pendulum swings the other way, it eventually reaches the extreme position as outlined by the shadow Attorney-General. They want petrol sniffing to be made a criminal offence, with prison sentences for convicted offenders. The proposition only has to be stated for it to be rejected out of hand. The problem we are facing needs tough and effective measures to be taken immediately, backed up by specifically focussed and targeted policing and judicially machinery. Throwing more indigenous people in gaol is no answer at all and would, indeed, constitute an excessive undermining of the human rights and dignities of individual volatile substance abusers. In this country, interference with the personal liberty and freedom of individuals who have not committed any crime is unacceptable unless it has some permissible social purpose such as the temporary detention of a mentally-ill person at the risk of harming himself or herself or others. Where the real underlying purpose of the detention of such persons is to punish them, the detention is legal. You cannot get around that fundamental principle which is one of the cornerstones of our democratic society, by simply labelling an illness a crime and sending people to prison as a punishment for being sick.
I am absolutely delighted with the approach that we have taken, and the reception that we have received. It has been widely welcomed by the media throughout Australia. However, I am most heartened by the reception it has received from people who are currently working with petrol sniffers in the Northern Territory at the moment. We have received numerous comments and the overriding sentiment can be summed up by one e-mail I received: ‘Great, about time too!’.
The announcement that I made last week was the most important initiative ever undertaken towards tackling petrol sniffing and other volatile substance abuse in the Northern Territory. It is for that reason that we do not support the bill that we have before us today.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, first things first. Well read, minister. You are getting exceptionally good at reading these things out. I would actually like to know what you think one day, because all I am hearing at the moment is the opinions of whoever writes this out stuff out and the occasional piece of common abuse. I would like to actually know what the minister thinks, rather than what the ministerial advisor thinks.
I am also fascinated by this term ‘banning’. This is an extraordinary thing. I would like to put it into some sort of context ...
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: You can interject to your heart’s content; it does not bother me.
I am curious as to what the mechanics of ‘banning’ are going to be. To ban something means that you are going to stop it from happening; you prohibit it. If you prohibit something then you must apply some sort of sanction. The sanction they are applying is not clear. In fact, there is no sanction. What they are going to do is say: ‘You should not do that’. And that is it; it stops. That is what happens when you ban something without actually building it into legislation, without creating a mechanism for banning something.
Let us have a look at smoking legislation in relation to restaurants. Smoking is banned in a restaurant, by law. If I was going to light up a cigarette in a restaurant and puff away, the restaurateur would walk up to me and say: ‘Sorry, you cannot do that, it is against the law. You are banned from doing it’. I would say to the restaurateur: ‘Well, you can get nicked, Sonny Jim, because I am going to smoke away to my heart’s content’. The restaurateur then takes some action, notifies the authority and guess what? There is a sanction. You can get fined, and if you do not pay your fine, you go to gaol. All sorts of sanctions apply to that.
If I do not wear a bicycle helmet in the right circumstances and I am riding my bicycle down the street, the act of riding a bicycle without a bicycle helmet is banned. There are all sorts of things that can apply after you actually put a sanction in place. The first thing that can apply is that a police officer, or the authority that has the responsibility of looking after that piece of legislation, has the ability to apply a common law power of discretion. Not every person who rides a bicycle down the street without a helmet necessarily needs to be apprehended and given a ticket, because police can apply a discretionary power. Indeed, it is quite possible for a police officer to pull a person over who is speeding for instance - which is banned. How do I know it is banned? Because it is in legislation that says you cannot speed.
Mr Baldwin: It is actually called a law.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, that is it; it is called a law.
If the police officer sees somebody speeding they can pull them over and say: ‘Excuse me, sir, do you know that you are travelling at 60 km/h in a 50 km zone. That is against the law and you should not be doing it?’ Then the police officer has several options. And guess what? The first one is a verbal caution; the second one is do nothing at all. It is perfectly lawful. It is called the common law power of discretion. Then you follow it through. Let us say the police officer thinks: ‘Oh well, I better do something about it’. So, he gives him a ticket. The guy in the car says: ‘Well, I am pleading not guilty. I am disputing the fact that you caught me speeding’. The police officer says: ‘Well, I will summons you’. You then go to a court. Then the court adjudicates and decides. I am sure you are aware of all of this, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. The court can only look at the issue because of an actual unlawful act.
There is no such things being half pregnant. That is exactly what this minister is arguing: that if you are banning something without actually creating any sort of defence, sanction, penalty or whatever - the minister is saying that the government is only half pregnant on this issue. Well you cannot be; it is an absolute. The law either exists or it does not.
There is no offence to be drunk in public in the Northern Territory. There is a power of apprehension but there is no sanction that applies. In fact, the law is very specific in protecting people’s rights. You cannot be photographed, fingerprinted, questioned in relation to an offence, or have DNA taken whilst you are under that protective custody. If you resist arrest in those circumstances, and you smack a policeman in the face, that is an offence and for that you can go to court.
What sanction does the minister suggest that banning will have? None. The best she can offer is the deprivation of the liberty of an individual while they are intoxicated. That is not a sanction. The second thing she could say is that an order can be made by the court for a compulsory treatment program. How are you going to get that person to court? There is no offence. It is curious how the mechanics of this are going to work.
The opposition’s bill suggests that there is an offence – shock, horror! – and that people might be placed in custody. The minister talked about people’s rights and dignities. In my experience, I have yet to clap eyes on a dignified petrol sniffer. There is no such thing. It is a disgusting condition to be in. It turns your brain to mush. I have seen it. I saw it a week ago. I reported it to a police officer! Do you know what the police officer said to me? ‘I cannot do anything’. This government, which says it has been a problem for years, has been in power for years. It had the ability to do something. However, it is not until the CLP brings legislation into this House that this government decides to respond. Once again, they are off the boil and off their case.
When the police officer said he could not do anything, I said: ‘What about the Community Welfare Act?’. This was an ACPO and perhaps the training was not quite to level, but I got a blank look …
Mr Kiely: Oh, so, it was not a police officer, it was an ACPO now.
Mr ELFERINK: I fulfilled my obligations, as I always do ...
Mr Kiely: You are making this up.
Mr ELFERINK: … unlike the member for Sanderson.
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: I informed the authorities. The problem with the Community Welfare Act - and it is interesting that the minister for community services still has not fixed this, despite the fact that she identified it - is that there is a phrase in that act that says: ‘… by the standards of the community to which the child belongs’. It seems all too common that the standards of some Aboriginal communities is the yardstick that is applied, and when children are not being stopped from sniffing by their parents because it causes too much humbug, it seems to be the standard that is accepted. Not good enough - just not good enough.
We can talk about dignity, yet all I can see is things that disgust me. The minister has seen it; the minister knows that substance abuse in the communities is not easy to control. God knows the minister knows that. The minister knows how hard it is to control substance abuse in community, whether they are lawful or not.
What the CLP is proposing is a method by which you create a sanction. Shock, horror! We are not automatically saying to courts: ‘You will put this person in gaol’. The court knows it is not required to do that. However, there are instances where gaol would be better than …
Mr Dunham: Death.
Mr ELFERINK: … death, and that is the logic of what we are talking about.
If you look at the Bail Act, it allows bail to be refused for the protection of the person who is applying for bail. That is extraordinary. The Bail Act even contemplates removing a person’s liberty for their protection. It is the same philosophical position. That is before they are convicted of anything. What we are suggesting is that we create an offence, which means that police officers can intervene.
If I had walked up to this police officer under our regime and said: ‘Look, there is a kid over there petrol sniffing’, the police officer could not have replied that there was nothing he could do about it. He could have said: ‘There is something I can do about it. I am taking him into custody’. What happens when a person goes into custody? All of a sudden, there is a whole bunch of responsibilities on the part of the state to look after that person in custody.
You have this 14-year-old kid with a tin can under his nose, sniffing away, doing the Darth Vader impersonation: ‘Luke, come to the dark side’ and all that sort of thing. All of a sudden, they are in custody; the petrol is removed. That is a step in the right direction. Guess what? It is lawful for the police to do that. What do the police do when they arrest a person? Police are legally obliged to bring that person – where? Before a court. We now say to the police officer: ‘If you are going to refuse bail for this person to have health their health looked after, you can give them bail’. They can be released a short time later into the care and custody of the person. But you then bring that person in front of the court.
What if the Sentencing Act allowed for it to occur? Assuming that person is found guilty - and we will not suggest for a second that they are guilty until such time as the due process of the law is followed - a whole raft of options open up to the court. They can do, at the lowest level, nothing. They can say: ‘The facts are proved, I am not going to proceed to a conviction - out you go, you are an innocent man’. That is the lowest level. The court can actually say, not hearing the charge: ‘Bye. You are an innocent man, you should not be here’. It goes all the way up to: ‘You are going to gaol’.
It has been my experience that the courts use sentencing not in punitive ways - especially in the cases of juveniles - unless it is absolutely necessary. In fact, it is clearly the policy of the courts to try to keep kids out of incarceration. However, there are times when incarceration has to occur. Sometimes it is because the kid is just woefully out of control and breaks in to all the places and causes mayhem. However, there may be other reasons to incarcerate a person, and (a) is because they have broken the law, and (b) it is for their own good. A court can also sentence a person to a good behaviour bond, and give conditions to that person whilst they are in custody. That could mean those conditions might be a compulsory rehab program.
However, there is a mechanical process to what the CLP is arguing for. There is a process in place, and there is a finding of guilt - shock, horror! - on the petrol sniffer. What the government is suggesting is that we ban it and bring these people in front of the courts for orders. Well, how are you going to do that? Are you going to arrest that kid and then take them into custody in Papunya? When is the court next sitting at Papunya? Next month? Therefore, what we are going to have to do - says the government – is we are going to have to take the kid out of Papunya to Alice Springs. Really, in the mind’s eye of a kid in the back of the police van trundling down a dirt road, does he really care whether or not he is banned and is under some sort of protective custody? Does he really care if he has been charged with an offence? I would suggest that a person under the influence of petrol, and who has a petrol sniffing habit, is not going to be concerned about those sorts of niceties. What they are going to know is that they are in custody, because what the government is proposing means custody.
Let us be realistic about it. If they are taken into protective custody to be brought before a court for a court to determine an order, it is no different from arresting him and bringing him before a court. That is what you are doing. What the government is suggesting is that they have some general power of apprehension; a little like section 128 of the Police Administration Act. They are really bending the wheel when they are doing this sort of thing, so that they can exercise administrative power. The government is going to use custody in the same way that we are suggesting custody is used. There is a perfectly acceptable and structured system in place which already works. It is a system that we have used for hundreds and hundreds of years.
There is one other aspect to this. We, as a parliament, like the other parliaments, have made all sorts of substance abuse illegal. In fact, out of all the chemicals that are available out there, most of them are illegal for the purpose of consumption: tobacco is illegal in a limited way nowadays; alcohol is heavily regulated; heroin, cannabis, amphetamines - all those uppers, downers and sideways movers - hallucinogens, and God knows what else. They are all illegal. And guess what? You can buy ganga at school in Papunya, apparently - very easily. You can buy it at Port Keats, apparently. I can certainly tell you, from the rumours that I have heard and passed on to the police, that you can buy it in Mutitjulu. It is out there. And guess what? Kids are using it. Guess what? It is against the law, and they are getting arrested and they are going to court. I am just confused as to what is so special about petrol that makes it a different type of offence.
There is a general expectation in the public arena outside of those kids who are seen as victims - and I agree to a large extent they are - that the government intervenes and does something. There is a general expectation of people I have spoken to in places like Alice Springs, where this is actually a criminal offence. People have been asking me why it is not a criminal offence. I believe it should be for all of the reasons that I have outlined.
The Attorney-General’s response to paint sniffing so far is to buy all the paint in Mad Harry’s in Alice Springs. That is his answer to it. Then we are going to paint some pictures at Yuendumu. Well, that is good. I am glad that the kids at Yuendumu are getting the opportunity to express themselves through art. However, that is not the way to fix these things; that is a political stunt: ‘I am going to go down to Mad Harry’s and buy all the paint’. Well, you missed Mitre 10 and Big O home wares and God knows where else you can buy paint - K-Mart and all those places. It is a bizarre response. What is the minister’s response going to be to petrol sniffing? Is he going to buy all the petrol at BP in Alice Springs? Or perhaps he should buy the big fuel tanks from Sadadeen Petroleum in Alice Springs? Well, knowing the minister, he would probably think wind-powered cars are the way to go.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this is a genuine attempt to use the processes that are available without dressing them up for political niceties or for people’s sensibilities. It is a genuine attempt to do something about it, and this government is worried about stepping on people’s toes. My response to this government in relation to this issue is: for God’s sakes, govern!
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it sometimes makes me feel ashamed to be a politician because in this parliament we are debating a very important issue, petrol sniffing, and doing so just when the select committee was about to put its recommendations to parliament on this very same issue. It makes me ashamed because I believe all members of the committee - and I hope that all members of this parliament - would have agreed that we should have looked at the recommendations first, and then developed some actions. It makes me ashamed that party politics could get in the way of what should have been a bipartisan or tri-partisan approach to the scourge of some of our young people petrol sniffing.
Can someone please tell me why we are debating this legislation instead of waiting for the report next week? Was it politics? Was it too good a chance to win some brownie points? Was it to impress the voters with the usual ‘my law was tougher than your law’ approach? Did it really have the welfare of our young people at heart? Were they really the pawns of a political game? You answer for yourselves. Regardless of the good points in the legislation, could we have not held this debate up until next week? Could the government not have mounted a reasonable argument that, as you set up the committee, you could have delayed your comments also until the report was delivered to this parliament? No wonder people think we are a strange bunch. Nevertheless, I will make some comments on the task before us.
This bill has two key parts: making it an offence to administer to oneself or allowing another to administer, or allowing the sale or supply of restricted substances; and giving power to police to empty out petrol or dispose of containers in various circumstances. The purpose behind this bill is to give powers to the police to arrest people who are committing an offence under this bill.
Could I first ask: has anyone asked those police, especially the ones out there in the firing line, what they think? From my contacts, I do not believe they want to be locking up people for petrol sniffing. They do not want to be arresting people for what is a social problem, not a criminal problem. Anyway, as one policeman said to me the other day: ‘Where are you going to find a safe place to put people, say, on a place like Papunya?’. It is no use saying there will be juvenile diversionary programs because not all petrol sniffers are juveniles. They will go to gaol or pay a fine. If you can be arrested for sniffing petrol, why not reintroduce drunkenness as a crime?
Has anyone read the response to the arresting of petrol sniffers by Dr d’Abbs, who appeared before the substance abuse committee in April? Dr d’Abbs is an Associate Professor at the School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine at James Cook University. At that meeting, I asked the following question:
- I thought I might like to ask you a question about criminalisation of petrol sniffing. Has it been looked
at in other jurisdictions? Do you think it could work, or do you have to look at a more holistic answer?
Dr d’Abbs:
- Well, turning those around a little bit. It has certainly been looked at very carefully in a number of other
jurisdictions, most recently in Victoria where they had a long hard look at it. New Zealand had a long hard
look at it. They both decided no. They could see where people where coming from who wanted to criminalise it.
Particularly the frustration the police faced, who feel that they don’t have the options to deal with it. But they
argued against it on a number of grounds. One is that it probably won’t work. If you look at the number of
people who indulge in cannabis which is already illegal. It doesn’t exactly inspire confidence that making
petrol sniffing illegal would lead to a downturn. Secondly, and you are dealing with what is an act of rebellion
anyway. So even if it mightn’t be an act of illegality, it is an act of rebellion. There is even a suggestion that it
would lead to a slight increase in the status of volatiles, because they are worthy of banning. The other point
of what you could be doing is getting more young people caught up in the criminal justice system which is not
in anybody’s interest.
The alternative they have gone for in Victoria and in Queensland now, and I believe in Western Australia, is what
is called a civil apprehension model. That involves increasing the powers of police to apprehend somebody that
they can actually see using inhalants, or even they suspect that person, on reasonable grounds, or believe that that
person is intoxicated, with paint all over their mouth or what have you. They have the power under new legislation
and I will give you the reference of the Queensland act; both Queensland and Victorian acts are about to be
proclaimed. No, they have been proclaimed, they are about to come into effect. In fact, I think Victoria might have
come into effect this week, sometime in April. Under these powers, the police have the power to seize - the
Queensland law has been defined rather quaintly as a harmful thing. ‘A harmful thing’ is defined to include
volatile substances and methylated spirits, which is interesting, and certainly that is what it is targeting. It might refer
to one or two other things but it is mainly volatiles. So they can seize any paraphernalia, including the stuff itself,
paper bags, bottles, or whatever they are using. They can also apprehend the person and take them to ‘a safe place’.
A safe place is then defined under the act, and I am more familiar, in fact, I have not read the Victorian act, but I have
read the Queensland one. A safe place can be a hospital emergency department, which presumably they would only
use if that was required. It can be the home of a family, relative or friend who is willing to take them, or it can be a
place that is actually designated as a safe place.
I believe the bill that is being put forward has merit but it needs to be approached from the way Dr D’Abbs spoke about; that is, the civilian apprehension model. We should amend section 128 of the Police Administration Act which is used to apprehend someone to put them into protective custody, as long as that is not used to cover up other criminal behaviour. I take the point from the member for Macdonnell: it may, in its present state, not be the perfect tool to do what we are trying to do, but we should certainly be looking at it.
Of course, this particular idea should have gone to this select committee and we should have debated it. We could have come back here with some recommendations we all could have agreed on. As it is, I now have to debate an issue that I would rather have done at the committee stage and come back, hopefully, with something we all agreed on.
Following on from section 128 of the Police Administration Act, perhaps then a court order could be issued involving family - I know that was an issue mentioned in our trips around the communities - which would order a person to be sent to a safe house or a safe place, as Dr D’Abbs said, such as a Mt Theo for a period of time. That could even include a juvenile diversionary program, if applicable. However, we would have to make sure that, before we allowed such a law to come into being there was a lot of work done talking with police, families and communities, and health workers, to ensure there were facilities for safe places in place.
Petrol sniffing has its own difficulties for people who have to handle these situations. They can become very aggressive as though they were possessed. Once again, I will refer to Dr D’Abbs’ report. He mentioned a matter in relation to that as well. The member for Port Darwin asked Dr D’Abbs what some of the dos and don’ts were, referring to people intoxicated with petrol. Dr D’Abbs said:
- Well, it depends a bit on whether you suspect self-harm or not. If you suspect self-harm you have to get
emergency attention immediately. If you don’t suspect self-harm, you should call police. If somebody is out of
it completely, if you think you can manage him or her and bring them into a safe place then do that. If you don’t,
your only option is to get the police. If you come across people sniffing, you do not chase them because one of the
big risks, as you are probably aware, is if they run off they actually will have cardiac difficulties. This is
evidenced as so-called ‘sudden sniffing death’. Beyond that, it is basically what you do with anyone who is
intoxicated. You try and get them to a safe place, calm them down ...
There are some issues just with dealing with people who are intoxicated from petrol. Dealing with these people involves understanding and knowledge of how to deal with them. We all want solutions to the problem, but I do not believe arresting people is the way to go. What is ‘funny’ in this debate is that some could accuse the substance abuse committee of being too slow in releasing its report, so by bringing this legislation on, it has pushed the government into making a response and the substance abuse committee to get its report together a bit quicker. There may be some element of truth in that, but one has to realise that this committee was looking at three substances, not just one, and we had a change in the chair as we were coming into the final lap.
What is forgotten by the sponsor of the bill is that a Coroner’s report was released in September 1998. This report dealt with the death of a young boy on 17 October on the Stuart Highway, approximately 102 km south of Alice Springs. He died from loss of blood after a young man forced his arm through a window. He was a petrol sniffer. In his findings, the Coroner, WL Donald, recommended the following:
- 1. … steps be taken …
- … to ensure that all Death Certificates and Autopsy Reports reflect any connection of a death with the abuse
of petrol or other inhalant.
2. That an adequately funded consultative body be established to:
- (a) investigate and recommend appropriate means for better preventing the resort to inhalant abuse
by those at risk;
(b) investigate and recommend treatment and rehabilitation options for those already suffering from
inhalant abuse; and
(c) consider and recommend appropriate legislative change to better assist law enforcement officers and
others in addressing the behaviours of those suffering the effects of petrol abuse and of those who assist
in the provision of petrol to such abusers.
3. That facilities be established and maintained for the safe detoxification and/or rehabilitation of petrol sniffers …
And he went into some detail on how those facilities should be set up:
- 4. That if outstations such as Ilpurla are to continue to be used as places of rehabilitation or respite, then it is
necessary for such establishments to be regulated:
- (a) The ‘program’ of treatment of those sent there must be subject to review and control so that
those in vulnerable positions are protected;
(b) In order to operate as places of rehabilitation or respite, they must have appropriate medical
safeguards and other services such as communication facilities; and
(c) Before entry to such outstation, each person so admitted should be medically examined.
5. … Northern Territory Health Services monitor and assist petrol sniffers after they return to their
communities from any detoxification or rehabilitation facility. Appropriate ongoing care should be
provided.
- 6. … in consultation with the Commonwealth government, a tripartite strategy be developed by the
Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia to address the problem of petrol sniffing in
Central Australia. Such strategies should include:
- (a) a uniform approach to the collection and dissemination of statistical information concerning the
extent of the problem and the movement of the problem as between Central Australian communities;
(b) the collection and dissemination of research materials and other information for use by those
involved in the treatment and rehabilitation of petrol sniffers and in formulating preventive strategies;
(c) the efficient and coordinated use of resources available regardless of the physical location of that
resource or of the inhalant abuser.
Finally, in summary:
- 7. That the Commonwealth government establish and fund rehabilitation facilities for chronic petrol
sniffers in Alice Springs. Those facilities should be such as to be able to act as a repository for information
and research, and should also be considered for training workers who can then work in communities where
petrol sniffing is prevalent. The residential facility known as CAAPS in Darwin may provide an appropriate
model and such facility should be designed to provide the services referred to for persons resident in
Central Australia regions of South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory.
GIVEN under my hand this 2nd day of September 1998 at ALICE SPRINGS
WL DONALD
CORONER.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that report was presented six years ago. Did the previous government or the new government ever act on these recommendations? Petrol sniffing is not a new practice. Why are we rushing through a piece of legislation based on one government being slow to act? Where was the action the Coroner required? It did not occur. These things have been around a long time. Why could we not wait for the recommendations of this committee to come out? That is why I say this whole debate is more about politics than looking after the kids who are being affected by petrol sniffing.
I am not saying that all of this particular law is bad. I agree with most of it – about tipping out petrol and taking that off people. I just have my doubts that arresting people is the way to go. This whole issue of arrest by apprehension should have been better left to a bipartisan or tri-partisan committee to look at and not set by party policy.
Now CLP members of the substance abuse committee are bound to support their party policy, instead of being given a free hand to work things out on the committee and then consult with their party. As it is now, we have an unfortunate mess. I hope something can develop out of this that we can all agree on but, sadly, it will not be this bill which unifies our efforts.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the member for Araluen’s legislation with regards to petrol sniffing, and I hope that this Assembly can also support it. Everybody in the Northern Territory is well aware of the scourge of petrol sniffing across our wonderful area.
As a member of the substance abuse committee, I have had the unfortunate opportunity to have witnessed petrol sniffing at first-hand on, in particular, one Aboriginal community that we visited. Tackling petrol sniffing is something that we all want to do and our heart is in.
The CLP does have a policy with regards to petrol sniffing, and it is titled ‘Tackling Sniffing in the Territory’. The reason we have this policy - and I particularly point this out for the interest of the member for Nelson - is that the substance abuse committee has now been running for nearly three-and-a-half years. For quite some time now, a number of us have been calling for this committee to actually wrap things up and come out with a report. As the member for Nelson knows, it has been hard getting some of these reports. With regards to alcohol, the government itself had to step in, with the Treasurer formulating his own alcohol committee which released its own report.
With regards to petrol sniffing, the CLP got sick and tired of waiting in the face of the tragedy that it is causing in the Northern Territory and many months ago, earlier this year, the member for Araluen put forward in this House during a General Business Day her legislation with regards to petrol sniffing. Not surprisingly, after that occurred, the substance abuse committee, under the new chair, decided to wrap things up with regards to petrol sniffing and come to some sort of conclusion. That was the reason why we did it; because we sick of waiting for something to happen. We needed a policy and, by golly, we have done it.
I am going to read into Hansard the five points of our policy to educate members of this House who may not have taken the time to read our policy, who can gain an understanding of the holistic nature of this policy. The first dot point is that the CLP, in government, would make the sniffing of petrol and other toxic substances illegal. Secondly, we would give the police the power to dispose of petrol and other toxic substances, similar to pouring out of alcohol that is being illegally consumed. The third point is that we would develop, in conjunction with existing health services, state-of-the-art treatment programs targeting substance abuse, including sniffing.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! We have three members on the government side all reading newspapers. My understanding is that that is most unparliamentary and you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, should direct them not to do so.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I do not think there is any point of order at all. Please continue, you are only interrupting your own member.
Mr Kiely: You cannot even count, Jodeen.
Ms Carney: Well, you are the only one not reading a newspaper because your reading is not very good, is it?
Mr Kiely: You are a fool! A silly, spoilt fool.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! The phrase ‘fool’ in connection to a member should not be used, and he should withdraw it in relation to the member for Araluen.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, if I was to rule that unparliamentary, we would be here all night, where people often, unfortunately on both sides, call each other a fool. I am not going to rule that unparliamentary.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! What about the words ‘idiot’ and ‘cretin’?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, member for Araluen, you threw abuse to begin with. All you are doing is interrupting, at this late hour at 11.30 pm, your own member, who is trying to read into parliament your own policy. I ask you to sit down and the member for Port Darwin to have the opportunity to continue. Thank you.
Ms CARNEY: A further point of clarification. I asked you for clarification in respect of the words ‘idiot’ and ‘cretin’. You have ruled that it is not ...
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I have not ruled on any matter, so please do not put words into my mouth.
Ms CARNEY: Well, you did. You ruled that ‘fool’ was not unparliamentary. I asked whether ‘idiot’ and ‘cretin’ are unparliamentary.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I ask you to sit down. I ruled that in terms of use of the word ‘fool’ in this parliament. From what I have seen over the three years that I have been involved, I would be stopping every debate every two minutes. I must admit I did not hear the member for Sanderson use those words, so I cannot rule on those. I ask the member for Port Darwin to continue her comments and be allowed to continue in peace.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I am reading from House of Representatives Practice at page 193. It says:
- While the practice is sometimes discretion of the Chair, it has always been the practice of the House not to commit
the reading of newspaper in the Chamber.
Mr Ah Kit: I was only reading about this CLP man in more strife.
Mr DUNHAM: If this practice continues, it is a departure from the practice of the House of the Reps, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I ask that you rule that they desist from reading newspapers.
Mr Ah Kit: Well, have we got it in front of us? Idiot!
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, I will get the advice from the Clerk on that. However, I believe the use of the word ‘discretion’ – and at this stage I am going to use the word ‘discretion’ and I rule there is no point of order. Again, at this late hour, if the member for Port Darwin could please continue with the CLP policy uninterrupted, if she is capable of reading that into the Hansard, because I believe this is an important matter. Thank you, member for Port Darwin.
Ms CARNEY: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, a further point of clarification. You said two things in the same sentence. One was that you would seek advice, then you went on to continue to say that it was a matter for your discretion?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: On advice from the Clerk of the Assembly, I would ask all members of both government and opposition to refrain from reading any material in relation to the newspapers, as it is not considered good etiquette. I ask them to go into the lobby and continue if they wish to do so. If there are no more points of order, I ask the member for Port Darwin to be allowed to continue with her comments.
Ms CARTER: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I return in order to repeat point three, which is that the CLP will develop, in conjunction with the existing health services, state-of-the-art treatment programs targeting substance abuse including sniffing, and investigate the benefits of establishing a residential rehabilitation facility.
Point four is that we will legislate to give courts the power to order sniffers to attend detoxification programs, the resources for which a CLP government will provide.
Point five is that we will legislate so that the children who are sniffing can be taken into care for their own protection, and so that they can undergo treatment.
You can see that there are quite a number of similarities between the CLP policy and the Labor policy. The only significant difference is that we plan to make sniffing illegal which we are trying to do tonight with this bill, as opposed to Labor’s plan to ‘ban’ sniffing. We all know what the term ‘illegal’ means, but what does the word ‘banned’ mean? I call on the Attorney-General tonight to explain the term ‘ban’ used by the Labor government. We will be very interested to see how much notice sniffers will take of the word ‘ban’. How much will this ‘banning’ be able to be enforced if it is not illegal? What sort of sanctions are attached to ‘banning’ if someone does not take any notice of the ‘ban’? This is why we call on the Attorney-General and those opposite to explain it to us.
The member for Nelson has raised the issue of civil apprehension models which have been introduced recently in some other jurisdictions in this country. These models, although they sound wonderful, have yet to be assessed. They may have no effect at all, just like the word ‘ban’ may have no effect. However, we on this side of the House look forward to seeing the effect of these civil apprehension models. If they do work, there is no reason why we cannot use a civil apprehension model in the future. However, at this point there is nothing to indicate that they will have any effect whatsoever. Particularly we ask: what does ‘banning’ mean and could the government please explain it?
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, unlike the minister, who I note is not here, similarly …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! The member for Araluen is aware. Standing Orders …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, the member for Araluen has been in this parliament for three years. Surely she must know she cannot comment on whether a member of parliament is in this House or absent. I would ask her to withdraw.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Mr Ah Kit: Did she withdraw?
Ms CARNEY: In fact …
Mr Kiely: Withdraw! Far too cute.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I did not catch whether you withdrew the comment.
Ms CARNEY: Yes, I withdraw it, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Unlike the minister, I do not have a prepared speech. Might I say that the reading, collectively, on the government side is really coming on. The pronunciation of some words is still somewhat pedestrian, however.
There are a number of things I can say …
Mr Stirling: You are elitist!
Ms CARNEY: … when the member for Nhulunbuy gives me the courtesy of allowing me to do so. The members for Macdonnell and Port Darwin endorsed with that publication …
Dr Burns: You are so clever.
Mr Stirling: Because you did law, what gives you the right to scumbag everybody in this place?
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I wonder if your call to desist with interjections for the member for Daly also applies to government members who are interjecting? If so, could you afford my colleague some protection from the constant interjections?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, Member for Drysdale …
Mr Stirling: It is a bit rich coming from this grub over here who has been at it all night.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy!
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker!
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, could you just refrain for a second. Member for Macdonnell, just have a seat for a second please.
Mr Stirling: You have to keep an eye on these blokes, Terry. They have been disgraceful tonight.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the point of order of the member for Drysdale, for the last hour everyone who has been sitting in this House is obviously aware that there have been consistent interruptions. I urge all members in this House at 11.40 pm to refrain from interjecting, and allow the member for Araluen to continue with her comments.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I would like still to hear the withdrawal of the word ‘grub’ as used, which has been ruled to be unparliamentary.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the member for Nhulunbuy to withdraw the use of the word ‘grub’.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I withdraw.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, please continue.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. There are a number of definitions of the word ‘ban’ but the one that interests me most is according to the Macquarie Dictionary: ‘informal denunciation or prohibition’. That is what the government’s proposal is. The word ‘gammon’ was used earlier. It is a gammon proposal to ban petrol sniffing. It is an informal proposal. This government lacks the collective balls - and that is a word that has been allowed earlier today - to stand up and say: ‘We will make petrol sniffing illegal’.
What the government does not lack is any form of embarrassment when it comes to copying our policies. We have seen it numerous times tonight where we lead, they follow; we lead, they follow. Thank God for us introducing much legislation on General Business Days because, without that, instead of the 87 items of legislation that the Leader of Government Business referred to earlier today, there probably would be about half of them because what we are able to do in opposition, of course, is give the government some good ideas, perhaps in the nave hope that they might accept what we say.
We will take whatever we can, and we take heart again. Personally, I am flattered that the two ministers, B1 and B2, have uplifted the CLPs paper on petrol sniffing. The member for Port Darwin went through them and there is no need for me to repeat them. However, when the Minister for Family and Community Services said that none of our policy was any good and they independently got stuck into their own - what garbage! If that is not misleading the House, I do not know what is.
Four out of five of our solutions were picked up by this government. It was an uplift; as simple as that. Without even feeling embarrassed about it, they say: ‘Thank you, Country Liberal Party, for leading us again. What we will do is wrap it up and call it our own’.
The history of this matter is nothing short of extraordinary. Preempting the findings of a parliamentary committee, as the minister did on Friday, is probably unprecedented. What she did is make an announcement for the sake of making an announcement. We heard that the substance abuse committee was not producing any results for three years. We introduce a bill. Of course, we would have given notice of it in probably about February; I introduced it in May. Here we are, Tuesday, the first sitting day, 5 October and, on Friday, the minister went to Alice Springs and announced her policy.
What makes it even more embarrassing for them, however, is that on ABC radio, the minister was asked questions about rumblings within youth and other organisations who had only heard about the trip that day or late the day before. The minister, in her pathetic reply, said that she was engaging all of the community organisations and she had received submissions. She did not give them even the courtesy of a phone call to say: ‘I am coming down there to make an announcement’. The level of hostility within some of these organisations is palpable. They have been treated like fools and they should never have been put in that position.
Preempting the findings of a parliamentary committee because we were debating this on Tuesday was not a coincidence; it was deliberate. I reckon the minister and some of her staffers must have woken up next Monday and thought: ‘Oh, my God. What is in parliament next week? It is petrol sniffing’ …
Mr Elferink: She is doing a Vatskalis.
Ms CARNEY: It is a bushfires one, that is what it is: ‘Oh, my God. What is on the Notice Paper? Ah!’ Accordingly, it would be very interesting to find out when the plane trip was booked, because I reckon it would have been late Thursday.
It was political opportunism; nothing more, nothing less. These people on the other side who say that they are as white as the driven snow when it comes to things like parliamentary democracy, are treating this parliament and the people of the Northern Territory with contempt. The people of the Northern Territory are a wake-up to them.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it gets even worse. This rabble on the other side is in disarray about petrol sniffing. The cretin, the member for Sanderson, said in parliament on …
Ms MARTIN: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I do not think the word ‘cretin’ is parliamentary.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I ask you to withdraw the word ‘cretin’.
Ms CARNEY: Sorry?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The use of the word ‘cretin’ – could you withdraw it please?
Ms CARNEY: Can I use ‘fool’? I will withdraw ‘cretin’.
Ms MARTIN: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I think withdraw is withdraw.
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could the Chief Minister …
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order! Order! Members of the opposition, and for the benefit of the Chief Minister, I did hear the member for Araluen withdraw the word ‘cretin’. We said earlier - probably about 45 minutes ago - that the word ‘fool’, unfortunately, has been often used in this House. If the member for Araluen wants to continue to use the word ‘fool’, she may.
Ms MARTIN: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I just think it is the offensive way that the member for Araluen used it.
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order! I ask the member for Araluen to sit down, please. I ask members to be quiet so we can listen to the continued address by the member for Araluen.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. The idiotic fool, the member for Sanderson, said in this parliament on this debate …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I ask her to withdraw that comment. This is very provocative. Either …
Dr Lim: You were the one who started it.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, sit down! Member for Araluen, I ask you to withdraw the use of the word ‘idiotic’, please.
Ms CARNEY: I do withdraw.
The member for Sanderson, fool that he is, said in parliament on 2 April:
- We need to bite the bullet on this be enacting legislation that will make petrol sniffing offensive.
Ironically, I do not think that was foolish. I agree, completely, with what the member for Sanderson said. I expect that some of his colleagues may have even called him a fool after he said it, because he has created, as he usually does, a great deal of embarrassment for them.
We had the foolish member for Sanderson saying: ‘We want petrol sniffing to be made illegal’. In April this year, the Attorney-General was quoted in the Northern Territory News as ruling out a ban on petrol sniffing. Indeed, he said it would be counter-productive. On Friday last week, the Minister for Family and Community Services, on her quick trip to Alice Springs, announced a ban on petrol sniffing. Are you not embarrassed? Do you not all feel like fools? Where are you coming from? We are consistent. What is your story?
Mr Ah Kit interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: He wants it …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, direct your comments through the Chair, please.
Ms CARNEY: The first Health Minister ruled out a ban and, yet, his mate B2, the other health minister, wanted a ban. It is extraordinary. We are happy, and flattered that the government nicks our ideas. If it means getting the job done; so be it. However, against a backdrop of disunity and disarray within the government, it is not only noteworthy, but it is really quite funny.
A number of other things need to be said about sniffing and the Minister for Family and Community Services’ response tonight. She showed a very shallow pedestrian understanding of the law. I know that the Attorney-General is learning, and that is good, but the other health minister should speak with him, or certainly his staffers, so that she can learn a little about the Territory’s justice system.
As I said in the second reading speech, the CLP’s proposal to make sniffing of petrol and other substances illegal is not about putting people in gaol. I outlined, at length, the Territory’s juvenile diversion program, and made it very clear - and I quoted from police documents, which I tabled, I think, from memory. Some of the material was police documents that said such as the aim of the scheme - that is, juvenile diversion - is to divert juveniles away from the formal justice system and the courts. The principles of the scheme are to treat young people fairly, reduce youth crime, support and involve victims, encourage parental responsibility and so on.
Under the CLP’s proposal, it will be an offence to sniff petrol. You can then be apprehended. In reality, you probably get a warning. However, if you are apprehended you are then diverted, like so many other juveniles. In fact, there are so few juveniles in custody – much to the consternation, I must say, of some of my constituents - illustrates the point, even to the fools on the other side, that the courts of the Northern Territory do not like sending young people to gaol. This proposal is about getting them early. Hands up those who do not think petrol sniffers are on a collision course with the criminal justice system. It gets them early and it diverts them. It puts them into the very programs that we outlined in our policy, which were picked up almost in its entirety by the Northern Territory Branch of the Australian Labor Party.
I also said in my second reading speech that we considered all of the research; we spoke to a number of individuals and organisations including Aboriginal organisations and Aboriginal people. They told us that they want sniffing made illegal. I do not know what people say to this mob on the other side, but I have been to a few communities in the last couple of weeks. All of us were at a community not so long ago where the issue of petrol sniffing came up. What did the people out there want? They wanted it to be made illegal. They know that their young people are dying before their very eyes and, unless very serious action is undertaken, a generation of predominantly young Aboriginal men will die. Is it not better, even though gaol or imprisonment is an option of last resort, for those people to be in gaol, albeit for some form of drying out period …
Mr Elferink: To end up in a body bag.
Ms CARNEY: … than to die or, as the member Macdonnell says, in a body bag. We do not want to put up with that. Members on the other side might say that it impinges upon their civil liberties to arrest them. We say it is not something that, in consciences, can be tolerated.
Over the years, much has been done by almost everybody when it comes to petrol sniffing. Governments are putting ad campaigns on communities with various programs - the list is endless. Organisations whose representatives probably vote Labor, have been to hell and back to do what they can to remedy the effects of petrol sniffing and try to stop it. It has not worked; it is getting worse. More people will die unless bold corrective action is taken.
I stress again that juvenile diversion diverts juvenile away from the courts. In fact, juvenile diversion is well suited for petrol sniffers. What is so interesting is that, in the announcement that was issued by the minister on Friday there was, in essence, what the CLP proposed in rehabilitation facilities, treatment programs, etcetera. The difference is this: the Northern Territory Branch of the Australian Labor Party says that government will work with families and communities to encourage voluntary treatment for chronic users. Well, has that not been tried before? Then it says:
- Where this breaks down, an application can be made to a court for a compulsory treatment order.
Professional staff will work with the families to ensure that the course of treatment best suits them
and the user. Where a compulsory course of treatment is not adhered to support staff, with the support
of the court, will intervene to encourage compliance.
How dare you! How dare you come up with this rubbish! People have been encouraging sniffers to stop sniffing for a very long time. Encouraging compliance does not work – it just does not. This comes from a government that has as an Attorney-General a bloke who, only a few months ago - politely I might say - asked the criminals of the Northern Territory to stop committing crime. Sorry, but it does not work. Encouraging sniffers to comply with orders will not do anything and it will not save their lives.
The question has to be asked: what if the sniffer says: ‘Nah, nah, I am not doing this’? I wonder what both Health ministers envisage happening. I believe I know what will happen. The sniffer goes back to the community and gets himself or herself into the sort of trouble that they usually do, and they continue to sniff. This is why the Labor Party’s proposal is flawed. It is flawed as a matter of logic.
Mr Elferink: If they are a government, they should govern.
Ms CARNEY: Yes, thank you, member for Macdonnell. They should govern, but they do not have the intestinal fortitude to do so. They say: ‘If we ask sniffers to stop, they will’. Well, organisations have been trying every way they possibly can to get people off sniffing for years. It does not work; it has not worked. There is a point at which we, as legislators, need to nail the colours to the mast and say: ‘Enough is enough’. It is like domestic violence, ‘Enough is enough; it has to stop’. Under Labor’s proposal, they have gone three-quarters of the way; I will grant them that. Coincidentally, the three-quarters is that which they have uplifted from the CLP policy. However, the one quarter that they have not grabbed is making it illegal.
Do we want to send young people to gaol? No. Is it possible? No. Do the courts want to do it? No. What do we want to do? We want to make sure that a generation of Aboriginal young men do not die before our very eyes. If the people on the other side of the House want to tolerate that, that is their right and they are entitled to do so.
Dr Burns: Did not worry you for 27 years. How many deaths were there - 50? Fifty at least.
Ms CARNEY: Three years - well, the member for Johnston can say 27 years. I wish he would come up with something a bit different.
It is getting worse. Most of the people I have spoken to - organisations and individuals including Aboriginal organisations and Aboriginal people - told me it is getting worse. Something is happening. I never used to see a petrol sniffer around Alice Springs. Now I see them everywhere. I went to a town camp in Alice Springs …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, could you direct your comments through the Chair, please.
Ms CARNEY: … about five weeks ago. I went to the same town camp about four years ago. Five weeks ago, sniffers were everywhere - little kids walking around doing the full bit. Unbelievable; it is getting worse. So don’t you come in here, member for Johnston, and say: ‘What about the last 27 years’. What about the last three. It was not until we introduced this bill that your committee even got its act together and came up with some recommendations. Then you lot even said: ‘Oh, we are going to take pretty serious measures; we are going to ban it’.
Members might be interested to know that, although I no longer practice law, I still have most of my law books. I looked up on Friday afternoon Osborn’s Concise Legal Dictionary. I was not surprised I could not find the word ‘ban’. The word ‘ban’ was not in the Osborn’s Concise Legal Dictionary. It is not a concept known to the justice system because it does not, as the member for Macdonnell was saying earlier, provide a sanction. You make something illegal, there is a sanction. You say ‘banned’. What does it mean? And there have been …
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member of Araluen, take your seat. Members of government and opposition, I have asked you to refrain from yelling out across the Chamber. We are attempting to listen to the member for Araluen’s contribution to this matter. Member for Araluen, could you please continue.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I will say again, the word ‘ban’ according to the Macquarie Dictionary, is an informal prohibition. The word ‘ban’ was not in my legal dictionary. I do not know why it is that the government cannot bring itself to make petrol sniffing illegal. It has gone three-quarters of the way by very kindly picking up most of our proposals, for which I thank them. There are some positives there.
However, why does not the government go one step further? There are a couple of reasons for that in my view. We have seen it today and every other General Business Day. They cannot quite bring themselves to agree with everything we say. ‘We will go three-quarters of the way’. With the Bushfires Bill, we were quibbling over, from memory, our fine of $2000 for something and the government’s fine was $5000. The minister did not agree. There is a point of principle with this government. They are entirely unprincipled in every other respect: in the way they conduct themselves and the way they treat this parliament and Territorians. However, they follow, as a matter of principle, the fact that they will never agree with everything we say, because that would mean saying that the CLP is right. They cannot quite bring themselves to do it.
There is another reason why they will not agree to making sniffing illegal; that is, in the Australian Labor Party, particularly the Northern Territory Branch, they have this funny knee-jerk reaction to people being put in gaol. They just do not like it. Under our proposal, we would make it illegal because you must have a sanction. Imprisonment is an option of last resort. Does the Country Liberal Party step away, ever, from sending people to gaol should it be warranted or, in this case, to protect them? No. But there is something in the water that these people drink that says: ‘Gaol, gaol, gaol! No, no, no!’
The Attorney-General, probably a year or so ago, was contemplating how to let more people out of gaol. I note he has gone silent on that. He probably knows that Territorians are not averse to putting people in gaol, and the Country Liberal Party is always happy to put either criminals in gaol or, in the context of the sniffing debate, people in gaol as an option of last resort when it might save their lives. We will never step away from that, and we feel very strongly about.
This garbage about encouraging compliance - what a patronising way to treat Aboriginal people and their families. What do you say to a mother whose son is so close to being …
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, would you resume your seat, please. Again, members on both sides of the Chamber, could you please refrain from interjecting. We are in, possibly, the last five minutes of this contribution, and I would like everyone in this House to allow the member for Araluen to continue her comments without interruption. Thank you.
Ms CARNEY: What do you say to a mother whose son is so close to being dead it really is not funny: that we encouraged him to comply with his treatment order? Will the minister go around to that mother and say: ‘We encouraged him’? I defy the ministers - either of them, B1 or B2 - to do that. If they have the courage to do that, I will take my hat off to them, because I will bet London to a brick that the mother is likely to take a physical swipe at the minister. That mother came to us - and she is only one of them - and said: ‘Please save my children. Please do whatever you can to make sure that my son does not die. Please make it illegal’. We said: ‘Yes, we agree. That is what we will do for you’.
However, this government: no! So this …
Mr Elferink: Gutless!
Ms CARNEY: … gutless garbage about encouraging compliance - where you do you get off? How dare you put that in this propaganda that you disseminate! You should be embarrassed - very embarrassed - that you have uplifted most our policy, but you stop at making it illegal. You spin this garbage about the CLP just wanting to send people to gaol. What rubbish! How do you sleep at night?
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, please address the Chair.
Ms CARNEY: You say all we want to do is send people to gaol!
Sorry, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will direct my comments to you.
I do not know how they sleep at night. Maybe they do not, which is why they are looking, after three years, like such a tired and arrogant government. They are looking so tired. Thank God for the Country Liberal Party, because we will continue to introduce legislation. We are happy to give them our ideas.
Look at the energy that is here tonight. Over there, what a pathetic bunch of people. A couple of hours ago, the Leader of Government Business was getting tired. A couple other members just wanted to go home. If I had another four hours, I could get going, but I have probably said all that needs to be said. Let me recap. These people over here …
Dr Burns: You are a political impersonator.
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, would you sit down please. Members, please, let us refrain from making any comments across the Chamber. It is now five past 12. This has been going on for a good hour-and-a-half, and people are just behaving ridiculously. Member for Araluen, please continue your remarks.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. To recap, these lovers of democracy on my left have pre-empted the findings of the parliamentary committee. They are desperate to be seen to be doing something, and we see that in everything they do. They are even rehashing the rehashes of the rehashes. They were desperate to make an announcement just for the sake of it. Tuesday 5 October, we are talking about petrol sniffing. On Friday, the minister went to Alice Springs; that is extraordinary. It was political opportunism. I refer again to the fact that most of the interested stakeholders that she referred to in her reply, did not even know she was there. If that is not arrogant and patronising, I do not know what is. I refer again, and …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: You can yell all you like, sport, because I cannot hear you. I cannot hear what you are saying, and I can get even louder. I have, okay, 30 seconds. If you want to scream for the next 30 seconds, then you do so.
The fool, the member for Sanderson, wants to make petrol sniffing illegal. That is about the only thing I have ever agreed with him on. So do we! The Minister for Health said that he does not want to ban it, because that would be counter-productive. Now we are in a position where the other health minister says: ‘No, bugger it, we will ban it’. I do not know what is happening to you lot but, if the election was held this Saturday, on listening to you lot, you would all be voted out.
Motion negatived.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am sitting here across from this lot of rabble here tonight. It is midnight and they are all groaning and yawning, and stretching and wanting to go home. I remember a time in this House when Mr Bailey, the former member for Wanguri, Mr Stirling, and several of the other opposition members would keep us here quite regularly …
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! He can refer to me by my electorate.
Mr ELFERINK: The former opposition member, the Treasurer, would keep us here until the early hours of the morning, because they believed passionately in what they were doing, and they thought it was their job to deliver opposition. To see this lot groan, weary and tired, aching at the end of the day, because their family-friendly parliament is actually keeping them up, tells me that something has gone. Some of its vigour has gone. Some of the passion, some of the love for the job that they used to have, is gone. Government has not treated this lot well.
The reason I speak tonight is actually quite a different issue. It is in relation to the community of Maryvale, which is otherwise known as Titjakala, and it is under the governance of the Tapatjatjaka Community Government Council. It is in my electorate. I will tell you a little story about Tapatjatjaka. There is freehold land which belongs to the Tapatjatjaka Sports and Social Club, which means it is not a land trust. Guess what has happened on this piece of non-land trust which is privately owned by a social club? They have now a set of tourist tents on their place. For a large amount of money, you, as a very executive sort of person, can come into the place and hire the tents for a couple of nights and go out with the local traditional people who will show you experiences like hunting and where to find bush tucker. They tell you stories and give you a really good tourist experience in this particular community government council. And guess what? This community is doing this all on its own. It is doing it in tandem with a private company from Sydney.
In the last few weeks, I know that one of the directors of a very large and well-known bank in this country dropped by this particular tourist venture and dropped a couple of grand in the place. That couple of grand was for a few days there. Then, on the way out, he stopped by the arts centre and dropped $2500 more there buying up art.
If you drive into Titjakala, there is a little list on the board that advertises jobs. There are private sector jobs available for several people in Maryvale. Hallelujah! It is being done because the Aboriginal people in that community have suddenly become participants in the general economy. They are doing it by themselves. They have set this whole thing up themselves, and the only thing I really hope and pray is that no government department goes near them and sees this as a great opportunity to educate people. I hope and pray no government department or statutory authority tries to go and assist these people, because they are going to do it on their own and they do not need government help.
In fact, I have seen what government helps does to other projects - it kills them. They try to turn it into a three-ring circus to become a training project for this and a something else project for that, and it has to be a model community for indigenous employment. The whole thing gets weighed down with government expectations. I really hope that these people can be left alone to achieve what they have set out to achieve. I am sure that, without our help, they will achieve it.
However, there is one thing that the government can do. I can tell you that now this is a commitment by me as the member for Macdonnell and future minister in the next Territory government: this business is a real tangible working, living, breathing business, and it deserves support in one fashion. It is a duty of government to provide a safe, civil society to anywhere people go about their daily lives. It is the first duty of government. Before health, before education, before anything else, government must provide a civil society. That means you need a police presence. What Titjakala is lacking is a constant police presence. They are ready for one. They have already identified a place for a police station, but they do not have a local police aide.
The minister for Police went to Titjakala recently. They asked him about it and he said: ‘No’. Well, that is just simply not good enough because those communities which do really start to move in the right direction should be rewarded with the normal processes of support which are provided in the other towns and cities throughout the rest of the Northern Territory. Businesses are protected in Darwin, Alice Springs, and in all the other communities in the Northern Territory where they exist. This is a community that has a business, and that business needs a certain amount of protection. The local community is so much behind it, I would suggest that this business is not under any sort of threat. Nevertheless, the community government council has come to me and said: ‘We would like to have a police aide stationed here in our community’. Guess what? I agree with them.
As a commitment from me - if this government is not prepared to make the commitment, I am - after the next Territory election, should the CLP be returned and I am the member for Macdonnell, I will ensure that Titjakala will get an Aboriginal community police officer - or two, if that is the departmental policy to not have single-man stations. I will make certain that they will get a police officer stationed at Titjakala, not only to protect the interests of the business but to protect the community as a whole. These people are now going to be working people, and they have a right to protection from the state like every other Territorian. I am going to ensure that that occurs.
I point out one other thing. I started not five minutes ago saying how tired this government was looking. And guess what? They are so tired there is not one of them left in the Chamber - not a single sausage. Not one. There is nobody in the Chamber from the government at all because they are so tired that they have abandoned ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker!
Dr Lim: No, you cannot! She was not here. You cannot have a point of order.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, sit down please. Member for Macdonnell, you have been in this House long enough to know that you cannot make any reference or otherwise in respect to the attendance or non-attendance of anyone in this House, be it from your side or from the government side. Will you withdraw, please?
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this government is looking tired, haggard and, on one late night, and they fall apart. They are just woeful. In the good old days when they were in opposition, we would have been here every night - and we were here every night - well past midnight. To see this government asked to do it once and fall apart, is just shocking.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to …
Mr Vatskalis: Not the cotton again!
Mr BALDWIN: Cotton? You want to talk about cotton? No worries, get on your feet, talk about cotton.
I would like to read an e-mail that has been sent to me today concerning the minister for the environment. Because it has been sent to me I feel it is my obligation to bring it to the attention of the minister for environment, the member for Arafura. I will read the e-mail:
- The purpose of this e-mail is to inform you of the concerns I have for the environment on my ancestral
lands at Melville Island. Marion Scrymgour is failing her responsibilities as Minister for Environment
and Heritage. As member for Arafura, she is doing more harm than good to her constituents.
I have very real and gut-wrenching concerns that Sylvatech, who have initiated 30 000 ha of acacia plantations
on Melville Island, are contaminating the environment with the use of pesticides and herbicides. What I also know
is that local Tiwi people are not fully aware of all aspects of the acacia project and have been sold out by the
Tiwi Land Council and the Tiwi Island Local Government, who are supposedly the ‘voices’ of Tiwi people, all
supported by the member for Arafura, a Tiwi woman herself.
Ms Lawrie: Wrong!
Mr BALDWIN: I will just reiterate the point, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that I am reading an e-mail that was sent to me, verbatim:
- I believe as shadow minister you should know …
- … that when I contacted Marion Scrymgour on 27/9/2004 for answers …
Ms Scrymgour: Why don’t you table it? Table the e-mail.
Mr BALDWIN: I am happy to.
- … she gave me the run around. She came across as being very uninformed and told me that her advisor,
John Buick, would get back to me within a week. I have still had no response which is totally unacceptable.’
Ms Scrymgour: If that is from Tristan Mungatopi, that is so wrong.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes. I am just reading an e-mail, I reiterate again …
Ms Scrymgour: Oh, do not try and play that!
Mr BALDWIN: I reiterate again, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that I am reading an e-mail which I am happy to table …
Ms Scrymgour: Yes, from Tristan Mungatopi. Why don’t you say it?
Mr BALDWIN: … that I received on my computer when I opened it up today. To continue:
- The Environment Centre NT did, however, respond to my concerns. I attach their e-mail response for
your information.
What I really need to know is this: will chemicals used within the acacia plantations or existing cypress
plantations have long-term detrimental implications to the health and wellbeing of Tiwi or our bush tucker?
I would be grateful, Mr Baldwyn (sic) …
… if you could help the relieve the anxiety I have for my country.
Kind regards,
Tristan Mungatopi.
I am happy to table that, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Leave granted.
Mr BALDWIN: All I am doing by reading that into Hansard and bringing it to the attention of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and the local member for the Tiwi Islands, is carrying out my obligations. I have been asked to help relieve this person’s anxiety. I do not know this person. I know the family name is a very important one in the Tiwi Islands. I recognise the name, but I do not know Tristan personally. I have now fulfilled my obligation and I will respond by e-mail that I brought this matter to the attention of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage.
I do not have a personal view on the allegations that this person is making, except to say that I agree that if he has had the run-around from the local member in terms of getting back to him, then it is unacceptable. I now bring it to your attention for you to deal with it in a proper manner.
Ms Scrymgour: It is being dealt with.
Mr BALDWIN: Well, get up and say it. I have to reply, which I am about to do right now.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016