Department of the Legislative Assembly, Northern Territory Government
Department of the Legislative Assembly, Northern Territory Government

https://parliament.nt.gov.au
PRINT
Business
Home About Parliament Business
Parliamentary Record (Hansard) and Minutes of Proceedings
Parliamentary Record (Hansard) and Minutes of Proceedings with Advance Search
Meeting Documents
Tabled Papers
Standing and Sessional Orders
Northern Territory Legislation
Petitions and Responses
Written Questions
Summary of Business
Condolence Motions
Members Committees The Department

2003-02-18

    Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
    VISITORS

    Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Mr James O’Brien. Mr O’Brien is a member of the Darwin Defenders Association. He is visiting Darwin from Victoria for the Bombing of Darwin commemorative ceremony. Mr O’Brien is accompanied by his grandson, Michael Newhouse. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a warm welcome.

    Members: Hear, hear!
    STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
    Parliamentary Activities for 2003

    Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, 2003 looks as though it is going to be a very busy one for the Legislative Assembly. We have already commenced with a successful conference in Alice Springs in January, with the meeting of the Clerks and ANZACATT. I thank the three parliamentarians, the members for Greatorex, Macdonnell and Sanderson, who participated in the forum, and the officers and staff of the Legislative Assembly who were heavily involved in the organisation and running of the seminars - in particular the Clerk and Deputy Clerk.

    This year, we will be participating in many CPA events, commencing with a visit to our parliament by Miss Pesiki Solomona, a parliamentary officer from Tuvalu who is visiting our parliament under a CPA trust study grant. Miss Solomona is in the Speaker’s Gallery. Pesiki is a Hansard Editor in the parliament of Tuvalu. On behalf of all members, I extend to her a warm welcome.

    Commonwealth Day is 10 March and, as usual, we will be having a display of flags in the Main Hall. As one of the three regional representatives from Australia on the CPA Executive, I will be attending a meeting in Sarawak in April. There will also be a parliamentary seminar in Raratonga, Cook Islands in May; a regional, Australian Pacific Seminar in Samoa and Alice Springs in September, jointly hosted by the Samoan and Northern Territory branches; and a CPA annual conference in Bangladesh in October. I am hoping members will participate in these events and assist where necessary.

    The sittings for Alice Springs are well under way, and I am hoping to brief all members in early March.

    The 25th anniversary of self-government will be celebrated in July. As part of those celebrations, we will be hosting and organising the 25th Conference of the Australasian Study of Parliament. Two officers, Mr McNeill and Mr Gray, are members of the executive. There will be opportunities for you, as parliamentarians, to be involved

    As you can see, it will be a busy year. I invite all members to join with me in making sure it is a great success.

    Members: Hear, hear!
    TABLED PAPER
    East Timor Asylum Seekers – Response to Resolution

    Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I lay on the table a letter relating to the resolution passed by the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly relating to the East Timor asylum seekers. A copy of the letter received from the Speaker of the House of Representatives has been circulated to all members.
    STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
    Bombing of Darwin Commemoration

    Madam SPEAKER: I also advise members that, in accordance with usual practice in order to allow members to attend the ceremony commemorating the Bombing of Darwin tomorrow, the Assembly will meet at 11 am.
    MEDIA ARRANGEMENTS

    Madam SPEAKER: I also advise members that I have given permission for various media to broadcast, with sound and vision, the motion relating to the United Nations Resolutions 1441.
    PETITION
    Panorama Guth Closure

    Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 300 petitioners relating to the closure of Panorama Guth in Alice Springs. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of Standing Orders.
    RESPONSE TO PETITION

    The CLERK: Honourable members, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform that a response to petition No 22 has been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of the response will be included in the Parliamentary Record.

    Petition No 22
    Tree of Life, Lot 191 Adelaide River
    Date Petition presented: 28 November 2002
    Presented by: Mr Kiely
      Referred to: Minister for the Environment and Heritage
    Date response received: 29 January 2003
    Date response presented: 18 February 2003

    Response:

      I have noted the information contained within the petition and specifically that pertaining to the Banyan tree.
      The Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment has already agreed to an adjustment of the fence
      to avoid the tree and is also prepared to adjust the boundary around the tree. The boundary adjustment will
      include part closure of the road reserve. Accordingly, closure of the access road to Lot 133 is not considered
      necessary to ensure the future existence of the tree. Although long-lived, Banyan trees do not live forever;
      however the actions taken by the department will assist in its conservation.
    MINISTERIAL REPORTS
    Overseas Travel by Chief Minister – Oil, Gas and Defence Support

    Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I wish to report to the House on the ministerial trip that I undertook before Christmas, from 15 to 22 December 2002. The purpose of the trip was to meet with high level representatives of the oil and gas and Defence support industries; to further develop opportunities for Territory business to engage in these industries; and, importantly, secure jobs for Territorians. It was a party of four: Chief Executive of my department, Paul Tyrrell; my senior advisor, Sean Kennedy; and media advisor Craig Rowston.

    The first meeting was in London on 15 December with the President of ConocoPhillips, Jim Mulva. There were two issues to talk through with Jim Mulva: the ratification of Timor Sea Treaty which will allow the ConocoPhillips board to make the final investment decision on the $3bn pipeline to Darwin, and the construction of the LNG plant at Wickham Point. As this House is aware, that ratification of the treaty by the Australian parliament is progressing and now the date for that treaty to go before our parliament in Canberra is early March.

    The second issue is, of course, Sunrise and the development of that very substantial field in the Timor Sea. ConocoPhillips’ view is that there is a potential market for gas onshore in Darwin. We will certainly be continuing to work with all the players, all the joint venturers - ConocoPhillips, Shell and Woodside - to make this a reality: bringing gas from the Sunrise field onshore. It is a long-term project and really, not feasible within the next – we are looking at five, six, seven years time.

    I went from London to Paris to meet with Eurocopter and Pechiney. Eurocopter is the successful tenderer for the Air ‘87 project which involves 22 Tiger armed reconnaissance helicopters. Two squadrons of those Tiger helicopters will be based in Darwin at total construction cost of $1.1bn. Eurocopter was very impressive with its commitment to creating jobs in Darwin, and are looking to Darwin and the Territory for support for those helicopters. They are looking for a maintenance partner for Darwin for proximity support and routine periodic maintenance work. There are also training opportunities for high-tech software orientated maintenance and they really are high value, long-term jobs for Darwin.

    The first helicopter is due in service by the end of 2005. The Minister for Defence Support has set up a task force, comprising his department and Territory business, to work with Eurocopter to examine opportunities for Territory business to secure support business for the new helicopters. Part of that is working with the university on how that training can be done in IT.

    Also in Paris, I met with the aluminium company, Pechiney. Pechiney is a potential NT-based foundation customer for Timor Sea gas. It was clear from that meeting with Pechiney that they are now committed to their South African smelter project as their next development. Darwin is still a potential site for a second smelter a few years on, but would certainly have to compete with the possible expansion of that South African smelter. We will continue to work with Pechiney as one of a range of customers that could take gas from the Timor Sea as development options are firmed up.

    I moved on to Houston on 17 December, to meet with Bechtel. Bechtel is the engineering company which will construct the Wickham Point LNG plant once those dollars from ConocoPhillips are committed. I was very impressed with Bechtel’s commitment to work with government to use local business and employees on the project where practicable. Bechtel is committed to opening an office in Darwin this year - once the treaty is signed and that investment decision is made - which will position it well to take advantage of other major projects proposed for the Territory in the coming years, including the proposed Alcan expansion at Gove.

    From Houston I travelled to Montreal where we met with Alcan, one of the Territory’s largest single employers and, certainly, it was timely to discuss Alcan’s planned expansion at Gove, the announcement of which was made last week. It is a $1.5bn project, which is expanding their production of alumina from 2 to 3.5 million tonnes per year and, in that three year construction phase, there will be 1200 new jobs. A critical issue for Alcan and their Gove expansion is the energy supply. They made it very clear to us in Montreal, reiterated by Dave Sutherland from Alcan last week, that they want gas for that expansion and are certainly a foundation customer for Timor Sea gas.

    A final meeting was in San Diego with Admiral Timothy LaFleur, the Vice Admiral of the US Navy, about US ships visiting Darwin and how we can support them. I will be talking further about that over this session of parliament.

    Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, there is little I can add in the short time I have available to respond to that report.

    I take the last point first: I would hope that the work is being done with the United States Navy. In Washington, I was briefed by Australian Embassy officials who advised that the Western Australian Governor was in Washington shortly before my trip. The Governor is an ex-Chief of the Defence Force Staff, and he was using his influence and contacts to ensure that Western Australia got the most from those visiting warships.

    The point I would like to make is that, for the Northern Territory to ensure it gets its fair share, it needs to ensure that it has operatives at the highest level working on behalf of the Northern Territory government. The Chief Minister says she will report on her discussions with the Vice Admiral. I look forward to the commitments that the United States Navy may have given to Darwin.

    With regards to the Tiger armed helicopters, I applaud the efforts that the Minister for Defence Support is making. It is very important to ensure that we get the maximum effort from Eurocopter. Like other major companies, they have contractual requirements to investigate local support, but that does not necessarily mean it translates to any local support of any note unless the government itself puts in an enormous effort to ensure they work with the federal government, the Defence Force, Eurocopter, and our own local industries to shore up that support.

    ConocoPhillips: we all know the Bayu-Undan treaty arrangements should be satisfied shortly. I do wonder, though, why the Northern Territory government seems to be unable to leash its federal colleagues. I noticed this morning Trish Crossin, for the first time, seems to have got on the gas bandwagon, criticising the federal government when, I believe, responsibly, the Northern Territory government has kept quiet; it knows the real issues the federal government are dealing with and that it is acting in the interests of Territorians in ensuring the ratification of that particular treaty.

    Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his comments. I will talk a little further about that visit with Admiral Timothy LaFleur, the Vice Admiral of the US Navy Fifth Fleet. That was our final meeting when we were travelling. Certainly, it is a very important issue. Those ship visits to Darwin are very much welcomed by our community, especially business. It was an important meeting to further cement the good relationships between the Northern Territory and the US Navy, and built on the visit made by the Defence Support Minister to the US Ambassador in early December last year. Darwin is certainly seen as a desirable venue for R and R visits and longer term shore leave for US forces, and those connections are actively being pursued.

    To summarise the trip, it was a very useful one; a timely opportunity to meet with some of the Territory’s largest and potentially largest investors and businesses, and to reinforce our commitment to make the Territory a desirable place to do business, which means, Madam Speaker, more jobs for Territorians.
    _____________
    STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
    Media Arrangements

    Madam SPEAKER: Before we do go on, I would like to remind the cameramen that you only have permission to film the motion regarding the United Nations. You do not have permission to film ministerial reports, so you might like to sit in the area at the back and wait until the motion commences.
    ______________
    Future Directions for Secondary
    Education in the Northern Territory

    Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I rise to report to the House on the future directions for secondary education in the Northern Territory. In September last year, the Chief Minister announced the government’s intention to commission a comprehensive report on secondary education in the Northern Territory, and the tender for the Future Directions for Secondary Education project was advertised nationally. Eight bids were received, six of which were from interstate. All bids were of a high quality and, on Tuesday 4 February this year, the Chief Minister, accompanied by the member for Sanderson and myself, announced the successful tenderer during a visit to Sanderson High School.

    The tender was awarded to a five-person team from the Northern Territory University at a price of $309 309. The NTU team will be led by Dr Gregor Ramsey, a highly respected education specialist who has undertaken similar large scale projects in Australia and in a wide range of other countries. Dr Ramsey certainly has a strong Territory connection: he taught at Darwin High School many years ago and is currently project director for the Desert People’s Centre in Alice Springs. Other members of the NTU team are Professor Greg Hill, Dean of Education, Health and Science at NTU; Professor Ian Falk, Chair of Rural and Remote Education; Professor MaryAnn Bin-Sallik, Dean of Faculty of Indigenous Research and Education and Ranger Chair in Aboriginal Studies; and Dr Neville Grady from the Centre for Teaching and Learning in Diverse Educational Context, who will be the project manager for the consultancy.

    A high level steering committee has been formed to guide the project. A broader reference group, comprising representatives of key stakeholder groups, is also being established. The consultancy team is expected to present a report to government in September 2003 so that implementation of recommendations could commence from the start of the 2004 school year. The report is to consider all aspects of secondary education provision - urban, rural and remote government secondary schools throughout the Territory - to provide government with options on ways it can be improved. I am pleased that the non-government education sector has also accepted an invitation to participate.

    This is the first time in 10 years that the Northern Territory secondary education system has been reviewed. Our aim is to ensure that every Territory student receives a first class education to allow them to meet the challenges and opportunities in a rapidly changing world. The Chief Minister has stated that education and employment are the highest priorities for this government, and this is clearly demonstrated by the actions being undertaken in relation to this critical area of secondary education.

    Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, my first point is that there has been an extraordinary number of reviews announced and this can easily become an excuse or a response; calling for a review instead of making a decision. When we look at the time frame, being September 2003, before we have recommendations brought to the minister with implementation in 2004, we really do have this appearance of a lot of activity with nothing really occurring until 2004. That point does need to be made. I would like to actually start some kind of register so we could discover exactly how many reviews there are on foot at this present time, so that we can watch them - as we should, as representatives of the Northern Territory populace.

    I applaud the selection of the NTU - in my own checking, it has received solid support. To Dr Ramsey and his team, I wish them all the best from this side. Rather than stand completely aside from this review, I do encourage the activity of it and trust that it will pursue, very actively and courageously, aspects of education that do need attention. They will receive support from this side of the House, provided that we do go all the way through with the implementation of that which is raised through the review process. To that end, I wish the team from the NTU all the best, and I hope that the whole activity will result in a benefit to students in secondary schools.

    Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): One wonders what the member for Blain is saying, Madam Speaker. On the one hand, it is a review, an excuse to do nothing and, in the second case, it is a great thing and he encourages everyone to get involved. I can tell him it is 10 years since secondary education in the Northern Territory was reviewed and very little was taken out of that review and implemented in our schools. I can assure the member for Blain that, unlike his predecessors in government, we will implement the recommendations coming from the review.

    The fact is, 26 years of one party government in the Territory and they want to complain that we want to have a look at a few things - we want to turn over a few rocks and have a little study. I am no educational expert such as to say: ‘This is the way secondary education will be run under me and under this government’. We have brought high level expertise to this review to tell us what the views of the community are and what views they can bring to secondary education in the Northern Territory. I can give the House the assurance that, unlike the CLP, we will be looking very closely at the recommendations of the review. Unlike the Collins Report they left on the shelf, we will be implementing it.
    Itinerants Project - Update

    Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Speaker, last year I announced the government’s plans to tackle the antisocial behaviour associated with itinerants in our community. Today, I provide an updated report on the itinerants projects in Darwin and Palmerston; specifically the implementation of key strategies and initiatives under the project. This program is a very important initiative of the Martin government. It is an important element in the government’s integrated plan to provide safe communities for all Territorians and protect our lifestyle.

    It is important to acknowledge that there is no quick solution to this problem of antisocial itinerant behaviour. It is an issue that was ignored for almost three decades by the previous, arrogant administration. While it is unrealistic to expect this issue to be fixed overnight, the strategies that have already been implemented and those being planned will make a significant difference over the coming year.

    The Martin government allocated $500 000 in this year’s budget for implementation of the key strategies, with priority given to the areas I will outline shortly. The first of four surveys to be carried out over the next 12 months, was carried out on 7 and 11 November last year. A second survey is planned for March and will be followed shortly after by intensive group research. Through this carefully designed research process we will, for the first time, have an accurate picture of the numbers of people involved and the barriers that need to be overcome to enable people to return home or lead productive lives in our towns and cities.

    A priority of the itinerants project strategy has been the appointment of a project coordinator to work closely with the Larrakia Nation to promote the centrality of Aboriginal law to the project strategies. The Larrakia Nation cultural protocol states that Aboriginal law requires respect for the cultural authority of the traditional owners. While the Larrakia welcome visitors to their country, they also require all visitors to behave responsibly and will not accept inappropriate behaviour. A video promoting the Larrakia cultural protocol is being produced. This will include historical material and senior Top End elders promoting the protocols. A poster promoting the Larrakia protocols is currently with a graphic designer. The Darwin City Council is providing assistance in developing a flyer targeting businesses. The Larrakia Nation is hosting a new information and referrals office that provides a one-stop shop for information and referrals, a proof of ID facility, coordination of outreach work, and diversionary day time activities. A canoe making project has commenced at the Larrakia Nation’s new facility in the Darwin Airport precinct and, as the office was just recently opened, I would invite people to ring Kelvin Costello, and I encourage them to visit the Larrakia Nation office.

    Expressions of interests have been advertised in regard to other diversionary programs. I am happy to report that there has been a huge response by Territorians keen to offer their skills and ideas to help provide pathways out of the itinerant lifestyle. Some of the activities being considered range from art and crafts and music production through to training opportunities to benefit people with a range of life and work skills. Another priority of this strategy has been the introduction of a new community Day Patrol and extension of the hours of the sobering-up shelter, both of which I launched late last year along with the Information Referrals Office.

    The Day Patrol has already had a major impact in town with strong support for the effectiveness of the early intervention strategies coming from traders and members of the public. We are currently discussing with Mission Australia, the service provider, ways in which we can increase the number of patrols. I am pleased to be able to announce that, next month, the project will expand to the provision of Larrakia hosts operating in suburban shopping centres. These Larrakia people will provide a traditional presence for two hours each morning and two hours each afternoon.

    The people who are involved worked very hard - the nation, Northern Land Council, NAALAS, AMSANT, and the City Council - and will continue to work hard to ensure that the itinerants strategy is a success.

    Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, it is most pleasing to hear the government recognising the initiative that we started under the CLP government. It is, indeed, a real pleasure to hear that the government at long last is trying to deal with antisocial behaviour that it has caused over the last 18 months by its weak approach on law and order. The Labor government’s attitude has been pathetic and I am glad to see that, at long last, it is trying to address what we had produced in the last 18 years of inactivity. You talk about the Larrakia project, and that is very commendable but, just remember that you are in government for the whole of the Territory and not just for the Top End. It is important that you consider that things need to be looked at south of only where you live in Darwin. It is important to understand that there are parts of the Territory that need attention as well.

    In the last 18 months that you have been in government, the law and order issues have been absolutely out of control. You only have to look at the front page of the NT News every day - law and order is out of control and you have done nothing about it - absolutely nothing.

    Mr Bonson: Scaremongering!

    Dr LIM: ‘Scaremongering’. The member for Millner just said, ‘scaremongering’. He was just one of the perpetrators of breach of law and order.

    Members interjecting.

    Dr LIM: What an example you have on your side of the House. What an example! Also the member for Stuart, promised that he would resign from his position if he could not fix up law and order in Alice Springs, and he has done nothing about it.

    Members interjecting.

    Madam SPEAKER: Order!

    Dr LIM: That is the sort of attitude that you guys have about law and order. It is about time you got real and did something about it. Glad to hear that you are pleased to see the CLP’s initiative in fact.

    Madam SPEAKER: The minister in reply, and I would remind members would you please address your remarks this way.

    Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Yes, Madam Speaker, I was going to pick up the member for that concern. ‘Pathetic’, he says, ‘pathetic’. Didn’t we have a leader here not so long ago who stood on this side of the House and espoused the words ‘monster and stomp on them’? What did you do when you were the minister when you were in government? Nothing. What has happened is that we are going to get results. We are putting plans in place. We are putting dollars to accommodate and accompany those plans. These people have sat there on their hands and have done nothing. As usual, we are continuing to find that, in the last 20 years, you have done nothing. These problems have exacerbated themselves whether it is in the bush with power, water, sewerage, infrastructure, health, education, right across the board. Now we have a government that is willing to do something about it.

    Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
    Mining Management - Update

    Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I rise today to provide an update on functioning of the Mining Management Act 2001. The Mining Management Act was passed by the Legislative Assembly on 3 July 2001. It received assent on 19 July and commenced on 1 January 2002.

    The act places an emphasis on planning for safety, health and environmental protection through mining management plans and management systems that are prepared by the operator and, hence, are tailored for each mine depending on its size and type.

    During the first year of operation of the act, 130 operators submitted applications for authorisations. accompanied by the required mining management plans. A total of 87 authorisations have been issued, 20 are being processed and the remaining 23 have been returned to the operators with a request for additional information. Of the 87 current authorisations, 32 have been issued for exploration activity and my department of DBIRD has been notified of another five operators conducting non-intrusive exploration activities that do not require an authorisation.

    The changed requirements of the new legislation focus on the accountability of mining operators for their health, safety and environmental performance, rather than the imposition of the previous, more prescriptive regime. For quality assurance, audits are done against mining management plans for authorised operations. To date, 40 audits have been completed by accredited auditors under the Mining Management Act. Presently, departmental audits are concentrating resources on those operations where there is the most opportunity for plan improvements. The key aspects of the authorisation process is the setting of securities that are linked to the potential impact of the authorised activities on the community and the environment. These securities take the form of a bank guarantee or cash, and are available to the Territory in the event of the inability of the operator to adequately fulfil their rehabilitation obligations at the conclusion of their project. To date, all authorised operations have been requested to submit a security. As a required component of management plans, closure planning and calculation of the cost of implementation are also new to some operators. Again, considerable guidance and individual assistance has been given by my department to facilitate the transition.

    For more than 10 years, there has been a general improvement in health, safety and environmental management in the mining industry throughout Australia including the Territory. At present it is not possible to assess the degree of improvement that may be attributable to the new legislation; however, improvements are evident in the standard of submissions being made by operators. This is probably a result of increased awareness and familiarity with the requirements of the legislation. It is anticipated that these improvements in plan quality will ultimately be delivered as health, safety and environmental performance dividends.

    The intent of the act to have management plans for discrete project areas has enhanced the reliability of safety, employment and production reporting. This information may be used in the assessment of title transfer costs, and is of value in future regional infrastructure planning. While it can be reasonably anticipated that management standards of the existing industry will increase, the viability and continuity of the industry as a whole needs to be addressed, and the act, through its focus on the important of planning, can play a part. For instance, more definite planning for extractive areas will enable operators to work towards compatible end land uses. Consideration also needs to be given to maximising the utilisation of some limited and valuable resources which may mean that extractive operations are required to go to greater depth rather than just recovering the surface resource.

    Much of the history of the Territory has been directly associated with mining development. Mining is the largest contributor to our gross state product now, and we owe it to future generations of Territorians to ensure that mining remains viable into the future. It is expected that the Mining Management Act, with its emphasis on environmental and health and safety systems for all mining activities, will ensure that our industry remains a leader.

    Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I applaud the minister’s intention to bring matters of this import to this House. There has not been enough discussion about this important industry, and it is really important that matters relating to mining are brought to the attention of not only this parliament, but to the people of the Northern Territory. It is a powerful earner. There are two $1bn proposals on the table at the moment at Gove with Alcan and MIM at McArthur River.

    The focus on safety is something that is innate to most miners. I have been to many mines in the Northern Territory – underground and open cut, extractive and exploration sites, and the gas sites at Mereenie and Palm Valley - and I can assure you that, foremost in the mind of most of those operators is safety. Indeed, visitors are often inducted in matters relating to safety and provided with safety gear, information on escape from the site and protective clothing, and such like. The fact that the Mine Management Act now requires that that be centrally provided to government is more administrative than anything else, because it has been my experience that the mining industry has a very powerful ethic in this area and will continue to do so. I do not think we should be accepting of any accident on site and I am sure that also is the ethic of the mining industry.

    The minister was gracious enough to point out that, over the last 10 years, there has been a continuing trend, including here in the Northern Territory, where matters relating to accidents on mining sites have continued to reduce and decline. Many mining sites proudly proclaim, as you enter, the number of lost days through accident on site, and it is something they take as a very powerful responsibility.

    I hope to hear more from the minister responsible for mines on the basis that …

    Madam SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

    Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also welcome the minister’s statement. The Litchfield Shire area is, of course, a major extractive mining area. Much of Darwin is really built on what has been dug out of Litchfield Shire, so it is important that there is an emphasis on rehabilitation. It has certainly been one of those major issues in the past, and I do not think it has always happened to everyone’s satisfaction.

    Whilst it is good that there will be emphasis on rehabilitation, it would be worth the government doing a survey and building up an inventory of those sites that have been used in the Litchfield Shire for mining, and to establish what sites have not been repaired adequately. Perhaps there has to be some money put back into those areas because, if you travel around parts of my electorate, there are some mining areas that are literally moonscapes and have not been rehabilitated properly. Some of that was to do with the requirements in the past not being very strict but, if we are going to look at the future, we also have to look at the past.

    Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Drysdale and Nelson for their comments. It is good to see that there is a commitment in this parliament, as there always has been, to the mining industry.

    This act has been in place for some 15 months now, and is a significant rewrite of the previous act. It is very detailed, and I can certainly say to members of this House that, if anybody has a specific interest and would like a detailed briefing on the application of the act, how it is being administered and the outcomes that are being achieved, my staff and the people in the department would be only too happy to provide those briefings. They really are very professional and competent people.

    In regards to abandoned mine sites, I can say to the member for Nelson that there is an ongoing audit being conducted by my department of abandoned mine sites across the Northern Territory. Again, I can arrange a briefing for him on that particular program if he requires.

    Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
    STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
    Clock in Chamber

    Madam SPEAKER: Before we go on with the next motion, I point out to members that, unfortunately, our clock has died. We are waiting on spare parts, it may be a couple of days, so I suggest perhaps you keep track of the time yourself. We are moving on to the motion now for the cameramen.
    MOTION
    United Nations Resolution 1441

    Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that his Assembly:

    (a) supports the pursuit of a peaceful resolution to the current crisis over Iraqi disarmament;
      (b) calls on Iraq to fully comply with United Nations Resolution 1441 and give up its weapons of mass
      destruction, allowing international weapons inspectors to complete their task;
        (c) fully supports the Australian Defence Force personnel in the Persian Gulf and surrounds, recognising
        their willingness to serve our nation, and prays for their safe return to their families; and
          (d) calls on the Prime Minister John Howard to only commit Australian Defence Force personnel to combat
          as part of the United Nations sponsored coalition.

          In recent months, this country’s leadership has faced some very big decisions over international determination to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This issue is an important matter of national interest, and this House and Assembly deserves the opportunity to debate the issue, to show its desire for international peace and, of course, to support Australian personnel in the Persian Gulf.

          There are many opinions on this issue within all political parties, and this is true in Australia as well as internationally.

          I would argue that, while Iraq is clearly in breach of the United Nations wishes on disarmament, the international community has a duty to do its utmost to reach a peaceful settlement before embarking on armed conflict and the use of force. Even more importantly, it is to the United Nations, the world’s multilateral decision-making body, that we should look for carriage of this issue and its resolution.

          People around the world voted with their feet over the weekend with a large presence in Australia’s major cities and, of course, here in Darwin. There is no question but that these people want this issue settled peacefully, and that they do not want any nation acting unilaterally to engage in armed conflict in Iraq.

          It would be a good thing for our Prime Minister, who is playing an active role in the international campaign against Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, to listen to the people of Australia on this issue. The Prime Minister is reported to have said that these people are not representative, but even opinion polls are showing that by far the majority of Australians want the United Nations to take the lead in any action on Iraq.

          It needs to be said at the outset of this debate that, whatever the political controversy over Iraq, this government totally supports Australian personnel wherever they are sent, as well as their families. Today of all days, on the eve of the bombing of this city by enemy planes 61 years ago, we acknowledge our obligations to our armed forces and their proud history.

          The community and political debates that have raged in the public arena over recent weeks over Iraq are matters of foreign policy. Whatever one’s views on these issues, our commitment to the Australian Defence Forces - so many of them current or former Territorians - is unwavering. I will talk more on that shortly. But support for our forces does not preclude this government taking a position on this important question of international security.

          There is no dispute over the fact that Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, is a tyrant among his own people, and appears to be gathering weapons of mass destruction which are a threat to the region. Substantial evidence on these matters has been presented to the United Nations over some years. The political debate is not so much over whether the Iraqi regime poses a threat, but over how best to deal with that threat in the context of heightened security and terrorism concerns.

          Australia has its own interest to defend. As I have often argued, there are very important regional security matters that need to be addressed in the post-Bali environment, and more attention and resources must be directed to those issues of regional security.

          Perhaps we in Darwin - Australia’s Asian gateway, and one of the few Australian cities to have been under direct attack in times of war - have stronger feelings than other places about the need for Asian engagement. The recent terrorist incident in Bali and other terrorist attacks in the Philippines and elsewhere, have had a direct effect on our economic and security prospects. From our perspective, it is critical to build effective cooperation in the immediate region to our north, to fight terrorism and to contribute to regional stability more generally. There is no doubt that these issues lie in the federal government arena, but they are of critical concern to the Territory and to Australia’s direct security and economic interests.

          Returning to the Middle East, Australia is widely recognised as an active supporter of the United Nations as the body best placed to resolve international tensions. Australia and its allies must encourage, support and allow the Security Council of the UN to try to resolve the situation in Iraq by peaceful means. It is, properly, the role and responsibility of the United Nations to debate and, if it finally becomes necessary, authorise the use of military force against Iraq. This is no way detracts from our alliance relationship with the United States, with whom this government retains strong and binding ties. Nevertheless, it is in the United Nations rather than to any one nation or group of nations that our hopes must be placed for the ultimate resolution of this crisis.

          The United Nations was established after two terrible world wars in order that future wars, with their devastation and misery, could be averted. Sometimes direct intervention is unavoidable but, we believe, this must be as a result of a UN decision. Australia has a long history as a supporter of the United Nations. Australia is one of the 51 original UN members and, indeed, our Foreign Minister at the time, Labor’s Doc Evatt, played what is widely recognised as a key role in the development of the UN Charter at the San Francisco conference in 1945. Since then, Australia, under all governments, has continued to maintain a strong commitment to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

          In 2000, Australia was in the top 10 contributors to both the regular budget and the peacekeeping operations budget of the UN. But Australia’s contribution is not merely financial. Many Australians have had a distinguished history of service and influence within the United Nations - its specialised organisations, committees and other related international bodies - over the past 50 years or so. More relevantly, Australia has committed troops to over 20 peacekeeping missions since 1948, and Australian police have also served with a wide range of UN peacekeeping missions. This House would be well aware of Australia’s contributions in recent times to the Gulf war, to the multinational interceptions force in the Persian Gulf, in Afghanistan, to the international coalition against terrorism and, of course, in East Timor. The point of this is that our hopes for a peaceful diplomatic resolution to the situation in Iraq lie with the United Nations, because that is the body with the runs on the board in dealing with issues of this kind.

          However, I do not want to be misunderstood. If we want a peaceful resolution to the crisis in Iraq, there is no doubt that Iraq’s leader holds the key. The regime of Saddam Hussein has refused to abide by resolutions of the international community, and has treated with contempt its binding obligations to the international law. The Iraqi leadership has sacrificed its own people to its pursuit of power with a dreadful record of human rights abuses.

          Leading up to UN Security Council Resolution 1441 of 8 December last year, Iraq has failed to comply with 23 out of 27 obligations contained in nine Security Council resolutions. Notably, and as the unanimous Security Council Resolution 1441 records, Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments with regards to terrorism, to end repression of its population, and to provide access by international humanitarian organisations. It has failed to comply with UN resolutions to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq. Most importantly, Iraq has failed to provide an accurate, full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction.

          Iraq has repeatedly obstructed and failed to cooperate with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, ultimately ceasing all cooperation in 1998. Last year’s Resolution 1441 affords Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations or face serious consequences. The resolution was unanimous and reflects the concern of the international community with the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, particularly by a regime that has demonstrated a willingness to use them against both its neighbours and its own people.

          It is in this context that the US, the UK and Australia has deployed troops to the region. We are told that when complete the full complement of Australia’s deployment, known as Operation Bastille, will comprise about 2000 personnel and will include: a squadron of 14 FA-18 Hornet fighter aircraft; three C130 Hercules transport aircraft; an Air Forward Command element; an RAAF reconnaissance team, the HMAS Kanimbla, which left Sydney on 23 January 2003 with about 350 sailors and soldiers which will join the HMAS Anzac and HMAS Darwin which are already in the Persian Gulf as part of the multinational interception force; a Navy clearance diver team; an advance party for the Special Forces Task Group, including an SAS squadron; CH47 troop lift helicopters; personnel from the 5th Aviation Regiment; special forces support elements including specialist troops for dealing with the threat of weapons of mass destruction from the Incident Response Regiment based at Holsworthy; and a quick reaction support force drawn from the 4RAR Commando Units, also based at Holsworthy. They left last Friday.

          For a small population, this is a very serious commitment. It is my fervent wish that these forces will not be put to the ultimate test in a combat situation and, definitively, this government’s view that they should not be used in any conflict without UN authorisation. Nevertheless, I want to state that wherever they might be sent, and in whatever capacity they may be asked to serve as representatives of this nation, they will of course have out support.

          Finally, Madam Speaker, let me restate our position: we support a peaceful resolution to the current crisis over the disarmament of Iraq, and call on Iraq to give up its weapons of mass destruction. We call on our Prime Minister to only commit Australian troops to combat in Iraq as part of a UN-led coalition. We do this, of course, while fully supporting our troops and their families, recognising their willingness to serve our nation. I am sure that I speak on behalf of everyone in this place when I say that our prayers and hopes are that they will return safely to their loved ones, many of whom are Territorians who now face an anxious and difficult wait.

          Madam Speaker, I commend this motion to the House.

          Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this motion says more about the Labor Party in the Northern Territory and federally than the wording of the motion first implies. No soft words in the motion from the Chief Minister can hide the intent of this motion.

          In deciding what the intent of the motion is, one has to ask a couple of questions. This is the first day of the sittings in 2003. This is a government in the Northern Territory that has been in power for less than two years. They have experienced government for less than two years. Some of the parliamentarians in the government have only been in parliament for less than two years. Yet. this Labor parliament in the Northern Territory - this government - decides that their first priority on this day is to present this motion to the House. Their overriding concern is the situation in Iraq. The Chief Minister and her colleagues have not said one word on this issue in all the time this debate has been raging federally and internationally. You have to ask yourself the question: why?

          Why would they bring forward this debate into this House at this time? Why, when you have an economy in the Northern Territory that is stagnant - we look forward to large projects in the near, medium, and long future. However, Territorians out there are looking for a government that is going to do something about the issues that concern them, particularly with the economy now, stimulating an economy in small business. Why is the government not talking about the serious situation in our health services? They have just had a major review - a review that has been damning in many respects in the way the health system has been managed in the 18 months of this government. It is a health system that is clearly in crisis and, yet, no, ‘We want to talk about our position on Iraq’. What about lawlessness? What about the situation of our police force, where every Territorian knows that our police are under-strength and understaffed. It was only yesterday that the new police minister was dragged grudgingly to decide that he has had an about-face on the issue of police numbers where, less than one month ago, he was adamant in saying that numbers were not a problem for the Northern Territory.

          So, the wording of this motion is soft and, on the face of it, reasonably inoffensive. Illogical and out of step with your federal colleagues, in the wording of the motion, and I will go through that; but generally, inoffensive. So why would they bring this motion forward today? The reason is simple: because they saw the papers on the weekend, and the demonstrations that occurred in Australia, in the Northern Territory, and in other parts of the world and, as the editorial in The Australian clearly said: they sought to ramp up anti-American feeling. They sought to highlight the feeling that they believe exists amongst many Australians - that is anti-American - and they seek to lever a position to their own advantage on that issue. That is the reason this motion has been brought forward today.

          There is no use telling us about how you support the troops and the government. The reality is, you are trying to put a situation to this parliament that is at odds with the strong and enduring relationship that has existed, and continues to exist, between Australia, the United States and, in this particular case, Great Britain, in dealing with a situation that is worrying, not only to all Australians, but worrying right throughout the international community and, frankly, I find it offensive.

          Yesterday, I saw the American flag flying off this Parliament House. The American flag was in recognition of the American Consul General who is visiting the Northern Territory as part of the Bombing of Darwin ceremonies. Tomorrow, we will stand - I hope all of us - prior to the Bombing of Darwin ceremony, at the USS Peary commemoration, where we will bow our heads and consider the fact that it was Americans who gave their lives in the defence of the Northern Territory, not only on the USS Peary, but in other operations right throughout South-East Asia, launched from the Northern Territory. When we go to the Bombing of Darwin ceremony some time later, I hope the members of the government reflect on the fact that the first person killed defending Australian soil was a United States airman.

          Yet, you would come in here - you inexperienced politicians - and bring forward a debate that, rightly, has been seen to be the prerogative of the federal parliament. I do not know of any other parliament or provincial government in Australia that has brought forward this debate. You have decided to bring it forward, and I am happy to debate with you, but these issues rightly belong in the federal parliament. For an inexperienced Territory government to bring forward this issue as a motion today, and say somehow you are concerned, is garbage. What this motion is, is mischief. This motion is mischief because it seeks to ramp up anti-American feeling, and it seeks to lever off a populist sentiment that this Labor Party believes exists throughout Australia. That is the intent of this motion.

          It seeks also, by demanding that our Prime Minister only act with United Nations sanction, to somehow lock the CLP into some position at odds with this motion. The problem with that, of course, is the position of the motion is at odds with federal Labor policy - that shows the depth of the inexperience that exists in this particular government.

          So, you bring the motion with mischief, and I will address the motion with sincerity and logic and, whether you like it or not, experience, because I can tell you, on these issues, my experience is better than all of you lot put together – all of you.

          Members interjecting.

          Mr BURKE: If you want to start, we will start here.

          As a young soldier, as a National Serviceman, I stood on parade while we were split between regular soldiers and National Service soldiers. The National Service soldiers could not load the Jeparit, which was a supply ship sent to supply Australian servicemen in Vietnam. It was only the regular soldiers that could load that ship. Do you know why those regular soldiers had to load that ship? Because the Labor Party and their unions refused to load it. That was the way the Labor Party and their unions supported Australian troops in Vietnam in those days. I can tell you, every soldier in that parade was ashamed of you, and every soldier was ashamed of the fact that you could somehow run this garbage and the rhetoric that you support Australian personnel and, yet, at the same time, you disagree with Australian government policy.

          It does not work. It might work in some areas of the Labor Party when you sit around and talk about it, but you try and tell those Defence personnel out there- those men and women, those people who have their life on the line, or may have their life on the line - that you support them. You have form - long form, a lot of form - and you are consistent with the way the Labor Party has always acted when there has been a threat to Australian servicemen. It has been inconsistent, illogical and, at best, reckless and childish. The wording of that motion does not wash.

          I can tell you another thing: I have worn the blue beret on operations for the United Nations. I have worn the blue beret in an operational area. Do you know where I served and with whom I lived? Muslims. I worked and lived amongst Muslims. My friends were Muslims. I sat and talked to Muslim fighters almost every day of the week. I had one day in Beirut where I saw 130 people killed in one day - schoolchildren coming home from school - because of Christian shelling that fell on those Muslim people. So, when it comes to understanding the Muslims and the way they feel about this situation, and the way many Muslim people have been embroiled in wars - not only civil wars in their own country, but aggression from other dictators in the Middle East, not all of them Muslim - I understand and empathise with their position. I can tell you I know what could be the situation if this thing comes to a wartime operation; if it ever should come to that. Therefore, when you have great concern as to how this situation might unfold, you might give some time to people who have already felt it.

          I can tell you, when you have witnessed man’s inhumanity to man, it makes you worry. When you sit in a place like Beirut - which was a city of about a 1.5m people - and social order has totally broken down, the only power is the power of the gun. The only control is the militia which control different areas of that city, where wanton killing, assassinations and bombings occur everyday, where a few artillery rounds lobbed in the right place can send the whole city underground for days. Then you know what it is like to be in an operational area. That, in many respects, pales in comparison to some of the operations that Australian and United States servicemen have been in throughout our history. It is nothing. It was a walk in the park compared to what people like this gentleman here in this Chamber went through, who stood with United States servicemen and others in the bombing of Darwin.

          So, when you talk about support for United States servicemen and Australian servicemen, know what you are talking about, and know what real support is about. Real support is about unflinching resilience in doing the right thing. What the Labor Party has done, and failed miserably on, is that it is trying to sheet off popular sentiment, and in that it does itself a great disservice.

          I can tell you another thing I have done. I taught American soldiers at the US Army Centre at Fort Knox, and many of my company commanders went to the first Gulf War. I know what American soldiers are when you see young people who are only 18, 19, 20 - at most 25 - knowing that within weeks of that course’s completion they will be in the Gulf, and knowing also that they could be dead weeks after that.

          When people talk about this ‘aggressor of the United States that is wantonly looking for war’, you do not know what you are talking about - you have no idea. They are flesh and blood, children of American families who are just as worried and concerned about where they might end up. Do not think that is lost on them, and do not think it is lost on their leaders. They have as much concern for their children as we have for ours. And do not think that they run recklessly off to war - they have the same hopes and ideals and aspirations as we do. I am yet to see where you can demonstrate that the United States, our Prime Minister, or the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, have acted wrongly in dealing with this situation, so far.

          I will tell you what else I have done: not more than a month ago, I spoke directly to - sat next to him - the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and less than a week later sat in the same room with the Vice President of the United States. When you look at those people and see the enormity of the burden they carry in dealing with this situation, you realise your own incapacity and childishness in bringing this stuff forward. Realise you do not know what you are talking about. Realise that there are people dealing with this situation with the best of intentions, and they are dealing with it with the love and wants of the free world clearly in mind. If this situation ever gets to war, it certainly will not be the result of any recklessness on the part of our Prime Minister, the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and further allies who are joining. It will be clearly the belligerence of a dictator who, to date, is documented as killing more than two million people - more than two million people. That is the context in which you want to see this motion.

          If you turn to the motion, it supports the pursuit of a peaceful resolution to the current crisis over Iraq. Well, that undertaking has been clearly given by our Prime Minister. He has pledged to pursue all peaceful means to achieve a peaceful solution. That is clearly on the public record; he says it at every opportunity. I would have thought that that recognition should be given to the way our federal parliament - our government in particular - and our Prime Minister has acted and continues to act right throughout this whole situation. When an eventual decision is made as to how Australian forces will act, we should be the ones who are standing there, understanding and pledging our support - not only for the enormous burden he carries but the responsible way it is being attended to by himself and other nations to date.

          The second part of the motion calls on Iraq to fully comply with UN Resolution 1441 and give up its weapons of mass destruction. Well, I hope you think that you might have some influence on Iraq. One could say it is courageous of you that the Northern Territory government has decided that. There have been resolutions passed in the United Nations since 1991. Saddam Hussein is in breach of any number of them. He continues to be in blatant breach of the current resolution, but the Northern Territory government is going to finally bring this matter to a head. They are going to call him to book and tell Iraq and Hussein to fully comply. Well, good on you, I wish you well. However, take note though, of what he has done, and take note of the fact of the resolution. I wonder how many members of parliament have read 1441; have read the situation that existed when it was drafted; and have read the reports of Hans Blix and others that show he is still in material breach of not only this resolution but resolutions that have been passed consistently since 1991 against Iraq.

          That is the situation. You have a belligerent dictator with weapons of mass destruction, nerve and chemical agents that are clearly documented as not being revealed that they know are there, and he has used them. Not only has he used them against others, he has used them against his own people. Also understand where the United States is coming from in this. A few weeks ago I stood at Ground Zero. You stand at Ground Zero and see that there were seven buildings there not so long ago. It was only by the good efforts of the police and fire services, and other emergency services in New York, that only about 2000 people were killed. If those buildings had collapsed earlier, there would have been over 20 000 killed - 20 000 people - in the United States. That is what world terrorism is all about. Now, put that context into a dictator and a despot who has weapons of mass destruction - or is certainly working to achieve them - and that is documented. However, more insidious than that, he has the capacity to use chemical and nerve agents that could cause enormous damage.

          I can tell you, I walked with an NYPD detective with 18 years of service. Do you know what? He will not catch the subway in New York. He will not catch the subway; he drives 50 miles home every day in his own car. Do you know why? Because the subway ventilation system in New York is run on a push-pull system. It is ventilated by the trains coming in and out of the tunnels. You walk along the streets of New York and the ventilation and the air coming out of the tunnels comes straight out. You cannot secure the subway against a nerve agent. Is it real? Is it a real and present danger? You want to believe it! You sit in New York and look around and say: there were seven buildings here; two of them the World Trade Centre. There were 20 000-odd people who could have been killed in one hit. Is there a real and present danger? The buildings have gone and that is before we even talk about nerve or chemical agents.

          This is the situation that the United Nations is facing, and you have to understand the American psyche when that happens in their own country. I wonder how you would feel if this happened in Darwin? Most of Darwin would be gone. If this happened in one of the major cities of Australia, what would be the sentiment of Australians then? You would be wanting the UN to get their act together, wouldn’t you? I would have thought that is the first you would do. If you look through the resolution, amongst other things the resolution says very clearly - it goes through the litany of resolutions that have been passed previously. The first point is: ‘decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach’ - has been and remains in material breach of previous UN resolutions. ‘Has been and remains’, when that was drafted, and continues to be and remain.

          This issue has to be brought to a head. The issue is being brought to a head by the strength and determination of leaders such as Tony Blair, a Labor Prime Minister; Prime Minister John Howard and the President of the United States. These are the people who are bringing this despot to book, with a unity of purpose to show that regime that it either will comply or it will fall. I wonder if you disagree with that: it will either comply or it will fall. The onus now is for the United Nations to show that it has strength - to show that it is not as weak as its predecessor, the League of Nations. We know from that experience where we end up, that depots are encouraged, other nations are encouraged - and we are seeing those particular issues coming out at the moment.

          In this motion, the Labor Party of the Northern Territory fully supports the Australian Defence Force personnel in the Persian Gulf and surrounds, recognising their willingness to serve our nation and prays for their safe return to their families. Your own federal Labor spokesman did an interview on Sunday, Channel Nine, on 16 February. This is what he thinks about the Australian forward deployment - now, who is right? Is it the Labor government in the Northern Territory? Is it the Labor government that is at odds with its own federal party or not? This is what he said when he was asked about the deployment of Australian troops:
            I fail to be convinced why we in the Commonwealth of Australia, by adding an extra 2000 Defence
            Forces, significant for us but insignificant in this total military equation, add one jot to Saddam
            Hussein’s calculation about whether or not he should cooperate with UN weapons inspectors or not.

          He also said - this is only a few days ago:
            Being out there, frankly, being out there in front as part of an Anglo Saxon troika …

          This is your federal spokesmen:
            Being out there as part of an Anglo Saxon troika frankly is not in our national security interests. That
            is our position and they are the reasons for it.

          Now, do not go out there and tell Defence personnel that you support them, because you do not. You do not believe they should be there. Your federal spokesman said it on national television. They can watch television the same as anyone else, so those fine words in this motion are not going to change that. You do not believe they should be there as part of an Anglo Saxon troika. You do not believe that the stranglehold that is on Saddam Hussein at the moment should be there. You believe in appeasement. Good! That is your position: get out there and say it. But do not try and cloud it with hypocrisy. That is what you are trying to do.

          You then call on the Prime Minister, John Howard, to only commit Australian Defence Force personnel to combat as part of a UN-sponsored coalition. Have you checked what your federal colleagues have been saying, or are you at odds with your own federal party? Your same spokesman, Kevin Rudd, the shadow minister for foreign affairs said this on the same program - and you interpret this how you like:
            Firstly, we support the UN Security Council exhausting all diplomatic means to bring about a peaceful
            resolution ...

            Secondly, if that doesn’t work, then military action through the UN Security Council, if the council so agrees
            to enforce its resolutions to bring about Saddam’s disarmament. And thirdly, what we’ve said is that if it comes
            to a separate United States action outside the framework of the UN Security Council, then such a case would
            have to be made.

          If it comes to separate action outside of the UN Security Council by the United States, then such a case would have to be made. The reporter says:
            But Simon Crean has said there is a caveat; that the United Nations, with the best will and intentions in the
            world could arrive at a decision and be frustrated with the sense of veto arrangements. In other words, one
            of the permanent members vetoing a decision. So Labor could support an attack on Iraq, without UN backing.

          That is the question. Rudd says:
            Well, Simon’s reference to the veto there applies to part three of the policy I just ran through, Laurie; namely,
            that if it gets to the stage where the United States was seeking to advance a case outside of the framework of
            the United Nations Security Council, that case would have to rest on establishing a link ...

          So your own federal spokesperson has the door open. Your own federal spokesperson is saying that, if the resolution of the United Nations was insufficient, not strong enough - if the vetoes were of such that there was confusion - the United States would have to establish a case. That is not shutting the door; that is leaving the door open. However, you have shut the door in your motion. You have said that the Prime Minister could only commit Australian forces as part of a UN-sponsored resolution. So, get your own policy right for starters, if you want support from the CLP.

          What the government can do is demonstrate their bona fides in this debate by agreeing to the amendment that I have put forward. It is an amendment that, I would hope, now that they realise that to ensure that the Prime Minister can only commit Australian Defence Forces as part of a UN sponsored coalition is at odds with their own federal policy at the moment.

          I move this amendment, Madam Speaker:

          That all words after ‘(d)’ be omitted, and the following words be substituted:

          (d) supports the Australian, United States and United Kingdom governments which have demonstrated
          a unity of purpose to deal with Iraq’s defiance of the United Nations and its continuing threat to
          world peace.

          Show your bona fides; there is the amendment. The bona fide is simply this: that the Labor Party and the Northern Territory government strongly supports the action that has been taken by the governments of Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom in dealing with this particular situation. It does not forecast anything that has not happened or work in hypotheticals; it simply states the facts. These facts have been acknowledged by the Secretary-General of the United Nations and every commentator; that it has been that unity of purpose, particularly by those three nations and those three governments, that have the belligerent compliance - but some compliance to date - out of Saddam Hussein. If the Labor government cannot support that, we know the true intent of this motion. The true intent of this motion, I believe, is to lever off anti-American feeling.

          When we talk about enduring alliances and support for our friends, understand what it means. Understand that friendship and alliances go through calm and rough seas. It is particularly interesting if you consider, for example, the dark days of World War II when England stood alone, essentially. However, it was being helped immensely by the large amounts of munitions and armaments coming to it from the United States at that time. Those armaments and shipments were adding enormously to the morale and capability of the British government at that time. There was strong sentiment in the United States - amongst many citizens in the United States - that, in the words of the Chief Minister in this debate: ‘the United States had its own interests to defend’. There were many people in the United States who were saying that at the time. There were rallies and demonstrations to ensure that the United States did not get involved in World War II, because they had their own interests to consider, not the interests of countries like Great Britain. You might think about that when you think about our own interests, and where our real interests lie; and think about what the American response was from the American government.

          Harry Hopkins was an emissary of Roosevelt and he was dealing very closely with Churchill. At one stage, he slipped Churchill a note - this was shortly before the Americans entered the war and when the munitions were flowing - and it was a quote from the Book of Ruth, which said:
            Wither thou goest I will go, and where thou lodgest I will lodge. Thy people shall be my people and thy God
            my God even to the end.

          Churchill was said to have been moved to tears by that. Now, that is what is called friendship. That is what is called alliances. That is what is called unity of purpose. That is what is called standing by a friend when things are tough – and you lot are not even in the race; you are not even there. That is what it is called. Churchill was moved to say himself once to describe the American/British alliances was like the Mississippi River: ‘Inexorably rolling on to better fields and brighter days’. That is the alliance, that is the strength.

          When it comes to this particular debate and the situation that Australians are in at the moment, reflect on that, because I tell you, one member of this parliament will be. When I go to that USS Peary memorial tomorrow and consider the 91 American sailors who died in that harbour in defence of Australia and its allies, I will bow my head and say: ‘God Bless America’, When I walk up to that memorial and see and think about the first death defending Australia being an American airman, I will say: ‘God Bless America’. I tell you, however this thing unfolds, Australians should remember their history, their alliances and their friends, and should stand together and say: ‘God Bless Australia and God Bless America’.

          Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, your time has expired.

          Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, while I stand here and, obviously, support the motion that has been brought by the government to the House, I cannot commence my prepared speech on this motion without addressing some of the comments of the Leader of the Opposition. I appreciate some of the sincerity of the comments that he made, particularly given the background that he has.

          However, I find it - and I believe all the members on this side of the House find it - deeply offensive and patronising in the extreme to be lectured on the perceived intent of this motion that has been brought before this parliament today: the most significant issue in debate around the world and Australia, and amongst Territorians at the moment. To listen to the patronising, lecturing tone of the Leader of the Opposition implying that the real intent of this motion is to ramp up anti-American feeling, is absolutely offensive. He failed in pursuing that intent, to link anything in this motion to this government trying to ramp up anti-American feeling. He failed to provide one quote on the public record of any members of this government or of this opposition, that has been in opposition to the Australian/American alliance. He is totally offensive in his allegation that the intent of this motion is to ramp up anti-American feeling.

          We have an absolute responsibility in this parliament to debate matters of massive global interest and put our government’s view. This government’s view, through the four parts of this motion, are held sincerely. We have tried to achieve bipartisan support, and I am absolutely astounded at the patronising tone of the Leader of the Opposition, and the conjecture that he has placed into the words of this motion in trying to put words into the mouths of members on this side of the House. Well, it will not work. We will be judged by our statements in this House and on the public record, not by the meandering, wandering mind of the Leader of the Opposition in what he believes is the intent of the motion.

          We do live in a democracy and are entitled to debate national issues. We are elected by the people of the Northern Territory to represent the people of the Northern Territory and, on occasions, that will mean that we will challenge the decisions of the federal government. That is what democracy is all about; democracy is not about blindly falling in behind the governments of the day without fear or favour, without comment, without challenge. We will not shy away from our responsibilities, in a democratic Australia, to challenge the decisions of the federal government, particularly when we, as a government of the Northern Territory, believe that some of those issues are more than likely not in the best long-term interests of the people of the Northern Territory.

          We are - and the Australian Labor Party federally - totally committed to the American alliance. However, in this debate, the words in this motion go to the current position of Australia in the international debates that are taking place on this issue at the moment. We are entitled to bring this motion before the House and to discuss it, because not only is it the single biggest issue in the public consciousness at the moment, but about 8% of Territorians and 12% of the people in Darwin and Palmerston are Defence Force personnel and their families. This motion is very much in support of those Defence Force personnel and their families. There is nothing in here that is ramping up anti-American feeling or is anti the Defence Force personnel - the magnificent, professional personnel we have. We are proud to call them Territorians, not only for the time that those people are posted here but, also, for many of those people who choose to stay here once they leave the services.

          Regarding putting words onto members on this side of the House and our ‘supposed’ anti-American sentiments in this motion, and the sentiments of the Leader of the Opposition as we commemorate the 61st bombing of Darwin tomorrow, we will be there paying tribute and respect to those 91 sailors who lost their lives on the USS Peary. My father fought in the American forces as an Australian for three years during World War II, and spent most of his life, post World War II, working for the American armed forces within the NATO environment. I very much grew up amongst American Defence Force personnel and their families and have many, many lifelong friends. So, it is not only the Leader of the Opposition who can talk about personal connections and the absolute depth of the Australian and the Northern Territory’s commitment and friendship with America and Americans, and our total commitment to the alliance.

          I find the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition deeply patronising and offensive. He failed to prosecute his argument. I firmly believe that we, as Australians, share an overwhelming sense of support and commitment to the institution of the United Nations. As noted by the Chief Minister, Australia has a long history of strong support for the United Nations. Australia is one of the 51 original UN members and, since then, Australia has continued to maintain a strong commitment to the principles and processes of the United Nations.

          I want to remind honourable members of the Charter of the United Nations that was agreed to - one of the founding members who helped author that charter was Doc Evatt - in San Francisco in 1945. This charter stands the test of time today. The charter states:
            We the peoples of the United Nations, determined

            . to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has bought untold
            sorrow to mankind, and

            . to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the
            equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

            . to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and
            other sources of international law can be maintained, and

            . to promote social progress and better standards of life in large of freedom,

            And for these ends

            . to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

            . to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

            . to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not
            be used, save in the common interest, and

            . to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of
            all peoples ...

          Very laudable aims and objectives that still stand the test of time today - the guiding principles of the United Nations that Australia has been a proud member of for many, many years.

          Much of the debate on this issue has been to the heart of the effectiveness of the United Nations to deal with rogue states such as Iraq - and there is no doubt that Iraq is a rogue state with a leader who is certainly evil in the extreme. Much of the debate goes to the heart of the capacity and the ability of the United Nations to achieve the disarming of Iraq and the elimination of the weapons of mass destruction from that regime.

          I remind honourable members that this is a Herculean task, but the United Nations has had many successes over the years. When the Leader of the Opposition manages to sit opposite the Secretary-General of the United Nations and probably whispers in his ear - patronising again - that the UN needs to get its act together; well, the UN has managed to get its act together in many, many circumstances. Certainly, we believe in and are committed to the principles of the UN to achieve its aims in the disarmament of Iraq in the current circumstances.

          I will just remind honourable members of the some of the successes of the United Nations over the years. The UN helped diffuse the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 and the Middle East crisis in 1973. In 1988, a UN-sponsored peace settlement ended the Iran/Iraq war, and the following year, UN-sponsored negotiations led to the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan. In the 1990s, the UN was instrumental in restoring sovereignty to Kuwait, and played a major role in ending civil wars in Cambodia, El Salvador, Guatemala and Mozambique, restoring the democratically elected government in Haiti, and resolving or containing conflict in various other countries. We all know the United Nations effort in September 1999 in regard to bringing peace back to the tortured country of East Timor.

          So, the UN does have runs on the board in achieving the outcomes that are set out in its charter. The argument, really, at the moment, is not about the objective of the exercise which is the disarmament of Iraq, it is about the means as to how that can be pursued. Certainly, I do not believe, as the Leader of the Opposition was implying in his comments, that the United Nations is a toothless tiger and is not going to be able to reach the outcome that we all want to see. At the end of the day, the runs are on the board in many, many circumstances.

          As Defence Support Minister, I have absolute confidence in the professionalism and capability of our Defence people who have been deployed to the Gulf region. I am sure that whatever engagement they might be called upon to enter, they will conduct themselves with the utmost professionalism. Like many people in this House, many of my constituents are ADF personnel and their families. I have spoken to some of them who have had their husbands deployed to the Gulf zone, and my heart goes out to those personnel and to their families. To seek to politicise this debate by saying that we are anti those Defence Force personnel and are seeking to ramp up anti-American feeling is absolutely reprehensible on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition.

          We were elected to government in 2001 to represent the people of the Territory with a mandate to secure the future of Territorians by achieving sustainable economic development. It is a fact, well known to this government just as it was to our predecessors, that our future is tied fairly and squarely to a policy of positive engagement with our neighbours in this region, with whom I can vouch we have excellent relationships.

          As I am often saying, if we fly four hours north in this region on a radius from Darwin, we pick up 500 million people immediately to our north. That is very much the future for the Northern Territory regarding our engagements in the region. We ignore those regional views on these global issues at our peril. I want my fellow members to know that I have been in Asia in recent weeks, and I have picked up quite a different mood from Asian leaders to the one being espoused by our Prime Minister in the media on this most important issue.

          Every time I travel to represent Territorians and Australians amongst our Asian neighbours, I am deeply moved by the strength of bonds and the depth of the relationship that we have with them. This, more than anything else, is the foundation for our future, not only for our economy, but also for our relationships in the region.

          Accordingly, as in all strong relationships, we must listen to what they are saying about this very serious issue. People in Asia are concerned that a unilateral attack on Iraq by the US and a few of its allies - not sanctioned by the UN - will be seen by Muslim people around the world as an attack on Muslim people. They are equally concerned about the consequences of that for global political stability. I am sure we have all read many articles in not only the national media, but Time magazine and The Bulletin. There has been any number of articles written, and public debate, about the possible and potential outfall of any armed conflict in Iraq that is not sanctioned by the UN.

          I want to reinforce this point by quoting from some key people, from media reports during my recent travels. As noted by President Mahathir Mohamed of Malaysia in his speech to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on 23 January 2003 on the build-up around Iraq - I am not saying I agree with this, but we certainly see that this is the mood in the region. The quote from Mahathir is:
            We need a paradigm shift; we need a new mindset if we are going to put an end to this World War III …’

          He was talking about terrorism:
            We need a victory where both sides will benefit.

          The Muslim world and culture potentially will clash with western culture and we will see an increase in terrorism if we do not achieve that paradigm shift.

          I also quote from Mr Said Iman Surutjupondi, a former governor of the National Resilience Institute in Jakarta, as reported in the Jakarta Post on the 5 February, again on Iraq:
            For Indonesia, that is now already burdened with so many problems, the consequences of an Iraqi war are
            very disturbing. The economy will be badly affected and more and more people are becoming poorer. It will
            have social repercussions in labour and ethnic dissatisfactions that ultimately will worsen the security situation.
            A strong Muslim reaction will radicalise Muslim youth, and increase the possibility of violence amongst
            different religions and ethnicities and increase the potential of terrorism.

          This is, I believe, the mood of our Asian neighbours, and I would urge anybody to look at what the Asian press is saying on the Internet.

          Equally, there is no doubt in my mind about the mood of the Australian public on this issue at the moment. Australians do not want to see a unilateral strike on Iraq; they do not want to see initiatives undertaken by the US that are not sanctioned by the United Nations.

          I note that the Prime Minister has labelled all those expressing a view on this - and not only the Prime Minister, also the Leader of the Opposition - as extremists. Is he calling a large group of eminent Liberals, led by former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser; eminent leaders of the Catholic Church; the Pope himself, a bunch of extremists? Only last night, on Lateline, we had rural people on the east coast of Australia, Farmers for Peace. It is absolutely insulting for the Leader of the Opposition to call anybody who has a different view than the Prime Minister on this subject a bunch of extremists. Certainly, on the position of the Catholic Church, I am sure many people would find that absolutely offensive.

          This government is about Territory leadership and respect for our international relationships, not about crusading and conquering. I get the clear impression in the course of my travels as Minister for Asian Relations, that Prime Minister Howard is not well regarded by many people in the region. On a recent trip, I had many Indonesians talk to me about the comments from the Prime Minister about him and Australia being the deputy sheriff in the Asian Pacific region. That has struck a very significant chord amongst many people in Asia. I believe this has a lot to do with his failure to display leadership and act decisively on behalf of all Australians back when it really counted - when we were confronted just a few years by the short-sighted racist politics of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, a party that the CLP preferenced in the last election. Arguably, he has never recovered in the region for failing to shut down that debate. We remember that the former CLP member for Sanderson and Asian Relations and Trade Minister had a very perceptive view on this, and I quote Daryl Manzie:
            … that One Nation would lose tens of thousands of Northern Territory jobs … and our engagement in the
            region is vital for our economic future.

          I certainly believe that this issue is as much about domestic politics - about the stature of the current Prime Minister and his legacy - as it is about a genuine attempt to respond to a crisis over Iraq. This motion is brought before this House with sincerity; it is certainly not about ramping up anti-American feeling. The nation of American people are great and lifelong friends of Australians and Territorians, and it is offensive in the extreme for the Leader of the Opposition to attribute a statement that this motion is against the American people and ramping up anti-American feeling. It is all about the government on this side of the House stating our position - our support for Territorians who are being deployed to the Middle East in this potential conflict - and calling on the Prime Minister of Australia to abide by the rule of international law and to work through the United Nations to secure the disarmament of Iraq.

          Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I note with interest that the member who has just spoken made reference early in his presentation that this matter is not about politics and the issue should not be politicised. He then went to great lengths to criticise, very strongly, the Prime Minister from a domestic and international point of view and proceeded, of course, to deeply politicise the issue. Let us step aside from that. Let us recognise that, from my point of view, only two weeks ago I had the honour of attending, at RAAF Base Tindal, the farewell to RAAF personnel who have been pre-deployed to the Gulf. That was a very moving experience. Following a couple of weeks of intensive training where aircraft had been flying overhead around Katherine, preparing themselves for the pre-deployment, it was very moving at the farewell to see the concern on the faces of mothers, fathers and children, and the issues that they were facing and trying to embrace in their circumstances.

          They were very understanding of the position that they were in. They had joined the Defence Forces and, in doing so, faced the prospect of actions of these kind at one time or another, and being deployed as they now have been. What was a very deep issue with nearly of the people whom I spoke to was, they said, the fact that there was so much difference of opinion being expressed in Canberra - meaning at the parliamentary level - in relation to their pre-deployment. They did not see - particularly through the comments, more so of recent times, of some Labor members who have made some remarkable comments about the President of the United States and others. Yet again, today, we see those remarks being reinforced. That is very sad because, if we are going to be behind our Defence Force personnel, we should be so in a very definitive way. Having been at Tindal on that occasion, I very strongly - together with my colleagues - support them. We recognise that there is a government of the day in Australia, and that government is charged with the responsibility of making decisions on behalf of the nation. They are doing so on an informed basis, and it should be recognised that much of the information that they have cannot be disclosed. We have to understand that.

          The first remarks by the Chief Minister in this parliament this year, related to her visit to a US Naval base and discussions with the Vice Admiral of the US Navy in San Diego, trying to attract US Navy vessels to Darwin so that the local economy might benefit. Whilst the Chief Minister was trying to reap every dollar value from the US Navy - and she had every regard for the decisions that they make in respect to visits to Australian waters and trying to attract them to Darwin - I wonder if the Chief Minister had the same level of confidence in the government that oversees the US Navy regarding the actions that they have taken regarding Iraq? If she does not have the same respect for the government, it is clearly a very opportunistic Chief Minister we have, who has visited San Diego, spoken with the Vice Admiral and tried to reap every benefit from the US Defence Forces in dollar value to the Northern Territory yet, at the same time, criticising them in overall terms for their action in Iraq.

          You cannot interpret part (d) of the government’s motion which calls on the Prime Minister, John Howard, to only commit Australian Defence Force personnel to combat as a part of a United Nations sponsored coalition, as anything less than criticism. It is not only criticism of the Prime Minister of the Australian government’s position, it is also criticism of the President of the United States and their government’s attitude towards these matters and, also of course, of the Labour government in Great Britain, of whom we hear nothing from the members opposite in their overtures regarding this matter. That is a position of direct conflict in relation to the Chief Minister’s attitude to these matters.

          The arguments that have been put forward by the government today have been very one-sided. They have been triggered by peace marches in Darwin and elsewhere around the country over the weekend. The underlying issue really is the creation of a smoke screen to hide the inadequacies of this government - its inaction and its lack of performance in a number of important areas: being the economy; health; kids who are getting bashed when they go to school; people who are stabbed at a nightclub trying to find some reasonable entertainment in Darwin; and, as we have seen in the paper today, people who are being assaulted in the mall in Alice Springs and cannot be assured of their safety here in the Northern Territory. Those issues are being covered up by a government which is raising this issue today.

          So, let us get the full reasoning behind this. Why did we not hear from the Chief Minister in relation to a balanced proposition that she might have put forward, as to the fact that the actions that have been taken by the US, Great Britain and Australia and other countries, that many nations of the Muslim faith also are in support of those actions. We did not hear any of that today. We did not hear any comments regarding the former weapons inspector and Australian, Richard Butler, who, on television news as recently as this morning, said that Saddam Hussein is pulling the wool over the eyes of the weapons inspectors. We hear nothing in relation to the million people or less who marched in Australia over the last weekend and that 19 million did not march - that they are of a completely different opinion perhaps.

          The federal Opposition Leader, Simon Crean, supported the United Relations resolution regarding going to Iraq and was then contradicted by his shadow minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Rudd. His position in relation to these matters has seen his popularity fall 4% in the polls over the last week or so.

          We hear nothing about the fact that there would be no weapons inspectors in Iraq now, but for the pressure that the United States, Great Britain and Australia have placed on Iraq and the United Nations, to make a decision. We hear that, only last week, the weapons inspectors found missiles that Saddam Hussein was saying did not exist only the week before. Therefore, let us put some context and balance into this argument, and recognise that the propositions put by the government serve only to provide a smokescreen for their inadequacies in relation to their own low performance.

          Let us put an historical perspective to all of those issues, in recognising the issues that the United Nations has to deal with. I agree they are very difficult issues. However, they have been looking at these issues for 12 years. There have been not one, not two, not several resolutions from the United Nations calling on Saddam Hussein to disarm and get rid of his weapons of mass destruction - there have been 17. The Chief Minister’s motion here today calls, remarkably, on Iraq to fully comply with UN Resolution 1441. The UN has not been able to do it in 12 years. The Chief Minister of the Northern Territory expects them to take notice of her? It is just ludicrous. Twelve years of this, 17 resolutions, and it still is not happening. So, let us put some balance into this argument.

          Let us consider this in a broader and more factual context, rather than a one-sided argument that we have heard from both the Chief Minister and the Minister for Defence Support. Let us even step back 50 years and consider that, in the mid-1930s, the world was in a very similar position with the League of Nations which was going easy on a chap called Adolf Hitler, and which was trying to, through appeasement, get a resolution to the very worrying circumstances that were occurring at that time. To put a very pertinent context to that, I will quote from a chap called The Right Honourable Winston Churchill:
            The modern world presents the extraordinary spectacle of almost everybody wishing to prevent or avoid war …

          These words of 1936 have a very worrying reflection in 2003. I go on:
            … and yet war coming remorselessly nearer to almost everybody. Surely, this will be the great mystery
            which future generations will find among the records and, perhaps, the ruins of our age. ‘How was it’,
            the historians of the future will ask, ‘that these vast, fairly intelligent, educated and, on the whole,
            virtuous communities were so helpless and futile as to allow themselves to become the victims of their own
            processes and of what they most abhorred?’ The answer will be: they had no plan.

            The thinking people in the different countries could not agree upon a plan. The rest continued to gape
            and chatter vacuously at the approaching peril until they were devoured by it. They were amused from day
            to day by an endless flow of headlines about trifles amid which they could not, or did not, take the trouble to
            discern the root of the matter.

            We have now gone so far down the slope towards the abyss that very blunt, stern measures will be
            required. Already, the ground is beginning to crumble under our sliding feet and intense effort must
            indeed be made. Above all, that effort must be practical. Sentiment by itself is no good; fine speeches
            are worse that useless; short-sighted optimism is a mischief; smooth, soothing platitudes are a crime.

          Some very stark parallels exist today regarding weapons of mass destruction. Twelve years of dithering by the United Nations in dealing with Iraq, and recognition of the fact that the issue really is: the weapons inspectors should be given more time, notwithstanding that they are in their 17th resolution and trying to apply it; and that Saddam Hussein was still saying: ‘I do not have any weapons of mass destruction’ only a fortnight ago and, only a week later, missiles were unearthed. We have to look at it in that context, and recognise precisely what the circumstances are, because not to do so places us at risk ourselves.

          We are all, of course, at one in that none of us want to see a war. I certainly do not, as a father of three kids, and I cannot imagine any right thinking person would. But let us recognise that Defence Forces, which are an insurance policy against the issues that we are now debating, have to be deployed - and they have to be deployed under the responsibility of a federal government. We have to recognise, as citizens, that it is only reasonable to assume, in my view, that not all of the information can be provided that we would like to know about: the reasoning behind the pre-deployment of troops. If the Chief Minister has the confidence in the US Navy to be able to go and try to squeeze some business out of them, surely she has the confidence in the US Navy and other Defence Forces of the United States to be able to accept the fact that they are operating on a sound basis; that they are acting on information that enables them to commit to the actions that they have taken. We should be thankful for that. If she does not recognise that, and she is only squeezing dollars out of them because its convenient to do so and she can get some political points domestically, that is abhorrent. That is abhorrent for a Chief Minister to act in that way.

          Let us be a little more honest regarding what the government is really on about here, and what they seek to get out of this motion today because, as the Leader of the Opposition has clearly demonstrated, there is no difference between what Mr Rudd is saying and what the Prime Minister is saying. Mr Rudd, at the end of the day, is saying: ‘You can justify going in without a UN resolution’. That is not what the Chief Minister is saying. The Chief Minister is saying: ‘You will only go in on the basis of a UN resolution’. So, we have to hear, I hope, in the closing remarks from the Chief Minister, just what her modus operandi is here; what she expects from the US Defence Forces. Are they just convenient dollar spenders when they visit Darwin, to be trusted and partied when they sail into port and ‘Hail fellow, well met, our colleagues’, and those who are going to come and benefit our economy, or are we going to demonstrate more faith than that? Are we going to recognise that the alliance that we have with the United States, that has existed now for well over 50 years, has been one where we could take them at their word; where their blood has flowed in protection of our country; and the blood of our soldiers, in the past, has flowed in the support for the allied forces in previous matters pertaining to wars across the world.

          There is more honesty required here on behalf of the Chief Minister. We do need to know if this was just a knee-jerk reaction, because it was a good thing to read in the press over the weekend that there was a peace march - notwithstanding that we have heard naught up until today from the Chief Minister on matters regarding Iraq. We have not heard her comment or put her point of view in relation to these matters but once, up until today, when this matter of convenience comes up following a peace march last weekend and, of course, the opportunity to have a smoke screen to avoid any debate in this House on matters of great importance to Territorians - whether it be law and order and the risks that Territorians face walking the streets, the fact that there is a new Accident and Emergency Centre at Royal Darwin Hospital that people are not allowed to use and will not be able to enter for better services for many months to come, or the fact that there is a fall in business confidence across the Northern Territory. None of those issues want to be spoken about by the Chief Minister and so she brings this motion in today as a red herring.

          Well, people will see her for what she is and understand this deceit. The US navy I am sure, sadly, may even come to recognise that the Vice Admiral that she met before Christmas in San Diego was met for very convenient and political purposes. Whilst he can be trusted to talk to about trying to bring some beneficial activities to the local economy here in Darwin, the United States Navy, the other Defence Forces of the United States, and the United States government, cannot be trusted in these very important, deep and concerning issues that exist in Iraq. That is a deplorable position for the Chief Minister to find herself in, but she has only herself to blame for the positioning that she now faces. How she is going to get out of it, I do not know.

          However, I will close by reaffirming my support for the Defence personnel of Australia. I support the Prime Minister’s actions in making the decisions that he has. He has taken these decisions, I guess, with a great deal of angst, worry and concern for the wellbeing of our Defence Forces, but in mind of the best concerns for the future of Australia. We cannot expect the Prime Minister to act on any better basis than that, and we should be extending our full support.

          It is amazing that the former speaker, the Minister for Defence Support, made no reference at all to the amendment that the Opposition Leader put forward which will demonstrate a clear level of support - not only for the Prime Minister but for our Defence Forces. If the government wants to make sure that our Defence Forces do have our full and unequivocal support, they will support that amendment. That will demonstrate to the Defence men and women of Australia that we do support them and that we support the actions of the government and understand the difficult circumstances under which they are working.

          [Editor’s Note: Debate continues later this day.]
          SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
          Move Motion of Censure

          Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended- as would prevent me moving a motion of censure.

          Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, the government accepts this censure motion from the opposition and we would ask that all broadcasting cease.
          MOTION
          Censure of Minister for Health and
          Community Services

          Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I move that this House censure the Minister for Health and Community Services because of:

          1. the minister’s total inability to exercise her responsibility as a minister in relation to the expending
          of Territory monies;
            2. the minister’s inability to tell the truth; for example, the minister said last week that every day of the
            week people come to her to seek funding and she tells them that they must put a business case to her,
            which totally contradicts the minister’s statement in the same interview that she is ‘quite removed from
            the decision making on funding’;

            3. the minister presiding over, in the words of the review into the Department of Health and Community
            Services, ‘a breakdown in management systems and control’;

            4. the minister’s failure to implement strategies to achieve medium- to long-term efficiencies since the
            mini-budget of 2001;

            5. the minister’s misleading of this parliament when she told it that her department would come in on budget
            in 2001-02, and was online for 2002-03;

            6. the minister’s misleading of this parliament as to why she dismissed the previous CEO of the Department
            of Health and Community Services;

            7. the censoring of the review report in the two months it was in the minister’s hands before a final version was
            publicly released;

            8. the minister’s admission that she had no idea (a) her department was employing an extra 150 people and
            (b) that there was no money appropriated to pay their wages and salaries;

            9. the continuing delay in opening the redevelopment of Royal Darwin Hospital;

            10. the abandonment of the minister’s promise to introduce radiation oncology services;

            11. the abandonment of the minister’s promise to have a stand-alone hospice;

            12. the minister’s abandonment of the private wing at Alice Springs Hospital;

            13. the need to abandon Labor promises and commitments because of the minister’s inept management;
            and

            14. the need to cut the delivery of vital health services because of the misspending over which the minister
            has presided.

            Last week, after a lengthy wait, the Minister for Health and Community Services finally released the report of a review of the Northern Territory Department of Health and Community Services. I have read the report, and what an extraordinary document it is. At just under 200 pages, it is a wide-ranging review of all the major areas in the minister’s department. It lacks detail and depth to illustrate many of the conclusions it draws but, from my broad understanding of the department, it is a pretty good dot-point reflection of much of the current situation - and I stress, as does the review, the current situation.

            There are some inaccuracies and some points read like tea room gossip but, certainly, its comments on low morale and poor leadership seem pretty accurate. I wonder, considering its cost of $600 000, if the document, which has been released publicly, is really only the abridged version. For example, in the area of patient assisted travel on page 173 - an area which costs Territorians millions every year - less than two lines appear. Also, on the issue of cross-border charging - for which costs are spiralling out of control, as it cost $9m two years ago and is now up to $21m in the last financial year - there is no mention at all. If there is a more detailed publication, I hope the minister will tell us in her response to this censure motion and also make any extra information public.

            One also has to be a little cynical about the timing of the release of this version of the report. Back on 26 November 2002, the minister issued a press release saying she had received the report: ‘I have received the review report’, the minister said. However, the covering letter of this report says it was forwarded to her on 27 January this year. To muddy the waters even further, the review team leader, Mr Alan Bansemer, told the media: ‘The final completion of the report was in January, or so I am told’.

            Today, we have just heard the minister describe what she received in November as a working document, and nothing like what she said in her media release of 26 November: ‘I have received the review report’. What has happened to this report in the two months it has been in the hands of the minister? Why does the review team leader say it was ‘completed in January, or so I am told’? Has it been doctored? Has it been censored? Has it been watered down in those two months? What has the minister been doing with it?

            These questions need answering because, what the sanitised version of the review provides is a damning indictment of our current Health minister. What must the original version have been like? This is the very minister who informed Territorians last year that she is the best Health minister we have ever had. What an extraordinary claim, considering it was made at the same time as she was directly responsible for a department that was suffering - and I quote from this report – ‘a breakdown in management and control’. Make no mistake, this breakdown in management systems and control has happened under this minister’s watch. The report makes that crystal clear at paragraph 116 on page 39 which begins: ‘Funding pressure has also been driven significantly by a breakdown in management systems and controls’, and then immediately details the mess that followed the mini-budget and the 2002-03 budget of this government. That is what is detailed in this review. It does not go on and on about a decade of previous government mismanagement. What it does go on and on about is your time as minister.

            The review proceeds to argue its case for the next five paragraphs on how this government and this minister have totally failed to manage the situation. The review says there will have to be significant cuts to service delivery to rectify the situation - significant cuts. The review says this government and this minister, and I quote: ‘… failed to implement strategies to achieve medium to long-term efficiencies’. It says this government will have to significantly improve its management and reconsider its commitments and even those made by the CLP government just to ensure, and I quote: ‘… very basic priority areas are addressed’. That is the extent of this minister’s failure to administer and manage her department. Not only will service delivery have to be cut, but very basic priority areas are in danger of not being met.

            Despite this damaging assessment by the review of this minister’s performance, she has tried to put the blame on the department and the former CLP government. The minister’s press release of 12 February contained a blatant lie and I quote from the release:
              The review found previous governments have presided over repeated budget blow-outs, little
              accountability and historic under-funding over the past 10 years.

            Nowhere does this review say any such thing and the author had none of it when interviewed by the media. Mr Bansemer, when interviewed by the media said:
              I think over the last 18 months there has been instability at the top leadership of the department and that
              that has had an impact. I think the transition from opposition to government was very difficult for the
              department.

            Who is the top leadership of the department? This minister. Why was the transition so very difficult? Because it meant this minister was now in charge and offered no leadership, no direction and no control.

            As we know, it took 10 months to the day from the time the minister was elected until the day she announced this review would be done. Given the current appalling state of the department’s finances, I have to ask: why did it take so long for her to kick-start this process? If I had been the minister the first thing I would be getting across would be the financial situation of my department and, at the first hint of real trouble, I would have called for an independent review. Why was this minister so blind to the problems? I can only surmise the answer to be ‘total incompetence’.

            The time frame here is interesting. On the same day the minister advised parliament the review was to be done, she also told us - and I quote from the Parliamentary Record:
              I have been advised that the department’s budget will come in on target; we are going to come in on budget.

            Two weeks before the end of the financial year the minister thinks the department will come in on budget and, yet, what do we find out a few weeks later when the budget is handed down by the Chief Minister? Surprise, surprise! The health budget has been blown by $18m.

            The cynic in me has to wonder that in June 2002 the minister knew perfectly well she was well over budget, but chose to lie to this parliament. She knew she did not have a hope of delivering on her election promises. But, minister, you could not stand the thought of breaking the news to the electorate that they would not get an independent hospice, a radiation oncology unit, a host of extra nursing positions, a renal unit at remote Kintore, a private wing at Alice Springs Hospital etcetera. Instead, you called in an outsider …

            Ms Lawrie: You lied about the budget.

            Ms CARTER: … someone to do the dirty work to find out what was going wrong, to find out why your department is haemorrhaging money, and to tell you that you cannot deliver on your election promises.

            Dr LIM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Karama called the member for Port Darwin a liar and that is just not on.

            Ms Scrymgour: She did not say liar.

            Dr Lim: She did.

            Ms Scrymgour: She did not call her a liar.

            Madam SPEAKER: Member for Karama, did you?

            Ms LAWRIE: Not the member for Port Darwin, no. I was referring generically to the CLP in regards to the budget day. I am happy to withdraw any inference to the member for Port Darwin.

            Madam SPEAKER: Yes, it would be wise to withdraw it. Thank you.

            Ms CARTER: Perhaps even more concerning, the minister thought she was telling the truth back then; that she was not lying, she was just ignorant. She had no idea that her department was way over. Why? Because she was so trusting in her advisors, or was it she just did not think to inquire? Perhaps it is the latter because, as we know from one of her media appearances last week, she claims:

            I am quite removed from funding decisions.

            Although, at that same interview last week the minister went on and on about how non-government organisations such as the Council on the Ageing had to put their business case to her in order to get her to consider their funding request. Of course, that turned out to be false as well, because we since have found out that COTA had put in a business plan to the minister, but she was going to deny that in the media.

            Back to funding. Which is it, minister: does the minister get involved, or does she not? Which is the truth? Which statement is true? Or did she just get flustered during the interview? Does she really know what is going on, but does not want to get her hands dirty by having to break the bad news - a ‘don’t blame me’ response to stress?

            To say: ‘I am quite removed from funding decisions’ is extraordinary. Given the serious problems all jurisdictions have in containing health costs, surely ministerial involvement in funding decisions is crucial. Surely the minister should be controlling her department, not just being a casual observer.

            I do understand that, in August 2001, the member for Nightcliff was thrust into the position of Health minister only days after being elected for the first time. I am sure it was very difficult for her to grapple with the information she would have been deluged with by her department. However, the time it took for the minister to realise that her November 2001 mini-budget extra funding of $35m was blown was incredible. What was she doing during the first half of last year as the money gushed away?

            As we know, the Minister for Health and Community Services has received $130m more in the past 18 months than the previous Health minister. His budget was $446m per annum; her budget is now at least $527m per annum, with more being added all the time. This extra funding is not insignificant. We have to ask ourselves, and we certainly ask the minister now: could she provide, in her response to this censure motion information on exactly where all this extra money has gone? I know that one item costing more was the surprise package of 150 extra staff which the minister’s review tells us she did not know about. The minister admitted herself she had no idea her department - the department she is totally responsible for under our system of government - had employed all these unfunded people. The minister told the media last week:
              When I found out, I was absolutely furious, and it is because of actually having the review and the report
              that we have found it out.

            That is totally unacceptable. This minister should have known her department was employing these people. What on earth does this minister think her job is? Let me quote from page 136 of the review’s report:
              The department had an unplanned increase of 150 staff in 2001-02 many of which were appointed late
              in the financial year. The additional impact in 2002-03 of these appointments is $10.1m. This reflects
              a serious breakdown in management processes and a disregard for the budget.
            Still reading from the review:
              There are many signs of breakdown of budgetary discipline within the department, but the appointment
              of staff without ongoing budget provision is the most graphic.

            You will note the timing of this occurrence. The member for Nightcliff became the Minister for Health and Community Services in August 2001, less than eight weeks into the financial year. Many of the 150 extra staff - staff for which there was no money - were appointed late in that financial year, well after the November 2001 Labor mini-budget which delivered millions extra to health. But still the minister could not cope. Why? Apparently, because she did not know about the extra staff and yet, at almost every Question Time she was being asked about staffing numbers at her hospitals. Every time she would tell us: ‘Everything is now fine, there is plenty of staff’.

            Was the minister telling her managers: ‘Oh, goodness! The sittings and Question Time are coming up. Make sure that all nursing positions are filled, get agency staff from Adelaide. Just make sure that, for a month or so around sittings, I look good’? Surely not, Madam Speaker. Yet that is what some staff from the Alice Springs Hospital have told me had been happening.

            One of the many conflicting arguments this minister put forward last week in an attempt to defend herself was the line that, in the months leading up to her announcing the review in June, she had, and I quote:
              … extreme concerns about a lot of things I was seeing happening in the department, particularly in relation
              to financial management.

            While it would take more time than this debate allows to go into all the instances where this minister told this Assembly, or a committee of this Assembly, that everything was okay, and she had no concerns, something about this line of defence smells. If we are to believe the minister and her extreme concerns, do we still believe that she did not sack her previous CEO? Do we still believe, and I quote:
              There has been a very amicable and mutually agreed separation with my CEO, Mr Bartholomew.

            If we believe the minister then - that it was not a sacking but an amicable parting - do we believe her now that she had extreme concerns as early as the beginning of last year, and that is why she acted. My own preference is not to believe the minister at all. However, if we do believe that she was so concerned that she got rid of her CEO and implemented this review to sort things out, then we must conclude that her continuing statements to this Assembly in June that she did not sack the CEO, were blatant attempts to mislead the House. While this government has no compunction about misleading the House, it is a most serious charge under the system of government and ministerial responsibility. This minister must now answer that charge, and must tell us why her CEO left and the manner of his leaving.

            This minister is in charge of what is arguably the most demanding and complex department for which the Labor government is responsible. She cannot keep on with her hands-off approach to financial matters. Territorians cannot afford this style of leadership and deserve better. Since the minister’s appointment in August 2001, 18 months ago, there has been no obvious effort from this minister to develop and implement any medium- to long-term efficiencies. The review states it bluntly:
              Following the November 2001 mini-budget, the department failed to implement strategies to achieve
              medium- and long-term efficiencies.

            We all know that the Department of Health and Community Services is a huge department, full of many capable staff, and yet, I am not aware of any effort from this minister to say to her staff: ‘We really need to get and keep control of the budget. I want you to present me a dozen strategies for reigning in costs’. There has certainly been no sign of any action in this area. Instead, it appears to have been a total ‘hands-off’ response from this minister. I believe it has all just been too much.

            Territorians will be hugely let down and disappointed when Labor election promise after promise are now broken due to this minister’s incompetence. As we know, Labor promised that 75 extra nursing positions would be created in Territory hospitals during their term. So far, I have been told by the minister in this place that a couple of these positions have eventuated - sadly none in places like medical wards. So, about the cost cutting which the review calls for, we see that election promise axed because there is no spare change now. The review tells us that:
              There is a potential budget overrun of $27.6m for this financial year, and that to address this in any way
              will require significant cuts to service delivery.

            Some of those cuts have been made obvious. The opening of the long awaited and much needed A and E, intensive care and radiology extension at Royal Darwin Hospital have been put on hold. Everyone knows that the current A and E, for example, has outlived its use-by date, and that the increase in population in the Darwin region places enormous strain on the unit. Only this weekend, we heard from the hospital just how bad it is. The report said that patients were having to wait up to five hours in A and E, although there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that, for some, the wait is much longer. The hospital itself admits that A and E is straining under the pressure of having to deal with increasing numbers of patients.

            Let us look at several other areas where this minister has let down Territorians: broken Labor election promises such as the canning of the radiation oncology unit and the movement of the control of the hospice under Royal Darwin Hospital management. Labor promised to build a radiation oncology unit so that Territorians would not have to travel interstate for radiotherapy if they had been diagnosed with cancer. Many people would have voted for Labor because of this promise. You would have assumed that, before making this promise, Labor would have contacted people experienced in the field and confirmed that Darwin could, and should, have such a unit - that it was viable and safe. But no, it appears that Labor made the promise of a radiation oncology unit because they knew it would be popular, not because it would be viable based on population numbers, or affordable. The review states:
              Any proposal to introduce or expand such clinical services in the NT should be treated with extreme caution,
              given the population and resource base of the Territory.

            Another area of disappointment for Territorians as a result of this minister’s poor financial performance and the subsequent need for significant cuts to service delivery, will be the movement of control of the hospice into the management of Royal Darwin Hospital. I know that the community group working to establish the hospice is very concerned that control by RDH managers of the hospice will see it provide a less than optimal service as its resources - such as nurses - are moved at the demand of the hospital into their wards to work at busy times, leaving the hospice to cope as best it can.

            Another area of concern is the abandonment of the private wing at Alice Springs Hospital, again because of lack of funds. In July last year, the Chief Minister and the minister for Health were proud to include the private wing at the hospital in Alice Springs in their official opening of the Alice Springs Hospital redevelopment. They have constantly tried to claim credit for the $30m redevelopment of Alice Springs Hospital but, today, the minister dismisses it with the comment that the government ‘did not believe it was appropriate to spend public money on a commercial private hospital’. What about the money that has already been spent in providing the private wing, and your promise in your hospital’s New Directions Policy that Labor was committed to Territorians having the choice to access private hospital facilities and services that are specific at the Alice Springs Hospital in relation to this promise?

            Minister, people are angry and hurt because you lied when you and you party, in your election platform, made promises on a raft of health issues which you knew you could not deliver. We on this side of the House knew it at the time, and were bagged for saying so. Now you have a report telling you: ‘No, you cannot and should not have these things’. You knew this would be the outcome but are, I believe, now using an independent auditor to break the bad news.

            One of my major concerns now is the effect the minister’s poor performance – her inability to supervise and control her department’s spending - will have on its staff. The review makes special significant mention of work force issues. It comments on current stressful workloads. Well, I suspect stressful workloads are about to increase dramatically. Why? Because the new CEO has been charged with saving $3m in the next four and a half months by implementing tight bed management. When I asked him last week what this meant, he advised it covered doctors being more careful about who they admit and when they discharge patients, and management cutting back on the employment of agency nurses and, instead, using the nurses currently working shifts in the hospital by moving them from a less busy area to the busy areas. What will this mean to staff and to Territorians? It will mean having to turn patients staff thought should be admitted away from hospital; discharging patients early, perhaps before they are ready to cope; and working administration staff, nurses, doctors, allied health professionals, pharmacists, technicians and orderlies at 100% or more capacity, making them work hard every day with no chance of a breather. Stress levels will climb. Stress levels in the department are already significant, and now the minister’s poor performance is going to really kick things along.

            Without any fanfare over the past month, all advertising for recruitment to vacant positions in the department has ceased. Last week, I had a manager from the department contact me, furious that their advertisements had been pulled from the NT News. I table examples of this change. On 18 January, there were 14 advertisements in the paper for staff to join the Department of Health and Community Services; on 25 January, there were seven. However, then there is a change. The following week, on 1 February, and for every week after - zero, zero, zero, no advertisements for departmental staff. They have been pulled and managers were not told about it.

            It is all very well for the minister to claim ‘no jobs losses’ or ‘no forced redundancies at a time like this’, but the end result for service provision is the same - less hands to do the work. How? By not filling vacancies as they come up. I believe this will have a real impact on service provision and staff stress levels. Good staff, for example those from the pharmacy at Alice Springs Hospital, will leave the Territory when their contract expires, not to be replaced. That unit is down to 40% of its usual operating level because of cuts to funding.

            Minister, you finally called for this review 10 months into your limited tenure in the position. It is a damming indictment of your inability to get on top of the job, to get a sound understanding of your department’s functions, its management systems and its finances. You were given the extra funding to make changes and to pay for your election promises, but you have let Territorians down. You are going to create major problems and stresses for the staff you currently employ.

            The minister has let down her colleagues, the true believers, the hard-working staff of her department, and Territorians. We all know, from the whispering and the sighs we hear from within government, that this minister is a major disappointment. The self-proclaimed title of the best Health minister the Territory has ever seen is not a joke to be laughed at. It is too tragic, and the consequences of her being the Territory’s Health minister are devastating for Territorians. The minister has only one portfolio; the lightest workload a Territory minister has ever enjoyed. It is time - it is way past time for the Chief Minister to relieve her of that one portfolio.

            If this government is serious about implementing this review and fixing the appalling state to which health administration has fallen under the present minister, it must take the first and most necessary step and replace the Minister for Health and Community Services. Madam Speaker, the review has censured this minister - not the department, not the past, but this minister - for her incompetence, lack of management, lack of direction, and lack of control. It is time this Assembly did the same.

            Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, in fact, I am quite glad that this has actually come up because it indicates just how low the CLP has reached. They realised, when they started reading this report, that this was about them and the only thing they could actually do was to censure me. I must say that, during Question Time, there was nothing in Question Time which would have indicated that there was a need for censuring a minister …

            Mr Dunham: What about ‘lie’? What about lying to the department?

            Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Drysdale!

            Mrs AAGAARD: I will start with one of the comments which the member for Port Darwin just said in relation to having one portfolio. It is actually health and community services. Very rarely, I must say, does the member for Port Darwin ever mention community services. In the Commonwealth, this is actually covered by five ministers and one parliamentary secretary – that is five and one. Over the last month or so, on the other side it does not seem to have been just one person who is covering this but, in fact, two people. So obviously, from the CLP point of view, it requires more than one person to deal with this portfolio, whereas I am very happy to deal with this myself.

            This has been a very significant review of the department - a very significant review; probably the most significant thing regarding health in the last 10 years. As I mentioned in Question Time, it details significant health and community service issues across the Territory. It looks at issues to do with structure of the department, financial accountability, and particularly at management. It looks at a whole range of things but, particularly, at emerging health and community service issues in the Northern Territory …

            Mr Dunham: In the last 18 months.

            Mrs AAGAARD: I will pick up on that rather silly interjection from the member for Drysdale: ‘The last 18 months’. I do not think so. This is about 10 years, at least, of poor management and structural problems within the department - absolutely the case. I will read from the editorial in the NT News for 13 February 2003, ‘Cure the Sickness’:
              Cure the sickness
              Like the alcoholic who cannot be treated until he has first owned up to having a problem, the Health service
              can start its recovery now that the Territory government …

            That is this Territory government:
              … has admitted that the department is sick. The diagnosis by the government-ordered review of the service
              is grim. Morale among health staff is chronically low. There are serious conflict of interest breaches among
              senior managers. The whole management structure is top heavy, expensive and inefficient. There are gaping
              holes in service delivery. The department’s budget will have blown out by $20m by the end of this financial
              year. Indeed, there has been a budget blow-out every year for a decade.

            Oh!:
              Health Minister, Jane Aagaard did not mince words yesterday when presenting the Bansemer Report. The
              system was unstainable in its present form, she said.
            Unsustainable:
              The report confirms what the Northern Territory News has been saying for months: that the Health Department
              has been allowed to run on autopilot for years.

            For years:
              Many managers are now unaccountable; petty fiefdoms have been established throughout the service. Every
              health minister for the past decade must bear some responsibility for this scandalous state of affairs. The
              diagnosis is awful and Ms Aagaard‘s prescription is radical. In the short term she will fill the budget hole
              by delaying the opening of the new Accident and Emergency Department in Darwin and postponing
              the establishment of an oncology unit.

              In the longer term, she will overhaul management, switching resources from the bosses to those who work
              at the coalface of health delivery. In other words, there will be more indians and less chiefs.

            Madam Speaker, the Northern Territory News seemed to be able to understand, when they read the report, what it was all about. They realised that it was, in fact, about something which we inherited and something which we are fixing - we are fixing.

            In the lead-up to announcing this review, there were significant numbers of things which were concerning me. There were people coming to see me on a regular basis, talking about things relating to the structure of the department, and many aspects which bothered them. I became more and more concerned as the time went on. I have to say that the report indicates that concern was warranted. We are fixing those situations.

            The member for Port Darwin brought up all sorts of very strange things in her speech today – a very sad speech, for the first time as the opposition health spokesperson for the CLP. A very, very sad speech, it indicates a total lack of understanding of the department. I am not quite sure what she is basing it on. In terms of the review itself and the way it has been received, it has been significantly …

            Members interjecting.

            Madam SPEAKER: Order! Members of the opposition, we did listen to the member for Port Darwin in silence. Let us listen to the minister.

            Mrs AAGAARD: This review has been received very well by the non-government sector, community organisations and, I might add, members of the staff. I walked through Health House on the day that I announced this and the response there was extremely positive. I was also in Alice Springs last Friday and the response there was also positive.

            The staff of my department have been wanting change for years. Some of them have been saying they have been trying to get the message out for at least the last six or seven years. No one listened to them; no one cared. They said health and community service outcomes were appalling. They said: ‘We could make these significant changes, but no one will listen to us’. We have listened to the people who are in the department, the stakeholders, and we are moving and making sure that the review is implemented.

            There have been some very serious allegations made in this House today regarding expenditure, and claims that I have made in relation to the budget. My advice to the House on projected Department of Health and Community Services 2001-02 expenditure was based on the written advice provided to me by the department. I certainly made that clear at the time. The information provided to the Estimates Committee was correct also. The level of expenditure on service delivery in the department at the end of 2001-02 was offset by under-expenditure in other areas, particularly in the grants area. A number of payments which had customarily been made in June for the first quarter of the next financial year were made in July, and so, 2001-02 expenditure included only three-quarters of grants payments in a number of cases.

            Although the advice provided to me by the department in the last few months of 2001-02 - that it would come in on budget - was close to being technically correct, the department only achieved this by deferring payments into 2002-03, and the level of expenditure on services was higher than would be indicated merely by the total end of the year expenditure.

            One of the driving reasons for the review was my increasing unease about the finances of the department and its capacity to deliver on the government’s health agenda. So I must say I am most unhappy about financial management in the department, and I have directed the new CEO take immediate steps to ensure budget control in the department.

            Mr Dunham: Will you sack him, too, if he mucks up?

            Mrs AAGAARD: Madam Speaker, I ask that the member for Drysdale withdraw that comment.

            Madam SPEAKER: Yes, you are becoming very tiring, member for Drysdale, with your constant little interjections.

            Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, I desist from interjecting, but I shall not withdraw.

            Madam SPEAKER: I am sure you will have your opportunity to speak in a moment.

            Mrs AAGAARD: My new CEO is a particularly professional person who has worked throughout Australia in health and community services, and he certainly does not deserve that sort of slur on his character. It is completely appalling that a member of parliament would make those comments regarding a CEO in this government.

            The member for Port Darwin made some very, very strange comments regarding my former CEO. I am aware that this has been through the PAC - certainly there were questions regarding Mr Bartholomew in the Estimates Committee - and the Commissioner for Public Employment has made all the comments that were needed to be made in relation to that. If the member for Port Darwin has some kind of issue with the Commissioner for Public Employment, she needs to bring that up with the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, It is not appropriate for the member to come in here and make up stories which have no evidence whatsoever. It is a very disappointing way of handling the dealings in the parliament.

            I already mentioned in Question Time today about the 150 people who were employed without authorisation by the government or of the CEO. This was a very, very serious matter and, as soon as I found out about it and, in fact, as soon as the acting CEO found out about it, delegations were withdrawn. This has not happened since and will never happen again.

            One of the things this review tells us is that the management systems we inherited were so poor that this kind of thing can happen, that people …

            Mr Dunham: It never happened before.

            Mrs AAGAARD: Excuse me, Madam Speaker, I am going to pick up on that interjection. There was absolutely no question that this has happened for at least a decade. People just employ people with no budget next to it. The member for Port Darwin made a ridiculous claim that, in fact, there were no extra nurses that we have appointed. This is completely fallacious. We have, in fact, put on 31 new nurses with new positions in the last 18 months. These are 31 new positions.

            Mr Burke: Is that part of the 150?

            Mrs AAGAARD: It was never 150. The Leader of the Opposition is not correct. I am trying to say here that, in fact, we are on target with getting the number of nurses that we need in the Northern Territory. There are certainly issues, as everybody knows, in relation to all aspects of the work force in the Northern Territory. Nobody is denying that. However, we are committed to getting more nurses into the Northern Territory, and tomorrow I will be making a significant announcement regarding nurses in the Northern Territory and I look forward to advising the House on that.

            Mr Dunham: Oh, we look forward to it too.

            Mrs AAGAARD: Yes, I am sure that the member for Drysdale will be very pleased to hear about that. You are going to have to wait until tomorrow though, I am afraid.

            There have been some very odd comments also made about supposed election commitments of ours. We never gave a commitment that we would open the Alice Springs private hospital wing. We never made a commitment to that at all …

            Ms Martin: It is unsustainable. Who built it? Which wise minister? Which of the three wise men sitting across there did it?

            Mrs AAGAARD: Very good point, Chief Minister, I must say - a very good point. It must have been the member for Drysdale. What we have now is a $1.2m white elephant: the private hospital. Fifteen bed private hospitals are unviable. No commercial operator is even vaguely interested …

            Mr Henderson: Nobody wants to run it.

            Mr Dunham: That is a lie.

            Mrs AAGAARD: … no commercial operator is even vaguely interested …

            Mr Dunham: That is also a lie.

            Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If the member wants to accuse the minister of lying he can do it by way of substantive motion, not by interjection.

            Madam SPEAKER: Yes, you should not be interjecting in that way. I have already spoken to the opposition about those interjections. Member for Drysdale, you are well aware of what you should do and what you should not.

            Mrs AAGAARD: We have in Alice Springs a 15 bed unusable private hospital - completely unusable. I asked the review to look into this to see if we could either attract a private operator to run this place, or do something else. I was then provided with a whole series of options. What it really meant was that we would have to put a huge amount of public funding into that, which would mean that the money would have to come out of other aspects of public hospitals. $1.5m was the minimum recurrent funding that we would have to put in to operate this kind of service.

            The people of Alice Springs need a functioning public hospital. They need to be assured that the public hospital is working well. It is our belief that money in the public purse needs to go into public hospitals. We do not go along with the Leader of the Opposition who, when he was the Health minister, wanted to privatise all our hospitals. We do not think that is a very good idea and, obviously, he did not either because he did not go ahead and do it - and a very good thing too, otherwise goodness knows what we would be up to now.

            I am not quite sure what the so-called ‘abandonment of the minister’s promise to have a stand alone hospice’ is all about. There is no abandonment of any hospice. I have not received final costings or plans of a hospice. Therefore, in fact, the member for Port Darwin is very poorly advised on this one. Nothing has been received, no decisions have been made. The member for Port Darwin really has absolutely not the faintest idea what she is talking about …

            Ms Carter: Oh, yes, she does!

            Mrs AAGAARD: Not the faintest idea what she is talking about! No plans or final costings have come to me. There will be a hospice and it will be at the Royal Darwin Hospital.

            There is also something here about the oncology service. We came to government having promised a radiation oncology service. We provided this election commitment in good faith. There was extensive consultation with other governments in relation to radiation oncology services and we believed, at that stage, that this kind of service would be appropriate for Darwin and could probably service the people of Northern Australia. We put forward that election commitment in good faith.

            The review has advised us that there are clinical issues in relation to the oncology service in the Northern Territory. It would be a very, very irresponsible Health minister who recommended the continuation of a commitment such as this, having been told that there were clinical issues. Therefore, at this stage, we have actually deferred this while we receive some more information. However, at this stage it will not be going ahead, but we have a commitment to ensure that there will be better services in relation to cancer treatment and cancer patient services in the Northern Territory.

            There was another very odd comment made by the member for Port Darwin regarding Kintore and renal dialysis. Now, I am not at all sure what on earth this is about. We, as a government, have been working very closely with the people of Kintore. One of the real issues at Kintore is, in fact - and the member for Drysdale should know about this because he was also the minister for Essential Services. Once again, appalling, absolutely appalling, services in the bush, particularly in relation to power and water infrastructure. So Kintore, in the desert, has been left with the most appalling power and water and, therefore, in relation to haemodialysis, it is at this stage clinically dangerous for us to put in a satellite renal dialysis unit in Kintore. However …

            Mr Reed: That is why we did not do it, you dill. That is what we said. You can’t do this, Jane.

            Members interjecting.

            Madam SPEAKER: Order, members of the opposition, order!

            Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Katherine is referring to members by their first name rather than their electorates.

            Madam SPEAKER: Yes, and members of the opposition are well aware that that is against standing orders.

            Mrs AAGAARD: We have made a commitment to the people of Kintore that we will do everything we can to ensure that renal services will be available there, but it is going to take time. There has been a lot of work done since we have come to government with Dr Paul Rivalland, who is with the Western Desert Dialysis Unit, and we are looking at different ways of providing services there at the moment. One of the things - and I discussed this with the Minister for Central Australia only in the last few days - is perhaps looking at the possibility of having some kind of solar powered system for the clinic itself, so we can ensure adequate supply of power just for that clinic. We are also looking at the possibility of, perhaps, trucking in water so that we can have a good supply of water. However, these are things which will be considered over the next few months.

            It is a absolutely appalling for the member for Port Darwin to say that we do not have a commitment to renal services in the Northern Territory. The CLP had no interest whatsoever in anything to do with renal services. You only have to go back through the records to see some of the most atrocious things that the member for Drysdale has said in relation to renal patients, particularly in the Tennant Creek area. We have delivered on renal dialysis in Tennant Creek and we will continue, as the report says, to provide services closer to home. We are committed - absolutely committed - to providing much better and absolutely top notch services to people in remote areas - not the pathetic things that we, as a government, have been left to try to fix.

            The issue in relation to delaying the opening of the redevelopment of the Royal Darwin Hospital was something that was decided on, and was something which was very hard to do. It is our opinion that it is better to delay the opening of a service, rather than to close services. By doing this, we will be saving $1m for about a two-month delay in the project. It is important to point out at this time that, in fact, the CLP did not actually put any money into the opening of the redevelopment of the Royal Darwin Hospital for recurrent funding - none at all. So, here we are, once again, left with the situation of no recurrent funding for the opening of the Royal Darwin Hospital.

            The CLP has not made any comments here today which indicate any problems in relation to me as a minister. I am the one who has actually found out all these things, called the review and put the line in the sand and said that these things are changing. It is very sad the CLP is not willing to take any responsibility - none of them are willing to take any responsibility. It is a very, very sad situation.

            The review did not cost $600 000, it cost $507 000. The CLP’s Cresap review cost about $1.2m. It was never really implemented properly and that was about 10 years ago. You would have to say our review was good value for money; it has given us evidence for how to move in the future.

            I will be coming back into this House with a five year strategy for health and community services, and you can be assured that, over the next few years, there are going to be huge changes in health and community services.

            Madam Speaker, it has been such a pitiable performance by the CLP, that I move that the question be put.

            Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! In a censure debate, particularly one which invites me to comment all the way through it - invitations have been made by members of that side - it is only right that the minister should not try to hide in this manner.

            Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The question is that the motion be put.

            Mr Dunham: You gutless little toad!

            Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker!

            Madam SPEAKER: I have just put a question to the House.

            Mr STIRLING: I would ask that the member for Drysdale …

            Mr Dunham: We are in a censure motion, Syd. Worse things have been said.

            Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, withdraw that remark.

            Mr DUNHAM: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.

            Madam SPEAKER: The question is …

            Mr Elferink: Open, honest, accountable government; that is what we wanted!

            Madam SPEAKER: The question is …

            Mr Dunham: Ducking and weaving!

            Mr Elferink: Open, honest, accountable. Gag, gag …

            Madam SPEAKER: Both of you are on warning. I am speaking; do not interrupt. The question is the motion be put.

            The Assembly divided:

            Ayes 13 Noes 10

            Mrs Aagaard Mr Baldwin
            Mr Ah Kit Mr Burke
            Mr Bonson Ms Carney
            Dr Burns Ms Carter
            Mr Henderson Mr Dunham
            Mr Kiely Mr Elferink
            Ms Lawrie Dr Lim
            Mr McAdam Mr Maley
            Ms Martin Mr Mills
            Ms Scrymgour Mr Reed
            Mr Stirling
            Dr Toyne
            Mr Vatskalis

            Motion agreed to.

            Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion of censure be put.

            The Assembly divided:

            Ayes 10 Noes 13

            Mr Baldwin Mrs Aagaard
            Mr Burke Mr Ah Kit
            Ms Carney Mr Bonson
            Ms Carter Dr Burns
            Mr Dunham Mr Henderson
            Mr Elferink Mr Kiely
            Dr Lim Ms Lawrie
            Mr Maley Mr McAdam
            Mr Mills Ms Martin
            Mr Reed Ms Scrymgour
            Mr Stirling
            Dr Toyne
            Mr Vatskalis

            Motion negatived.
            MOTION
            United Nations Resolution 1441

            Continued from earlier this day.

            Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I support and commend the motion proposed by the Chief Minister today.

            I go back to some comments made by both the Leader of the Opposition and Deputy Leader of the Opposition in their contribution to debate. The member for Wanguri, my colleague the Minister for Defence Support, picked up on the patronising attitude displayed by the Leader of the Opposition. It does somewhat rankle, because his contribution shows very clearly that he, as Leader of the Opposition, and the opposition itself, have not learned anything from the result of the election in August 2001. That is very clear from what he had to say, because patronising was one of the attributes that they displayed pretty strongly as a government, and it appears that it has not gone away. The electorate will be waiting to see some form of positive change in attitude by the opposition on a whole range of matters before they would change their view of the world at a future election. It is something that the Leader of the Opposition needs to bear in mind: that patronising style of language and attitude does not go down well with people, and it certainly reinforces the view that some have that the CLP are yet to learn and move on from August 2001.

            His contribution really amounted to an attack - and much of this was in this patronising form - levelled at us on the grounds of inexperience; that we have been in government here less than two years. It is a fact of life: you get elected, you are a new government, time moves on. Okay, it is less than two years, next year it will be less than three years, then less than four years and we will have another election. Hopefully, we will win again and it will be less than five years, less than six and so on. He seemed to dwell on that as some form of fault that we had that we had to rectify. We are very happy with the way we have been going as a government, albeit for less than two years.

            A major part of his contribution dealt with a passing history of his own military experience, his trip to the United States, and an allegation that we were pushing somehow an anti-US line. That intrigued me because the question I asked myself was: why would we do that? Why would we do that? Not only did we not do it, but you have to ask yourself why we would, because the people of the Northern Territory are not anti-US. In fact, our US visitors are received as friends every time they come to the Territory and that is as it should be. We welcome them and we will continue to welcome them whenever they are here. There were no anti-US statements from either the Chief Minister, the Minister for Defence Support or myself.

            When the Leader of the Opposition went on to talk about friendship, and standing by your mates and your allies, he confuses the concept of friendship - at least in the Australian context, I would have thought - with either blind obedience on one hand or maintaining a complete sycophantic attitude on the other. That is, you can never differ with a friend. That would be a sign of a really unhealthy relationship that you have to be in blind obedience and allegiance to your friends at all times. What makes real friends are those occasions when you fall out, probably not on major differences but, rather, on questions of emphasis. That would be the main difference between the US and Australia as a people. Not the principles involved here, but a question emphasis and a question of process.

            Both the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Katherine took a little time to question the motives of why the Chief Minister and the government would bring this motion forward. Both ignored the fact that our own constituents, our own people from the Northern Territory, are going and have, in fact, already gone to the Gulf. In fact, the member for Katherine was there at RAAF Tindal, when members of 18 Squadron, with their FA-18s, held a formal farewell function. These people reside in his own electorate and he wonders why government would be bringing forward a motion. We clearly want to recognise their contribution as people from the Territory playing their part, as well as the contribution by all Australians who are going.

            The member for Katherine also took a little time to criticise paragraph (d), because this is the paragraph that they want to delete and insert with the Leader of the Opposition’s chosen words. The member for Katherine’s claims were that it criticises the US President where it calls on the Prime Minister to commit to combat as part of the UN sponsored coalition. I find that a bit bizarre, to read into that a criticism of the US President, the US government, or anyone else. It simply does nothing of the sort. Ask yourself this question: what view would the opposition have if one country, in a completely unilateral fashion, went in and took action against another country without so much as by your leave or taking it to the UN or anyone else? Would they support such a situation? Highly unlikely. What makes this situation different? I would imagine they would be rightly quite concerned. There is a process with the United Nations and, either we as a people believe in it and trust its processes, or we do not.

            The member for Katherine makes the claim: ‘Well, we cannot know all the information. It is high level, it is confidential, you cannot share this with the punters’. Well, that does not wash. Either there is specific information and evidence linking Iraq to the terrorist activity occurring throughout the world, or there is not. If there is that level of evidence proving the link between Iraq and terrorism, it is incumbent on those who hold that evidence to bring it forward. I would have thought the bringing forward of such evidentiary material would see a huge change in the Australian psyche in relation to this potential forthcoming conflict. It would certainly change the view of the 15 members of the UN Security Council. The link is hinted at. It is hinted at every time you read or see anything in the media on this. But there is no evidence - no evidence whatsoever.

            What we believe is important to realise is that there is a process to go through, and that process ought to be properly pursued through the United Nations Security Council. That is where I fully believe that the majority of Australians’ heads are at. That lack of support now would translate into ready support once it had the support of the United Nations. The Australian government and Prime Minister Howard are failing to hear that commonsense view of the Australian people overall, because they are saying: ‘We do not think this case has been made at this point’, and they are uneasy. They are uneasy in their minds because they do not have that firm and clear link between Iraq and terrorism that would justify this conflict.

            Many people, of course, also ask the question of what appears to be a headlong rush to war now, after many years. The member for Katherine or the Leader of the Opposition was saying the UN has dilly-dallied for 12 years. Well, it has been a long time in the making. We had the expulsion of the investigators quite some years ago - nothing was done about it then. We certainly had clear evidence of the use of chemical warfare against the Kurds in the north of the country quite some years ago - nothing was done about it then. Yet now, when there does not appear to be any concrete evidence to support and prove this link, suddenly it all has to happen and it has to happen in the next few weeks.

            Many Australians believe that John Howard is a particularly astute Prime Minister. I share that view, and he has proven it many times. Although I do not agree with him politically on very many important issues, you certainly have to say he has taken the support of the majority of Australians with him to date, during his leadership. However, I believe he is well out of step with current Australian thinking on this issue. At the very least, one could say with regard to the weekend that there were tens of thousands of ordinary Australians who felt strongly enough to get out of their house to join in these marches to oppose war with Iraq without the backing of the UN. It suggests to me that there is a good deal of difference between where the Australian person’s and the Prime Minister’s thinking is at this time.

            Australians understand pretty clearly the role of the UN. The Chief Minister talked about the historic links between Australia and the UN - of course, our own Dr Evatt and his involvement all those years ago. They respect it, and I do not believe they want to push the line and go beyond where the UN is, at any time. It is a system that is in place and they have a view that, when the UN says ‘yes’, that is when Australian troops would go, with all of their blessing. Now, Australian troops, if they do go into a conflict, will go with the majority of Australians’ blessing, but not with the unanimous blessing - or almost unanimous - that they would certainly have, if the UN process had been properly followed through. There is a great deal of discomfort in the Australian psyche about where we are at the moment. We are a founding member of the UN. We have always been a responsible and leading member, and Australians understand ‘no’ and respect that.

            Hussein is a tyrant - we know that - and he needs to be brought to account. There is no question of that. We know that he has shamelessly killed probably upwards of two million people - many of his own people - to serve his own ends. Certainly, the evidence was there some years ago that he used those chemical agents. However, the question has to come back down to the point of acting unilaterally. It is my view that the answer should be ‘no’ unless all other steps toward a peaceful outcome have been exhausted. The British member of parliament, Mo Mowlam said on the weekend there would be no winners from this war. She claimed it would be the best recruiting campaign for terrorists across the world that you could imagine. There is probably truth in that, but that is a future consequence. That is something that the world will have to live with into the future. War now, as any war, will cause enormous suffering, pain and hardship for innocent civilians caught up in the conflict, as well as all of those families of Defence personnel caught up in it as well.

            I did my time with Defence services – six years in the RAAF - and I clearly understand the position of the troops, and absolutely respect the men and women we have already sent, and will continue to send to the Persian Gulf, because I know that they will serve themselves, their units, brigades and squadrons and Australia absolutely proudly and do the job to the best of their ability. That ability is up there with the best in the world – there is no question of that. It is to the families of all those service men and women that we want to say, as a government: ‘We share your concerns. We share your concerns for your loved ones and hope and pray for the safe return of every single one of those individuals’. However, it is along with many other Australians that I am not convinced that we have reached the point of last resort, nor at the moment does the UN Security Council seem to be convinced that we have reached the point of last resort.

            We spend time these days teaching our children - and not always just our children - to resolve conflict through negotiation and discussion rather than through conflict and the use of force at that first outcome. You have to ask yourself: what are the children of Australia and the rest of the world going to think when the world’s leaders want to jump to promote the use of force; when they: ‘We cannot talk any more; we have to fight’? That is when we all lose - everyone loses. We know that, in the end, war can only bring with it an infinite and terrible sadness and calamity to those upon whom it is visited.

            I support the motion proposed by the Chief Minister. It is a good motion; it says what we, as a government, want it to say. It acknowledges the role that our people will be playing. In relation to the Leader of the Opposition’s difficulties with paragraph 4, I do not share their view that it is an attack on, or a criticism of, the President of the United States. It simply calls on the Prime Minister to commit Australian Defence Force personnel to combat as part of a UN-sponsored coalition. Now, that is the state of play; that is what they are trying to reach at the moment. It is not a criticism of the US, but a call on the Prime Minister to commit as part of a United Nations sponsored coalition.

            Madam Speaker, I support the motion proposed by the Chief Minister and reject the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition.

            Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, in this important debate before the House, I wish to remind members of a comment by Maya Angelou, who spoke at the inauguration of President Clinton in 1993. She said: ‘History, faced with courage, need not be lived again’.

            I have listened carefully to the comments by the Deputy Chief Minister who, in my opinion, was by far the most convincing of the three speakers so far from the other side of the House in the way that he has structured his arguments. However, there are issues that I will return to later that are worth revisiting, because I wish to pose some questions to the Deputy Chief Minister in relation to it. Nevertheless, I do want to expand a little on the comments quoted by the member for Katherine about Winston Churchill back in 1936. He referred to the earth crumbling under people’s feet and the men and women of the day standing around pontificating and making speeches. I wonder what the world would have been like if the League of Nations, in its day, had taken certain actions.

            To trace what happened to the League of Nations, it is worth going back to July 1914, which was a month before World War I broke out. In that period, because of the complex arrangements of alliances between European states -including the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Germanic groups, as well as Russia, France and England - the world was sucked into a war which could have been avoided through negotiation. It is a learning process to read the diplomatic despatches between the various states. You read them with the benefit of hindsight, of course, with agony, the fact that they had several opportunities to avoid war were it not for the belligerence of one or two of the states involved. Those alliances would not have been deeply affected. However, as it was, the world found itself in a war which consumed 10 million lives. So horrible was that war, and so dreadful, that it was called ‘the war to end all wars’.

            Born from that was the League of Nations. In the process immediately after the Armistice of 1918, a treaty was established. The ink dried on this treaty in 1920. It was called the Treaty of Versailles, and it outlined the reparations that Germany had to face. The Treaty also removed part of Germany’s industrial heartland along the Ruhr which made it very difficult for Germany to pay the reparations to the other countries. This has often been used as an excuse for what happened next. I am never entirely convinced, when I read historical accounts of this period, that that excuse was legitimate.

            Nevertheless, under the Treaty of Versailles, the policing body of that treaty was ultimately to be the League of Nations. In the 1930s, Germany chose to take back the Ruhr, in breach of the Treaty of Versailles, and the world did nothing. In the 1930s, Germany chose to ‘Anschlu mit sterreich’, which means to join up and connect with Austria. That was a breach of the Treaty of Versailles, and the world did nothing. In the 1930s, Germany chose to engage in a massive arms build up - an enormous arms build up which made it the finest war machine of the world. That was in breach of the Treaty of Versailles, and the world did nothing. In the 1930s, Germany chose to take back the Sudetenland, which was part of Czechoslovakian territory - nominally German speaking - in breach of the Treaty of Versailles, and the world did nothing. In the 1930s, Germany chose to take the whole of Czechoslovakia, and the world did nothing.

            They had a conference in Munich because a sovereign nation had been snuffed out and, out of the Munich conference, Neville Chamberlain returned to London waving a little piece of paper - the famous piece of footage of him waving the little piece of paper – and chanting ‘Peace in our time’. I wonder, if the world had, earlier in the 1930s, been prepared to take a tough decision, make a tough stand and draw a line in the sand, whether or not 55 million people would have died as a result of the World War II? It would have meant a war earlier in the 1930s, but would it have pushed the whole world into war?

            Equally so, in 1937, Japan invaded China, taking over the region called Manchuria, putting in Pu Yi, if memory serves me correctly, as a puppet emperor. The world, once again in 1937, sat back and did nothing. I wonder, as a result of that, whether my father would have been arrested for, effectively, the purpose of Nazi slave labour? Fortunately, he escaped, but that was the purpose of his arrest. I wonder if the world and the Neville Chamberlains of the world in 1934, had been prepared to stand up to the increasing belligerence of Japan, whether my mother would have spent four years in a Japanese concentration camp on the island of Sumatra? It is a question that is worth asking.

            However, the problem with a pre-emptive war of that nature is that it is like trying to prevent traffic accidents through a program. You never know how many accidents have not happened because of that program. You can guess with statistics, but you cannot say at 3.30 pm of next week we are going to stop an accident occurring on the corner of Smith and Daly Streets. The same is true here, that you cannot know by engaging in drawing a line in the sand how many lives you will ultimately save. It is an impossible question to answer. However, I can tell you with the benefit of hindsight that, if the League of Nations - this noble group which had set out to prevent another war of the calamitous scale of World War I - had been allowed to, or had taken the tough decisions of the day, the war that would have resulted would not have cost 55 million lives - fully five and a half times more lives than the war that saw its establishment.

            World War II was so violent that the League of Nations was also one of its casualties, and out of that grew the United Nations. Thinking of the world in that environment, you would then ask yourself: what is the ultimate purpose of the United Nations? Surely the purpose of the United Nations is to stop these things from happening again.

            Therefore, here in the year 2003, we see that the United Nations has been challenged. The challenge before the United Nations is that they were given a charter to protect the harmony of the planet. This charter means that they have a responsibility, as the Deputy Chief Minister said, to try and prevent these dictators we saw in Japan and Germany in 1937 and 1939, from rearing their ugly heads again.

            The Deputy Chief Minister said: ‘We have not exhausted all options yet’. Well, when do we exhaust all options? There have been 17 resolutions – as the member for Katherine said -in 12 years. When are the options exhausted? We are talking about a rogue state headed by a man who invaded, without any form of provocation, its neighbouring country Iran, starting a war that lasted six years and cost a million lives, during which the use of chemical weapons was a daily occurrence. We have a rogue nation which has turned its chemical weapons on its own people, the Kurds in the north, and has cost many Kurdish people and Iraqi nationals their lives. We have a nation that, in 1991, not only invaded the country of Kuwait, but had massed its troops to invade the sovereign country of Saudi Arabia and take the highway straight down to the Strait of Hormuz, thus securing the oil supply of a large part of the world for himself.

            This man and this country is prepared to use chemical weapons on those Shi’ite people living on the southern part of the Euphrates. This man has a complete and utter track record of death and destruction and, acknowledged by the members opposite, some two millions lives lost can be directly attributed to him.

            At what point do we draw a line in the sand and say we have to stop talking? The resolutions of this United Nations have been to disarm Iraq - to take away from Iraq its weapons of mass destruction and stop it from being dangerous to the rest of the world and the people who live in the area. Seventeen times similar resolutions have come out of the United Nations -17 times. The earth is crumbling beneath our feet and we find ourselves, nevertheless, talking in the same way as was done in 1934. I am no great champion of war, but I believe that any authority that threatens to do something and then does not, again and again, loses its credibility.

            Unlike the Deputy Chief Minister, I do not believe that the UN automatically has our trust; it must earn the trust of the people who support it. The UN is not doing enough to earn trust, and I urge the United Nations to take a position on this and make a final decision – say: ‘This is it! We have had enough of being lied to, stuffed around, used in one fashion or another, or being treated as though we are idiots’.

            Even now, whilst the Iraqis accept that they are going to have U2 flights, they are putting caveats on those. What they are saying: ‘Oh, you can have a U2 over our air space to keep an eye on us, but we want to know where you are flying. Yes, you can talk to our scientists independently, but we are going to tape record them anyhow’. These people are control freaks and what they are trying to do is avoid the demands that the United Nations have placed upon their shoulders. The demands that United Nations have placed upon their shoulders is to disarm. But do we see any suggestion of their disarming and accepting the decision of the United Nations? No, we see the misplacing of 8.5 tonnes of anthrax. We see them building a missile system which ranges beyond the limits placed by the United Nations. We see them making demands, even at this late stage. This is not the country which convinces me that it is intending to apply the rules of the United Nations.

            I, like the Deputy Chief Minister, would not support a unilateral action. The Deputy Chief Minister - and I hope I have the quote right - would not support an act unilaterally unless all other steps for a peaceful outcome have been exhausted. This is an interesting thing that the Deputy Chief Minister does: he leaves the door open in the same way that Kevin Rudd left the door open on unilateral action, or action outside of the United Nations.

            So, we have had an interesting contrast between the Chief Minister, the Leader of Government Business and the Deputy Chief Minister, whereas the Deputy Chief Minister says that we should exhaust all steps for a peaceful outcome before we allow unilateral action. However, unilateral action is not what is contemplated by anybody. Action outside of the Security Council of the United Nations regarding a resolution is contemplated, but we have yet to see any form of declaration that that is actually going to occur. Where is the United States today? They are in the United Nations trying to get resolutions through that will make a difference. Where are Australian diplomats today? Doing the same thing.

            The Security Council is made up of 15 states. There are currently three permanent members who seem to be indicating that they are prepared to use a veto. However, as is the case with Europe, there are some European states - namely Germany and France at the moment - which are saying: ‘No, no, no’. Nine other European states signed a letter and said: ‘We have to do something; we have to draw a line in the sand’. This is not unilateral; this is many, many countries having the same problem and there is nothing unilateral about it.

            The attitude of the Labor Party towards this is hardly what you would consider consistent. The offence that the Leader of the Government Business seems to have taken is curious because, in his words, you find the real attitude when he contrasts the Northern Territory government to what he considers the other side of this debate, and I quote him:
              This government is about Territory leadership and respect for our international relationships, and not
              to proceed crusading and conquering.

            It is evident already that, in the Leader of Government Business’ mind, that the other side of this debate is about crusading and conquering - hardly what you would call considered language when we are talking about an issue of such import. It is very much the same type of language that we heard from Mr Latham in the House of Representatives on 5 February 2003. It is interesting. Mr Latham is a member of the same party which forms the government of the Northern Territory, and this is what he had to say:
              Mr Howard and his government are just yes-men to the United States. They are a conga line of suckholes on
              the conservative side of Australian politics. The backbench sucks up to the Prime Minister and the Prime
              Minister sucks up to George W. That is how it works for these little Tories and they have the hide to call
              themselves Australians.

            This is the same party which is trying to bring into this debate a nobly worded resolution. We heard it from the Leader of Government Business - he is the one using terms like ‘crusading and conquest’. Here is another excellent one from the Labor Party on this issue when Mr Latham opposed the Prime Minister’s strategy:
              I oppose his toadying to the United States.

            He further says:
              He has forgotten how to be a good Australian, not some yes-man to a flaky and dangerous American
              President.

            This is the same party that comes in here and starts telling us about the nobility of the United Nations and their processes for protecting the world.

            I believe in drawing lines in the sand and sticking to them because, ultimately, your credibility as an organisation depends entirely on the ability for the leadership role to be carried out effectively. What we have by way of parallel is a headmaster, the United Nations, which, 12 years ago, told the school bully to behave himself. As a consequence of that, the head prefect has now turned around and said: ‘Well, headmaster, the school bully is not behaving himself; make him comply’. The headmaster is refusing to do anything, or seems to be able to do anything. That is the situation that is before the United Nations at the moment.

            It certainly is not helpful when the Leader of Government Business comes in here and starts using throwaway language like ‘crusading and conquering’ to contrast his position with the other side of the argument. I would urge all members on the government side who speak in relation to this to maintain a sober vocabulary when dealing with these issues.

            I do not want to see a situation where another rogue state becomes so powerful that it is going to cost 55 million lives to put that rogue state back in its place. I do not want to see another situation where the world, or even a region, is plunged into a war, because we or the United Nations have sat on our hands and have been unwilling to do something about it. I do not like war, but there comes a time when the earth is crumbling under your feet that you must accept your responsibilities as a member of the international community, and take your role seriously.

            Madam Speaker, I fully support the amendment suggested by the Leader of the Opposition and I urge all members to visit that amendment and give it the treatment it deserves.

            Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I say at the outset that I dedicate this speech to my father. If it was not for his interest in politics and social issues, I would not be here today. He passed away this morning.

            I will not vote on this motion because I do not think a vote achieves anything. I am not even sure why it is being debated in this Assembly at this time; maybe it has something to do with federal politics. I really feel it would have been better as part of an adjournment debate for those who wish to have their say away from a party vote, and allow people to have a free vote on the matter. However, as the opportunity has been given at this time, I will deal with some reflections.

            Sitting at a desk in Howard Springs seems a long way from Iraq. After all, how do I know what is really going on? I listen to the radio, watch the television, and read the papers, just like most people. I hear statements from our leaders. Some say we should go to war if America does; some say only if the United Nations gives the go ahead; others say we should not go to war at all. I hear those who say this is a war against Islam. I am not against Islam. There are those who say Iraq has a dictator as a leader and kills those who oppose him. I remember when we were friends with Iraq, when we traded with them.

            I think of the Gulf War with the pictures of the devastated Iraqi army, bodies everywhere. I think of our Defence Forces, many of them young, like the blokes I see at The Hub, driving those flash cars around Palmerston, playing cricket on Anzac Day at Strauss Airstrip, or just getting a haircut at the same hairdresser that I go to - but not for very long. Also, of course, the families they leave behind and the tears and uncertainty that the possibility of war brings with it. I then think of the Iraqi people, their soldiers and their families too, and just the ordinary folk like us - grandparents, mums and dads, students, and children, all with the threat of war hanging over their heads. And we worry about petrol prices. What is going on? Who is telling the truth? It is confusing.

            Without knowing what the answer is, I look for someone who is a supporter of peace and a lover of humanity for an answer, and I found it in this letter I came across recently in a book by Christian Feldman. The letter says:
              I come to you with tears in my eyes and God’s love in my heart to beg for the poor and for those who will be
              poor if the war that we all fear should come. I beg you with all my heart to strive for God’s peace; to work hard
              at it and to find a way to reconciliation. Both of you wish to represent your point of view and to take care of
              your people but, first, listen to the one who came into the world to teach us peace. You have the might and the
              power to destroy God’s presence and likeness, his men, his women and his children. Please obey the will of
              God. God has created us to be loved by his love, not destroyed by our hatred.

              In the short run, this war that we all fear may perhaps have winners and losers but that never can or will justify
              the loss of so many lives that your weapons will cause. I come to you in the name of God, whom we all love
              and share, to beg for the innocent and the poor in the world and for those who will be made poor by the war.
              They will suffer the most for they have no possibility of fleeing. I beg you on my knees for these people, they
              will suffer, and then we will be to blame because we have not done everything in our power to protect them
              and to love them. I implore you for the orphans and the widows who will remain behind alone because
              their parents, husbands, brothers and children have been killed. I implore you to save these people.

              I plead for those who will be disabled and mutilated, they are God’s children. I plead for those who have no
              more shelter, no food and no love. Please look upon these people as though they were your children.

              Finally, I plead to you for those who will lose the most precious thing that God has given us: life. I implore you
              to spare our brothers and sisters, yours and ours, for they have been given to us by God so that we may love
              and respect them. We have no right to destroy what God has given us. Please, please make God’s will
              and understanding your own. You have the power to bring war into the world or to make peace. Please choose
              the path of peace.

              I, my sisters and my poor, pray so much for you. The whole world is praying that you may open your hearts to
              God in love. You may win the war but what price will the people have to pay who are broken, disabled and lost.
              I appeal of you to your love - your love for God and your fellow men and women. In the name of God and in
              the name of those whom you will make poor, don’t destroy life and peace. Let love and peace triumph so that
              your name may be remembered for the good that you have done, the joy that you have brought, and the love
              that you have shared.

              Please pray for me and my sisters who are trying to love the poor and to serve them because they belong to God
              and are loved by him. And too, we pray with our poor for you. We pray that you will love and care for what
              God has lovingly entrusted to your custody. May God bless you now and forever.

            This is a letter written on 2 January 1991 by Mother Teresa to President George Bush and President Saddam Hussein. The only difference is that George Bush is George W Bush. Surely, the sentiment of this letter still holds true today.

            There is an irony about this motion today, especially after I have quoted Mother Teresa, who was awarded many medals, honours, testimonials and honorary doctorates for her work with humanity, as well as the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979. Are we not at times a little two faced? Our parliament debates war. We talk about the horrors and suffering that war brings. It will destroy many thousands of lives, including innocent children. We all argue about the importance of protecting life from violence and aggression but, in reality, are we not just a little precious? We can be seen marching down the street shouting the slogans ‘no war’, ‘make love’, ‘peace’, but is it not just a faade?

            Are we really genuine in our concerns for life when we stand in this parliament - a parliament which allows 1000 unborn children, 1000 members of humanity, 1000 little Territorians - to never be born each year? When did you see 100 000 people march down the streets supporting the unborn. Mother Teresa put it bluntly when she received her Nobel Prize for peace when she said:
              The greatest destroyer of peace in the world today is the cry of the innocent unborn child. Where a mother
              can murder a child in her own womb, what worse crime could there be except for killing one another.

              For me the countries that have legalised abortion are the poorest of all - they are afraid of the little ones;
              they fear the unborn child.
            What Mother Teresa was all about was love. There is no way that we will find permanent peace in this world if we cannot get on with one another; help one another; share with one another; love one another; and protect and support the unborn and the born. One day, I hope this parliament will give the unborn the protection that they deserve.

            In the meantime, maybe there is a little something we can do to show that we are serious about peace. Australians are generally not a very religious lot but, at special times in our lives, we do pray. Australians pray for rain when there is drought, for those who have died in major tragedies such as Gallipoli or Bali, and we will pray tomorrow at the Bombing of Darwin ceremonies. We pray when we are in life-threatening situations. We pray when we come into parliament each day - the Our Father. Perhaps while this crisis continues it may be an appropriate time to pray for peace each day and for our leaders - and why not the universal prayer of peace:
              Lord, make me a channel of your peace,
              that where there is hatred I bring love,
              that where there is wrong I may bring the spirit of forgiveness,
              that where there is discord, I may bring harmony,
              that where there is error, I may bring truth,
              that where there is despair, I may bring hope,
              that where there are shadows, I may bring light,
              that where there is sadness, I may bring joy.

            Madam Speaker, I know in the end, if all else fails, force may be the only way. However, do we not owe it to humanity to strive our utmost for peace? Surely we do not have to be in a hurry for war; could we not be in a hurry for peace? Peace must be our goal because, in the end, the greatest victory we can achieve is the saving of even one life.

            Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, this is an important motion despite some of the comments we have heard during the debate. It is a very important motion and, I would have thought from this parliament’s and the Territory’s point of view, that it was a very straightforward resolution.

            Nobody wants war, and so, to ask for a peaceful resolution as point (a) of the motion says just makes sense. The first focus of the world community should be on trying to find a peaceful resolution to what is a very difficult and dangerous situation in Iraq. Therefore, I believe that should have unequivocal support from this parliament. The second part strongly calls on Iraq to comply with UN Resolution 1441. It was mentioned often in debate here today and again, has strong support. Point (c) fully supports our troops engaged in potential combat zones in the Persian Gulf and, again, has bipartisan support. This House supports our troops and certainly recognises their courage, their willingness to serve where they are ordered to serve. Again, no question about that element of this resolution.

            There is the final point which the opposition has rejected. What I cannot understand, and what was not even argued in any logical way through the debate on this motion, is that we are calling on the Australian Prime Minister to only commit Australian troops to combat in Iraq as part of a UN-led coalition. Again, I thought that this was perfectly straightforward and was echoed in part by the contribution from the other side of the House - but not supported, which is quite extraordinary.

            We heard some elements of logic about the important role of the UN and the importance of having agreement with how we deal with Iraq. However, we then heard an illogical argument - particularly from the Leader of the Opposition - that, because the US is such a powerful force in the UN, if the US says: ‘We should be at war in Iraq’ then, because we have a strong partnership and friendship with the United States, we should be saying: ‘That is fine’. This is an illogical and spurious argument that does not fit with the purpose of this motion today. At times, it was very heartfelt coming from the Leader of the Opposition, but I had difficulty following what the logic of the argument was. We are part of a world community, part of the UN - Australia is a founding member of the UN.

            The United States is one member of the United Nations and it is important that, if we are dealing with a rogue leader - a dangerous rogue leader like Saddam Hussein - we do it under the mandate of the United Nations. What we have in here is a level of argument that this is not the right way to go. It is the right way to go. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to present an argument to say that, if we are going to have a proper friendship with the United States, then we should be following them in an unquestioning way, that is not what friendship is about. Because we have a friendship does not mean that we are following blindly and that we are anti-American; it means that we are recognising a more important structure in managing our world community, which is the United Nations. That is what this is about.

            Mr Elferink: Well then, it had better do its job.

            Ms MARTIN: The wise member for Macdonnell says: ‘It had better do its job’. I am pleased you are saying that with machismo in your voice. The United Nations will do its job if supported to do its job. That is the important thing. This is not about unilateral action; this is about United Nations leading a world membership push of the United Nations to say to Iraq: ‘Your behaviour is unacceptable. That you are not working with the weapons inspectors is unacceptable’, and to keep the pressure on. The United States, as powerful as it is, is one member of the Security Council and, if its argument is so strong, then it needs to persuade the other members of the Security Council.

            That is what this is about, and that is why this issue is an important part of our debate here in the Territory. The Opposition Leader started his contribution this morning by saying that we have raised this as a motion to try to distract from other issues of the Territory. The other issues of the Territory! I do not think there is any more significant issue for the Territory. There are other significant issues, of course, but this issue is about how we, as a world, function and how we, as Australia, are part of that. It is absolutely critical. For somebody who has served as part of UN forces, I would have thought the primacy of the UN, the achievements of the UN over the years, and the way the UN has managed difficult circumstances, would have been something you are applauding and would want to see supported. Yet, we do not see that in the support for the motion. You want to knock off the final paragraph calling on the Prime Minister to only commit Australian troops as part of the UN coalition, and have something different in there - something that does not reflect the primacy of the United Nations.

            This has been an important motion and we on this side of the House say that the four points of the motion are logical, sensible and, at their call, is where Australia is at. This has been an important debate to have today. I am disappointed with the arguments that have come from the three speakers on the opposition side that have not made sense. The illogical argument was represented by the member for Macdonnell when he was saying: ‘… and we have to say to Iraq there is a line in the sand’. Who is this ‘we’?

            This ‘we’ in the world in 2003 is the United Nations. This ‘we’ is the United Nations. If our world is going to function, it needs a body that is supported, that can manage the complex processes of world diplomacy and world management. The ‘we’ that we heard from the member for Macdonnell represents the totally illogical nature of the argument of the opposition.

            Therefore, Madam Speaker, the government does not support the amendment put by the opposition and hopes that we get full support for the original motion.

            Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

            The Assembly divided:

            Ayes 10 Noes 13

            Mr Baldwin Mrs Aagaard
            Mr Burke Mr Ah Kit
            Ms Carney Mr Bonson
            Ms Carter Dr Burns
            Mr Dunham Mr Henderson
            Mr Elferink Mr Kiely
            Dr Lim Ms Lawrie
            Mr Maley Mr McAdam
            Mr Mills Ms Martin
            Mr Reed Ms Scrymgour
            Mr Stirling
            Dr Toyne
            Mr Vatskalis

              Motion negatived.

            Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion be agreed to.

            Motion agreed to.
            SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT BILL
            (Serial 113)
            SUPERANNUATION GUARANTEE (SAFETY NET) AMENDMENT BILL
            (Serial 114)
            ADMINISTRATORS PENSIONS AMENDMENT BILL
            (Serial 117)
            SUPREME COURT (JUDGES PENSIONS) AMENDMENT BILL
            (Serial 115)
            LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY MEMBERS’ SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT BILL
            (Serial 116)

              Continued from 27 November 2002.
            Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, this legislation basically puts into place arrangements to comply with those provided by the Commonwealth. It deals principally with all of the Territory superannuation schemes as they pertain to entitlements. They, in turn, pertain to the entitlements of the person, so to speak, who is the owner of the superannuation scheme and their spouse or ex-spouse.

            In that regard, the opposition supports the legislation. It is logical and it represents the value of superannuation interests created for the ex-spouse in the event that there is a separation of the family, and that the disbursement of superannuation occurs as proposed by the Commonwealth legislation.

            Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I endorse the proposed amendments to the raft of superannuation bills.

            Superannuation, as we know, very much came to the fore in Australia in the 1980s through the national wage cases where, instead of just wage increases, superannuation packages became very much a part of the national wage case. That made a dramatic impact on the dynamics of families’ finances. In families, I use the broadest possible definition. Certainly, in situations where there are primary wage earners, often it is the case where their spouse supports their wage earning ability and rears and minds the children. In this situation, in the event of a family breakdown, it is certainly reasonable to say that it is unfair that superannuation is not seen as part of the family assets that are then put on the table to be divided equally and fairly.

            I commend the Northern Territory government and the Treasurer for introducing this raft of legislative changes to bills, which bring us, as the member for Katherine indicated, in line to comply with the Commonwealth and the changes it has made. I look forward to the day where the Territory is also considering legislation that deals with the situation of de facto and same sex families. I believe that that is where the future lies in regard to further superannuation changes, and that, just as equally, these types of families deserve the right to split the combined assets of superannuation in the event of an unfortunate breakdown in family circumstances.

            This is a reasonable, logical step; a step that is part of discussions being held around Australia, to bring us in line with the direction of the Commonwealth and other jurisdictions. Our Attorney-General has been participating in discussions at SCAG to defer legislation regarding the status of superannuation for de facto couples, following a decision made by SCAG in November last year. I can indicate here that there will be further changes to provide for the division of superannuation in the event of family breakdown, to be divvied up in decisions of the Family Law Court. I support and commend these amendments.

            Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Katherine and the opposition for their support of the bill, and also the member for Karama for her contribution. Whilst I accept her congratulations for bringing this bill forward, the fact is every state and territory is required to pass this legislation in their own jurisdiction in order to be able to comply with national legislation for the division of superannuation following a breakdown. In the event of family breakdown and divorce, superannuation becomes part of the settlement. I thank members for their contribution to debate.

            Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.

            Mr STIRLING (Treasurer)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.

            Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
            MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
            Bansemer Health Review

            Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, it is said that there are only two mistakes on the road to truth: not going all the way, and not starting at all. Last week, the government took the first step in telling the truth to the people of the Territory about the state of our health and community services. The review of health and community services is a challenging read. It tells of fine doctors, nurses and community workers burdened under a structure that does not work. It tells of a structure that burdens and frustrates those in service delivery - a huge, disproportionate, and unaffordable bureaucracy maintained at the expense of clinical services and patient care. It tells of a decade of under-funding and the failure to match scarce resources to health priorities. It highlights a decade when, despite three reviews, four ministers and a health policy advisor who became a Health minister, the truth about the state of our health system was not objectively explained to Territorians. But most of all, from almost 500 meetings and more than 100 submissions, it tells of the passion, the vision and the frustration of thousands of dedicated staff who are asking for leadership to build a quality health and community services. This government will deliver that leadership.

            The review summary: the review is a comprehensive, detailed document that was prepared over the course of six months. Its 211 pages have 193 recommendations covering almost every aspect of the administration and delivery of health and community services in the Territory - from the quality of dental care provided in our schools to the need to help those suffering from mental illnesses; from the challenge of offering state-of-the-art renal dialysis in communities where clean water cannot be found to the need to better provide foster care for children with disabilities; and for the many weaknesses in financial administration of the department to its demoralising failure to offer the best that an employer can and should.

            This review has much in it for the Assembly to consider but, reduced to the essence, these many issues are, in fact, only two: significant failures in financial administration and governance and their consequence; and the inability to match scarce resources to the emerging needs of Territorians. We should make no mistake, these failures are not mere grey details of public administration; they go to the core of government’s responsibility to provide the care that Territorians need and expect - to tell the truth and take responsibility for it, placing the needs of Territorians above the political interests of a minister or a government.

            When the previous government announced in a rush of publicity the extensions to the Royal Darwin Hospital, but failed to provide money to employ the nurses, doctors, cleaners and cooks who would run it, did they think of the patients who may be turned away until money was found? When the previous government commissioned a report into dental services and then buried it, leaving me to release it to the public, did they also think of the school children who were being cared for with equipment so old that it can no longer be repaired? When that same government described its health administration as ‘enjoying acknowledged support for the strong leadership of THS and of the very positive relationship between the minister and top management of THS’, did this strong leadership think of the consequences of the subsequent budget blow-out of $24m over the next two years? Worse still, that incredible sums of money that should have been spent on clinical services were being sucked up in the black hole of administrative costs? Sadly, they did not.

            The simple message of this review is of a decade where style triumphed over substance; where the skirmish of elections weighed heavier on ministers than the pressing health needs of Territorians, or even the failures in their own administration. The simple truth is that this review speaks of the fundamental failure of the previous government to own up to its responsibility to tell the truth. The consequences of that failure are the sorry legacy we have been left. As the Northern Territory News editorial stated on the day after the deal was released:
              Every Health minister for the past decade must bear some responsibility for this scandalous state of affairs.

            So we must. For my part, I accepted responsibility and commissioned a review which now gives us a detailed diagnosis for action. I am also accepting responsibility to implement a sustainable response to the review. The question is, when will those opposite accept the honest, simple words: their culpability for the circumstance?

            Financial management accountability in governments: failures in management and accounting controls, together with weak governments, form the first group of problems identified by the review. It focusses on the erratic swings and outlays, and the gap between outlays and estimates in recent years. However, in truth, the same pattern of large gaps between budget estimates and actual outlays goes back at least a decade, and the same flaws in controls are evident then also. Budget control and strong governance should be two foundations of sound public administration. Their absence suggests a long period of neglect of the fundamentals of government.

            The review also finds that new programs and policies were adopted by governments without a firm base in evidence, making it virtually impossible to judge whether money had been well or poorly spent. It suggests there have been serious breaches of conflicts of interest obligations, some of which may have been advised to previous ministers. These flaws were made worse by the introduction of an overblown and discarded management concept known as funder/purchaser/provider in 2000-01. A pet idea of conservative health economists in the early 1990s, the funder/purchaser/provider system was supposed to strengthen competition among providers, and so make better use of scarce health and community services dollars. If this goal had been realised, the disruption it had caused may have been worth it. Instead, in the years after it began, outlays blew out and, worse, complex structures obscured clear accountability and soaked up resources that could have supported services. Poor business planning and accounting controls, a weak evidentiary base for some programs and a market base concept that did not work: all these made managing the department’s accounts difficult and this, when the chronic underfunding over more than a decade required strong management and governance.

            The department employs one of the most skilled and the largest work force in the Territory. However, over more than a decade the need to manage people better with clear rules for judging performance and a strong program for professional development, have asked for and have failed to win the attention they deserved - even though repeated findings of many reviews urged it and staff wanted it. Our staff deserve better. The failure to invest in the excellence of our staff made excellent financial management and governance that much harder to build. The review says we should repair these weaknesses with structural, administrative and financial reform.

            Strong governance, accountability and management are the foundations of any future success and the government has moved to endorse them swiftly. They include abolition of the complex funder/purchaser/provider structure; a new simpler structure; the appointment of a Chief Financial Officer; separate appropriations for hospitals; a stronger audit committee; a strong business plan as the basis for budget management; investment in our staff through better people management; rules for judging performance; a commitment to professional development; and stronger obligations around the declaration of pecuniary interests registrar.

            Health and community service system priorities: these matters of weak management and administration are the dry details of government and public service. However, they are the proper responsibility of ministers. Neglect of the basics of good government flow directly into the neglect of health needs of Territorians. Without these basics, the government was unable to match scarce dollars to Territorians’ health and service needs. In simple words, poor management and large complex layers of administration meant Territorians suffered. As an immediate road map for repair, the review recommends both reorganisation of some parts of the health administration and new expenditure to meet pressing needs.

            Our small population and the vast distances between our towns and communities makes finding and retaining doctors, nurses and community workers a constant challenge in the Territory. Making sure we take their expertise to people living outside our major towns is a daunting task, but it is a task that this government will take and deliver for Territorians. The review solution is to join all the Territory’s hospitals into a single hospital network, with a single nursing service so that the combined resources can be directed where they are needed most, and specialist expertise can get the support it needs. A single coordinator for aeromedical retrieval will have a similar effect for this important service. Outreach services to patients in rural and remote areas should be strengthened by the development of clinical plans to help make clinical specialists more available. Together, these reforms should make it easier to get expert care where it is needed most in the Territory through better organisation. The government has accepted these recommendations and will implement them as soon as possible.

            Health and community services priorities: I turn now to the pressing needs identified in the review. In 1999, it was reported that Territorians were dying in two to three times the numbers as other Australians, from five out of six national health priorities. Many of those died from chronic disease. Over the coming decade, more and more Territorians will suffer from a chronic disease such as diabetes, cardiovascular, respiratory and renal disease. Unless the onset of disease is delayed or prevented the burden of disease will slowly grow across the population. It will, at some time in the future, swamp our hospital system when patients with advanced disease finally seek care. The review says we need to improve the management of adult chronic disease. There are more people suffering from ulcers, infection and the early death that comes from kidney disease and diabetes in this Territory than anywhere else in Australia.

            The review says that, despite improvements in renal services over the last few years, much more needs to be done now to manage and prevent it. Renal disease is rapidly becoming the single, biggest challenge and burden on the good health of Territorians. A renal services clinical stream that coordinates for the whole Territory, together with programs for prevention and for delivering dialysis in communities where possible, are recommended by the review.

            The review also says the Territory’s school dental service is very dated and in need of repair. The last government was told the same thing, but varied the review report. The task force the government appointed to consider the issues when it released the Loan Report, will report in the next couple of months.

            Every day around Australia, governments are pressed to find more money for young people suffering from schizophrenia or others affected by bipolar disorder. Many of these people are slipping through scarce helping hands as community support services and acute care struggle to match surging demand and funding that is growing too slowly. This is a national tragedy in which Territorians are also involved. The review recommends an increase in resources to catch up with other states for mental health services, and a new position of Principal Psychiatrist. Together, these three needs for better mental, dental and renal health services are the most important health priorities identified in the review.

            The review also highlights the importance of protecting children at risk, and that services for people with disabilities should be improved, including the finalising of the Commonwealth, state and territory Disability Agreement.

            How the government will respond: the Martin Labor government was elected on a platform that promised action on jobs, health, education and crime. As this Assembly well knows, the shocking state of the budget we inherited meant that this government first had to make urgent repairs to the health budget, with two increases of $34m, then a further $20m and, now, an additional $15m - a record health budget.

            In June 2002, I commissioned this review because I became more and more concerned about the health of the department itself. This government will move swiftly and decisively on these issues because, without solving them, we cannot hope to see any gains in healthier lives and better services for Territorians. This work will be guided by the values that have supported our government. Those values include social justice, a concern for the health of all Territorians, and a view that Territorians should have health and community care equal to other Australians.

            Swift and decisive, the government’s response will also be considered. This response deals with the most urgent repairs to the foundations of our health and community services, which includes measures to improve financial management, structure, accountability and governance, and to abolish the funder/purchaser/provider model.

            The department must demonstrate that it can manage within the budget the Territory provides. Some savings measures - including a delay in opening the Royal Darwin Hospital extension and restricting new recruitment - are necessary to make sure the department lives within its agreed limits. Those estimates include an increase of $15m to ensure that core services continue to be available. At the same time, the government will be moving to implement other key recommendations, including the establishment of a single hospital network and a single nursing service. A full commitment to helping our staff achieve identified goals will be made with better people management, clear rules for judging performance, and professional development.

            We have sought and gained the cooperation of the unions representing staff employed in the department including the CPSU, the LHMU, the ANF and the AMA. We have had productive discussions including matters raised by unions themselves. The LHMU has made a compelling case that better occupational health and safety practice is a high priority in our hospitals. Unions are frustrated by poor management and concerned about giving staff the tools and resources they need to do great work. They are as keen as the government to proceed with repairing the foundations of the department. We have made a commitment to unions and staff that there will be no forced redundancies or job losses. Unions will be fully involved in consultation about implementing the changes. Our belief in transparency, in the value of ideas shared from the community and from clinicians and professions, will see the establishment of advisory councils. These advisory councils and reference groups will be appointed swiftly in the next two months.

            The final response: health and community services strategy. The balance of the review’s recommendations will be considered in the overall budget context. The issues raised by the review are serious and will take some years to redress. The health system has been sick for a long time, and the government will consider the spending priorities recommended in the review alongside its other priorities in the budget cycles. Many of the initiatives will also serve other Martin government priorities for action on jobs, education and crime. For instance, family support initiatives and the health care provided close to home will help reduce crime by reducing the risks of people becoming itinerant.

            The priorities named in the review are symptoms of bigger structural challenges this Territory faces. Right around Australia, total health costs are growing at almost 7% for the decade, double the current rate of inflation. As well, in the Territory, 30% of our people are Aboriginal, a population with the worst health status of any in Australia. Seventy per cent of these people live in remote communities. The Territory itself has a smaller population spread over larger distances than any other state, and the costs of providing health and community services in the Territory are higher, simply to meet the salaries required by the expert staff we need.

            These challenges must all be faced with a tax base that is the smallest in Australia. The Territory must meet these challenges but, at the same time, live within its means. The Martin Labor government’s Health and Community Services five year strategy will lay out a plan to achieve sustainable gains. It will require a mix of solutions, some drawn from innovation and ingenuity in the Territory, while others will need to rely on partnership with the Commonwealth. Negotiations with the Commonwealth are currently active for two major sources of funding – the Australian Health Care agreements that fund hospitals and the Commonwealth, states and territories’ Disability Agreement. There are very strong grounds for pressing the Commonwealth to yield the Territory a better deal.

            For instance, at 52, the Territory has fewer GPs for every 100 000 people than every other state. The Australian average is 85. That fact, and the overall burden of ill health in our population, transfers health costs directly to the Territory’s hospitals. The Territory’s hospitals are forced to provide services that in other states are provided by GPs and funded by the Commonwealth. As the Territory has an Aboriginal population 30% of the total, with a health status that is up to five times worse than for other Australians, simple arithmetic suggests that per capita health funding for the Territory from the Commonwealth should be 220% of the average per capita for Australia.

            Other solutions can be found within the Territory simply by using our own wits. For instance, the government’s commitment to a call centre, endorsed by the review as a simple cost-effective way to overcome many of the barriers of distance, would put every Territorian in immediate touch with expert health advice and help finding the right service. These two approaches will be part of the longer term plan to put the Territory’s Health and Community Services on sustainable feet.

            The Martin Labor government’s Health and Community Services five year strategy will be based on a number of core principles. It must be directed to a small number of clear health and community service goals. These goals will be based on sound evidence. These goals must be measured in success in improving the health and wellbeing of individual Territorians. The budget itself must be sustainable, requiring a realistic amount of funds and the will to remain within these limits. These goals and the strategies that support them will express the values that underpin this government.

            I am confident that this two stage response to the review will put the Territory’s Health and Community Services on a sustainable footing and will provide the basis for evidence-based, goal-focussed business planning for the next five years.

            I have said that this government takes very seriously its obligation to face hard facts and to hold itself accountable to parliament and directly to Territorians. Strategies must be monitored and watched if progress is to be made. To this end, I give notice that I intend to report on the progress we have made in implementing the review in this place in 12 months time. I do not intend to fall into the trap of previous ministers who failed to implement their reviews. We will succeed if we stick to the core values of facing the truth frankly and taking responsibility for it, committing to sustainable budgets and financial management, transparency, sharpening our goals’ focus and measuring our success, strong accountability and good governance. I look forward to tabling the Martin Labor government’s Health and Community Services five year strategy in several months time.

            Finally, I wish to record the government’s deep appreciation for the work of the reviewers and their staff. The people of the Territory have been well served by their efforts. President Jimmy Carter said:
              The awareness that health is dependent upon habits that we control makes us the first generation in history
              that, to a large extent, determines its own destiny.

            President Carter was speaking of our personal responsibility for our own health, but he could equally have been speaking of the poor habits of the past decade in the administration of the Territory’s Health and Community Services.

            The review establishes the bad habits of previous governments and the department but, like the victim of a heart attack who has learnt the damage he does to his own health, so we will also learn from these mistakes. Our level of community health and wellbeing should be chosen consciously by governments, not imposed upon us by poor leadership and administration. I do not intend this government to waste the lesson.

            Madam Speaker, I commend the review to the Assembly and move that the Assembly take note of the statement.

            Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, this is an extraordinary statement from the minister this afternoon. It goes on about telling the truth, but this is a spin doctor at work going on and on about the past decade in the hope that if the minister says it often enough - a bit like the black hole story - people will believe it.

            This review report does not go on and on about the past decade; it is very specific and pretty detailed in its attack on the past 18 months. So keep it up, minister: spin your best. I can tell you your staff will never believe this business about the past decade. They know the place has spiralled out of control since you took over. The emperor has no new clothes; they have been stripped away. This report is about the minister, her mismanagement and the way things have spiralled out of control in the past 18 months. It makes her claim of last year, of being the best Health minister that the Territory has ever had, a total joke. Speaking of jokes, I note that the minister continues to try to worm her way out of responsibility by saying in her statement tonight that ‘This government will deliver that leadership’. Where on earth is her leadership? Oh no, this is the hands-off minister. She holds her breath and hopes for the best. Well, good luck Territorians!

            As a whole, the report of the review of the Northern Territory Department of Health and Community Services released by the Martin Labor government, does not recommend much new and innovative in service delivery, organisational structure or function. In many places, it is simply a collection of negative comments bound together for the purpose of justifying the personal preferences of the report’s sponsor and author. It is almost devoid of original alternatives and, instead, is generally - as it appears to this reader - a bound copy of personal accounts based on verbal inputs, without taking into consideration the wider aspects and complexities of the Northern Territory’s health delivery systems, their unique difficulties, health staff dedication, skill and motivation. The report, instead, has insulted all those people in the department who have ever managed a budget in the past and manage a budget today, those who have developed and managed bed management policies, and those who have managed human resources at any time.

            A comment from one manager, who has approached me since the report came out, was:
              My budget has not increased for the last 18 months, but we have had an increase of 16% in activity, and now
              I am being accused by this report, of so-called lack of transparency in report allocation and poor budget
              control. That I find offensive.

            Another comment from a clinician, in response to proposed budget savings through tight bed management in hospitals, was:
              I have worked here for a long time and there is no fat in that place.

            What he meant was Royal Darwin Hospital.
              To tighten up or alter current admission and discharge policies and to reduce the use of agency staff
              without employment of additional staff will only add to current levels of stress and a reduction in overall
              quality of patient care.

            The minister’s statement was strange in another area. The minister said today: ‘The department employs one of the most skilled work forces in the Territory’. I do not have a problem with that statement but it does not match up with the review, which is my issue. In this instance, the review actually criticises these skilled people by saying: ‘They have a lack of budgetary discipline’. I have worked in Territory Health Services over the years and I have never worked with or met someone who lacked budgetary discipline at the management level. Managers were forever going on about budgets. Another comment was: ‘… too many people doing little of relevance to the priorities and objectives of the department’. Once again, I never witnessed that, whether I was working in the hospital or health promotion.

            One of the key priorities of Territory Health Services and, I know, for the Department of Health and Community Services, is the delivery of services to Aboriginal people. That was always a key issue whether it was at Royal Darwin Hospital, in Katherine, wherever it might have been - health promotion was always a key issue. This report quite rightly picks up on the issue of Aboriginal health. I can say that my past experience has been that that department has always considered it an absolute priority.

            Another comment from the report was: ‘Everyone responsible for everything but nobody accountable for anything’. What an extraordinary statement. Is the author saying that the hospital staff, over decades, have never been responsible or accountable for anything? What about the staff working in welfare who have to deal with the issue of child welfare? Is the author saying that they have never been accountable for anything that has occurred in that area? The report has really gone over the top in some of the statements that it has made.

            The minister, in her statement this afternoon, tries rather lamely to sink the boot into the previous government. However, even the review makes positive comment on some of the many good things this department has done, for example, the chronic disease strategy, the coordinated care trials, responsible alcohol and smoking initiatives, nursing recruitment strategies, TAP - that came out under the CLP - the policy on Aboriginal employment, etcetera. That is coming from this document. Note the ‘etcetera’; it is on page 72 for those who want to have a peek. It means that there were lots of other good initiatives coming from the department’s staff many, I suspect, from the time when the CLP were in government. Strong Women, Strong Babies, Strong Culture springs to mind, and the introduction of the Aboriginal health worker career structure, breast screen and the establishment of excellent renal units at Nightcliff, Alice Springs and on the Tiwi Islands, just to mention a few. These, I suspect, came in under the term from the author of ‘etcetera’.

            Speaking of the Aboriginal health worker career structure, I note with some concern the review says that ‘… there is no career structure for them’. This statement is totally false. Aboriginal health workers do have a career structure and it is as comprehensive as the nurses career structure. I cannot imagine how the author got this point so wrong. However, to comment on the entire report in itself will take 200 pages, and I do not have that sort of time here tonight. Instead, I am just going to make a few more comments on this report.

            With regard to hospitals and the rationing of access, the consultants made negative comments about the practice of bed flexing - that is, increasing beds when demand is greater and reducing them when demand is less. Their comments on this matter fail to appreciate the difficulties and impossibilities of having inflexible bed management policies in the Northern Territory. Unlike southern states where the authors of the report come from, the Northern Territory has very little, if any, capacity to refuse the admission of people requiring acute interventions. For them to suggest you can simply turn people away as part of a bed management plan does not take into account that the Northern Territory public hospital system has only one public hospital in each major centre, thus making it impossible for clinicians to bypass a hospital or defer admission if it is clinically warranted.

            It is also of major concern that the consultants took a ruthless stance on mental health inpatient bed availability. For them to say: ‘The maximum number of beds needs to be firmly established and adhered to’ again fails to take into consideration the need to have flexibility in the system, so that people are not prematurely discharged into the community where they may or may not have adequate or appropriate family or friend support structures.

            With regard to primary health care, it is a backward step to begin to dismantle and ration community health care services. The report does not detail any positive and new approach in this area. It simply rewords current approaches and suggests the restructuring of existing departmental organisational arrangements and charts. However, it is of serious concern to see that the consultants made the suggestion that:
              Hospitals, too, will have to integrate themselves into the provision of community health.

            Such a move would be a retrograde step and fly in the face of common sense. Acute hospital operational requirements, focus and philosophies are in stark contrast to those associated with community health, more preventative, community and individual development approach. The report acknowledges that:
              Such a change will require strong leadership from the department’s CEO and from the entire senior
              management team.

            This clearly pre-empts the unpopularity of such a move, as is the case with the current move of palliative care services to the acute hospital sector amongst professional and the staff and the general public.

            I have had an anecdotal report a couple of days ago: at Royal Darwin Hospital up until recently, there have been some fliers stuck on the walls calling for people to make donations to the hospice for the purchase of things like bedside tables and televisions. I have heard that people have now started to remove those fliers with the comment along the lines of: ‘Why should we bother donating stuff to the hospice when it is just going to be part of the hospital?’. This is quite a sad situation when the hospice, under community control or shared community control, could have been an entity which would gather a great deal of community support from people keen to donate to the service there.

            Another major concern I have - and isn’t it interesting that to date the minister has made no mention of it, but yes, it can be found on page 109, the recommendation:
              There is currently no restriction on who can access community health services. If services are to meet
              continuing growth without increased funding, a clearly articulated client group should be identified
              (eg. health care card holders only).

            The minister speaks today about how well she has gained cooperation from the unions. Has she let them know that this recommendation will mean that most of their members will no longer be able to access community health care services such as antenatal care, child and maternal health care, ongoing wound management, health promotion, health education, etcetera? I feel confident that this little item has had little airing in discussions with the unions because, I believe, many union members would be appalled. Many of them are on low wages and they would be appalled to know that, because they do not have a health care card, they will not be able to access their local community health centre in the years to come.

            Another concern is non-government organisations and the worry as to which ones are to be defunded. The review stated:
              Relative need for and levels of funding provided to non-government organisations should be reviewed.

            This is a statement which clearly pre-empts that there are to be winners and losers from this review. It sets the scene for NGOs to be rationalised with peak bodies forced to amalgamate or be disbanded due to the choking off of funding. So tell us, minister, which ones are to go? Already, the Council on the Ageing has reacted to funding shortfalls by suggesting that their services to the aged will need to be rationed, and the last few days has seen an appalling response to COTA by the Martin Labor government and this minister in particular. To try to spin the story and discredit COTA by claiming they failed to submit a business plan during their funding negotiations when, in fact they did submit one weeks ago, was a pathetic attempt, minister, to dodge your responsibilities. Then for the minister to tell the media that she does not get involved with funding decisions was just weak. Surely, that is her main role.

            On to the issue of nurses. Thanks to this review, it looks like they will be employed for their physical labour and not as the professionals they are. The suggestion that nurses in the NT cannot currently transfer to other hospitals, rural and remote areas within the public sector, on request, without losing continuity of service entitlements, is laughable. These arrangements have always been there and are utilised by many nursing staff in the Northern Territory. Again, this illustrates the lack of understanding of current arrangements in the NT by the consultant who wrote this report. Observations implying the top-heaviness of nursing staff in certain NT hospitals are the views of a consultant who has little understanding of nursing services, roles, career paths and structures, the entire nursing profession, or individual nurses’ employment and professional aspirations. For it to be suggested that the current number of senior nursing promotional positions be reduced is offensive to nurses, and will not enhance recruitment or retention of individuals who work in this professional area.

            With the planned phasing out of over 150 permanent promotional positions, which is part of the newly introduced nurses career structure, further attacks on career path opportunities for nurses, as suggested in the report, is a bizarre and flawed recommendation. To suggest that nursing structures within individual work units need to be further reconfigured is an insult to those nurses who see the profession as a place for personal, professional and financial advancement. For example, the review claims that, because 15% of nurses working at the Alice Springs Hospital are at the level of clinical nursing consultants or above - and for those of you who are not familiar with the term, it is the old charge nurse position - that is far too many, and positions must be cut. These are the promotion opportunities. Cut them and I predict even more problems in retaining nurses at places like Alice Springs.

            The review specifically highlighted Alice Springs Hospital, but is this desire to cut nursing promotional positions widely held by the Martin Labor government? Will this strategy be rolled across the Northern Territory, cutting positions left, right and centre? Why are they targeting nurses’ promotional opportunities - most of whom are women - when I doubt very much that the Martin Labor government would attack the police career structure in a similar way by claiming there are too many sergeants, senior sergeants, superintendents, and commanders. Perhaps in the face of our difficulties to attract and retain nursing staff, we should be looking to increase promotional positions, not cut them. Minister, you may have given them a new career structure, but you have taken away nurses’ career path.

            Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I know you are as interested in the provision of good palliative care services as I am. Unfortunately, the review has concluded that: ‘The palliative care service should be managed within the acute care group’. With these few words, the hearts of many people passionate about the need for a community based palliative care service have been crushed. I find it difficult to see how acute hospital philosophies fit with those of quality community-based palliative care. To degrade the provision of quality palliative care by handing the operational management over to the acute sector, with all that goes with high staffing turnovers, staffing demands and budget pressures, would severely challenge those committed to quality care delivery in this area. Clearly, this area should stay in the community health sector, where the holistic care of the individual and their loved ones is the key concern - not the rapid admission, treatment and discharge of patients, which has become a key focus of today’s public hospitals.

            The minister’s statement today is a poor attempt at covering up what her review has concluded: her department lacks leadership. Its budgetary problems began 18 months ago when she walked on to the 5th floor. For her to try to blame previous ministers for her budget problems is weak. We learnt the details during a recent PAC inquiry. Mr Paul Bartholomew, her then CEO, was asked a range of questions with regard to budget, and I will quote from the PAC report on page 38:
              Dr Lim: You have been given another $34m?’

            That was in the mini-budget.

              Mr Bartholomew: Yes.

              Dr Lim: Are you certain that you can control THS expenditure for the rest of this financial year within
              those bounds?

              Mr Bartholomew: Absolutely. I think if you look at the table that I have provided on page 4, there has not
              been one instance since 1995-96 …’

            Where I gather the records ended with regard to the PAC:
              … where the department’s expenditure has exceeded its approved budget …

            Mr Dunham: Never!

            Ms CARTER: Never:
              … I think it is a matter of fundamental accountability that the department lives within its budget and we will
              do so again.

            Then we hear from Mr Kiely, the member for Sanderson, who says:
              … I think you have a very hard agency to manage and you have come in on budget time and time again,
              and I commend you, your budgetary staff and all your employees for what is a very, very difficult area of
              community service.

            In the 18 months since then, it has been blown. So, when the CLP were in, things had been under control for many years. However, this review tells us that once our current minister got in, budget control went out the window.

            Another furphy from this minister is with regard to cost cutting: ‘There will be no job losses’. ‘Oh, good’, says Mr General Public, ‘that means that services will not deteriorate’. Wrong! As I explained earlier today in the opposition’s censure motion, already the department is pulling its recruitment. As we saw earlier, in the Northern Territory News in January, there were Saturdays when we would see 14 advertisements, some days seven advertisements for the department, but over the last three weeks - zero, zero, zero advertisements.

            Then today, we have the CEO of the department, Mr Robert Griew, put out a memo to the divisional heads and senior managers with regard to the commencement of the official cost cutting measures. They are going to establish a committee to review all sorts of things, including recruitment. My caution is that I suspect this is going to increase stress significantly in many areas of the department. Positions, as we know, are not being filled, ads are not going into the paper, and now every request for a position to be filled has to go through a committee. Things, I daresay, are going to slow down dramatically. I suspect we are going to see an increase in resignations.

            In the area of nursing, this will be very difficult because, as we know, jurisdictions such as Victoria and New South Wales are now offering quite marvellous employment packages to nurses. I have to commend them. Certainly, the idea of having a fixed number of patients - a limit to the number of patients a nurse has to look after on a shift - is something I know many nurses find very attractive. This year, New South Wales has announced a quite substantial pay increase that is going to start rolling in over the next six months or so. Therefore, the Northern Territory government is going to be under increasing pressure to try to attract staff. If it happens that those staff have to turn up and work in a place where the workload is phenomenal and positions are not going be filled, it is going to cause major problems.

            The minister offers nothing new: another organisational restructure, a few claims of exciting new initiatives which we have seen before or are already utilised, and a range of cost cutting. What she fails to do is the most important thing: she fails to do the right thing and tell her Chief Minister that it is all too much, she cannot cope and would like to have a stint on the back bench. Why doesn’t the Chief Minister do the right thing by Territorians? She has, I believe, in the member for Arafura, someone who has the nous and commitment to make a really fine Health minister.

            Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, this statement from the minister is another poor attempt by the current minister to cry: ‘Not me, not me’ when, in fact we - the public, her parliamentary colleagues, most of the press and certainly the staff of the Department of Health and Community Services – know she is not up to it. The review left out one important recommendation: appoint a competent minister.

            Dr TOYNE (Central Australia): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this is a very important debate and I am very pleased to be able to make a contribution to it. I will be taking up some of the issues that particularly affect Central Australia, as part of my responsibilities as Minister for Central Australia.

            I would like to, first of all, talk about the recommendations in the review regarding the administration management structures within the reformed department. The review recommends that regional and district administration management structures be abolished. This may, at first glance, be seen as removing decision-making from the regions up to Darwin and, as Minister for Central Australia, my first instincts are always to see if this is going to increase the impact on our lives of the Berrimah Line effects. However, when you look closely at the intent and actual substance of these recommendations, we are going to end up with a modernised and much more effective structure through which to get services into Central Australia.

            The focus within the restructure is returning the emphasis within the department from internal priorities to refocussing on the delivery of better health services to Territorians. It has certainly been welcomed widely by the health professionals who work within the health and communities services agencies currently. I have certainly heard very positive things from both the remote clinics that I have been visiting in my electoral and also many of the health professionals I have met in Alice Springs. So, while the opposition might want to carp away at what they see is wrong with this review, you are pretty much in the minority in terms of the response …

            Dr Lim: Oh, they are happy with the review, are they, in Alice Springs?

            Dr TOYNE: Member for Greatorex, you will get your turn. Just sit there write on your computer and leave me alone for the moment, otherwise I might have turn my attention to you.

            The review observes, and I quite agree, that there exists widespread confusion between the concepts of decentralised structure and devolved processes. This is a key issue. The former, the devolved processes, adds layers of management and is expensive and probably unnecessary; while the latter, which is about local decisions being made locally, is the core of regional service delivery. Hence the recommendation that the regional and district administration and management structure should be abolished to take out the non-productive areas of the current bureaucratic structures. Instead, we will see devolved management processes and professional supervision and district level mechanisms which will promote communication and collaboration.

            These ideas were not invented by the consultants; they came directly from the very large numbers of departmental members who were consulted. We are hearing, again and again, that people are absolutely delighted that, for once, what they said as part of one of these exercises, has actually been listened to and responded to in the recommendations.

            For a long time, the interplay between program regional and district management has led, in many cases, to discontent, confusion, frustration and excessive resource consumption. So much so that, over such a long period of time, staff wondered whether the structural burden would be lifted. They had to wait over two reviews commissioned by the former CLP government at a total cost of $1.3m. After Planning for Growth in 1995-96, growth plummeted from 11.5% to 1.9%. After funder/purchaser - there is another nice little horse they put their money on - in 2001-02 meant to restrain growth, growth accelerated from 3.1% to 9.5%.

            In government, the opposition starved community services of funds to support budget blow-outs in hospitals. We know that, in the past, other program areas such as disability services, child protection, family and children’s services, and public health have bailed out the hospitals. When the Health minister says this is unsustainable, the whole system is behind her, because that is exactly what they have been telling the consultants.

            An enormously gratifying part of this whole review process, which included almost 500 meetings and more than 100 submissions, is when staff have gone to the review and found that they had been listened to, that these suggestions have come back, as we have seen, in black and white in the shape of the recommendations. I can say this: the more the opposition attacks these recommendations, the more you are attacking the public servants who work within the Department of Health and Community Services. They will note that, and they are certainly smart enough to keep that in mind next time they are asked who they are going to vote for. Our government thanks staff for their patience and for their contributions.

            I turn now to the specific areas of service delivery that are covered within the recommendations. Of course, the poorest health in the Northern Territory is amongst our indigenous Territorians. The review documents that situation and highlights chronic diseases in adults - kidney disease, diabetes, cardiovascular disease - as one of the most pressing issues facing our community. The review recognises that chronic disease management works well when delivered as closely to the community as possible.

            Looking at renal services, a comprehensive discussion and recommendation regarding renal disease is included in the report. Aboriginal people, comprising less than 30% of the population, suffer 72% of all end stage renal failure in the Northern Territory. The review recommends a Territory-wide service and management closer to the patient. This is strongly supported by staff, patients and communities. I would like to pay tribute to two community groups that pioneered that community-based approach to initiating this sort of care and treatment. One is the Western Desert communities which, as this House well knows, raised over $1m under their own steam to initiate some renal care programs in the Kintore area and are now actively rolling out those program arrangements. The other is the Tennant Creek group that did such an enormous amount of work in the earlier days when other outposted programs were being pioneered.

            I indicate, in passing, to the member for Macdonnell that I am aware of a letter that he has been circulating. He had better be very careful about spreading those sort of mischievous assertions. I would be more than happy to make available a complete accounting of the program expenditure to date, which is being administered from the Centre for Remote Health, not from a back shed behind a house in Kintore or something.

            In order to achieve this, there needs to be a matching of service requirements …

            Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! I ask the honourable minister to substantiate the allegation by tabling the letter, for a start. I have sent a letter to him only - without circulating it any further to any other person - asking a simple question. I would like to know exactly what the source of this allegation is.

            Ms LAWRIE: Speaking to the point order, there is no point of order.

            Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you be prepared to table that letter?

            Dr TOYNE: Sorry?

            Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry?

            Dr TOYNE: I am just asking whether there is a point of order.

            Ms LAWRIE: Speaking to the point order, there is no point of order.

            Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a point of order. Would you be prepared to table the letter you made reference to?

            Mr HENDERSON: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, if my colleague is not actually quoting from a letter and he just has those notes incorporated into a speech, he does not have to table anything. Under standing orders, the only document that this parliament can require him to table is a document or a piece of correspondence that he is reading from in this House.

            Dr LIM: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the minister, in verballing the member for Macdonnell regarding a letter that he received but he does not have in his possession, is misleading the House.

            Mr HENDERSON: Speaking to the point of order, if the member for Greatorex wants to allege that my colleague is misleading this House, he can only do so by way of substantive motion.

            Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw the point of order. However, I will point out to the minister that I have sent a single letter to him which has gone no further. I have made a couple of discreet inquiries amongst the people who organised this process, and I ask the minister to keep his slanders to himself until such time as he knows what he is talking about.

            Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: All right. Your point has been made. Minister, you may continue.

            Dr TOYNE: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. Despite the spitey attitude of the member for Macdonnell, I will give him his answer to his queries and we will clear the matter up once and for all.

            Moving along, there needs to be a capacity in the community to be able to support a complex treatment program. There needs to be a capacity in the service to be able to provide an outreach service to those in remote areas, and individual patients must have the capacity to be medically suitable for remote treatment. These issues will be considered within the context of the five year strategic plan to be developed in response to the review.

            The review recommends employment of at least one renal physician in Central Australia and greater involvement in renal services for Aboriginal health workers. It is noted that the Alice Springs Hospital is under-resourced for what needs to be done in renal services in Central Australia. These resource recommendations will be considered in the context of budget deliberations.

            Moving to the area of medical retrieval services, the review includes an assessment of, and recommendations regarding aeromedical retrieval services - a very important service for Territorians in remote areas; in fact, a matter of life and death. Recommendations establishing a single point of aeromedical service coordination are made, to manage the safe and efficient movement of patients by air. The coordinators would be responsible for determining the most appropriate transportation option and would have access to all current aeromedical resources. The coordinator would work in conjunction with the coordinator of ground ambulance services to ensure that the most efficient and effective management of assets is achieved.

            Looking at outreach services, the review recommends the development of clinical plans to increase the availability in regional centres of some specialist services. The program of outreach visits by specialists to remote and isolated communities should be reviewed with a view to increasing the frequency and destination of specialist visits, and better coordinating and integrating specialist visits with clinical responsibilities.

            Moving to telehealth. Telehealth recognises the future of health care outside the hospital system. Trials of telehealth in other jurisdictions have proved that a high standard of care can be provided by using the telephone system for monitoring, communications between patients and clinicians, using a camera to examine wounds and dressings, for example. Of course, the extensive roll-out of remote digital telecommunications infrastructure that our government is actively promoting will greatly increase the possibilities for telehealth’s telemedicine developments within our health system. The trials show that telehealth is cost efficient and can be used for a broad range of diagnostic and treatment applications, including speech pathology, telecardiology, and others. Some attempt has been made, years ago, to investigate telehealth in the NT, but nothing happened. The review recommends a business case be developed to examine the potential for telehealth in the Northern Territory.

            Looking at the Alice Springs Hospital, the review recommends a new arrangement for NT hospitals: a hospitals network. This would link the five Territory acute care hospitals and, therefore, facilitate the interchange and transfer of resources and specialist skills to meet changing demands. This is good news for Alice Springs patients. The review includes some discussion about the work force planning and bed management aspects of the Alice Springs Hospital. It recommends that the private wing not be open to the public or private patients - and I will come to that private wing proposal, and what the review has to say about it later in this contribution. The review also recommends a single management structure for operating theatres and day surgical unit. This will maximise utilisation and allocate theatre resources more equitably. The nursing structure at Alice Springs Hospital is to be reviewed to ensure the optimum direct patient care nursing capacity.

            Looking at Aboriginal health, the review recommends establishment of an office of Aboriginal health. A principal role will be to drive Aboriginal employment opportunities through the department, and to tailor department policy to meet the needs of Aboriginal people throughout the Territory.

            Dealing with the private wing of the Alice Springs Hospital - which was one of the pieces of work that the member for Greatorex left behind in his very short term in the Cabinet - the original financial modelling process for the private wing of the Alice Springs Hospital informed the Department of Health and Community Services that a 15 bed private hospital wing was financially viable but not financially attractive to a private operator. Notwithstanding this critical information, the CLP continued to proceed with the development of the private wing of the Alice Springs Hospital, always living in hope, if not in good planning and financial responsibility. The previous government had two failed attempts to attract a private operator.

            After the redevelopment was completed ahead of schedule in January 2002, Hon Jane Aagaard requested that the agency review team for the Department of Health and Community Services explore all possible options including the commissioning of an additional 15 beds. Surprise, surprise! Treasury informed my ministerial colleague that, regardless of the efforts her department may have put in to salvaging the ill-conceived plan, government would need to provide an additional funding to a minimum of $1.3m to $1.5m per annum, depending on occupancy rates. This figure does not include the cost of commissioning the area with a further one-off contribution of $100 000.

            It mystifies me why the member for Greatorex continues to try to gain political mileage from the residents of Alice Springs, when the evidence is right there from the very start that the CLP was intending to mislead the community as to the true costs of such a doomed adventure. The former CLP government was prepared to sacrifice already starved services and patient care to a government-funded private enterprise. I believe that the people of Alice Springs understand and welcome the government prioritising the provision of quality health services, and not spending public money on a commercial private hospital. It has been suggested by the review that this area be used for clinical consulting rooms and clinical offices.

            In essence, the thrust of the health review is going to be very good for Central Australia. We are going to find a more focussed, client-oriented service. We are going to see an organisational structure where health professionals, for the first time perhaps ever in the Northern Territory, feel that they can work as professionals with appropriate support for their professional work. If that alone is achieved, that will be an enormous step forward for health delivery in the Northern Territory. We have seen for too long health professionals, whether they be nurses, doctors, allied health or health workers - Aboriginal or otherwise - working in the system becoming demoralised, feeling that their work is neither acknowledged nor supported. We cannot afford that, given the critical health situations that we have in the Northern Territory.

            I believe that the re-balancing within the health budget of the demands coming from the hospital and the community health services sectors is also not only a welcome but an absolutely critical move, if we are going to make progress in the delivery of the proactive health services to try to cut off the tragic flow of chronic disease and other forms of ill health into our system.

            The reality is that, the mayhem had been created by previous administrative regimes that had created a whole culture within the Department of Health that cared little about any budget constraints and the relationship of the expenditure within areas of the Health Department to the supposed outcomes that were to be achieved in the community. If we can turn that around, we can not only strengthen but stabilise, respectively, the hospital sector and the community health services sector within the department, and we will go a long way forward. Neither of those sectors were being served by that situation. There was uncertainty and demoralisation throughout the health system. This review came just in time for the interests of the people working in our health agencies; it came just in time for their clients.

            Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this review. This review, if it is to be a blueprint for Labor for the next several years will, in fact, haunt them. Some of the words said in this debate, as hollow as they are, will also haunt the Labor Party right up to the next election. The current minister has been the minister now for 18 months and one would hope she has some notion of the things she has talked about. One would hope even that she has, in fact, read the report - though it would appear from some of the things she said that is not evident.

            However, despite her 18 months in the job, she has been the most anonymous minister we have ever seen. Her low profile, her quirky style in public, her public utterances - which, more often than not, come from a spokesman for the minister - make it very hard to read exactly the personal imprint this person has had on the department. In this House, for instance, most of her statements are a monotonous rendering of somebody else’s work and, likewise, her answers to questions and whatever. Indeed, the statement she made in relation to this report was, yet again, monotonically reading from someone else’s stuff. Sometimes, her answers to questions have been vacuous and, on occasion, diverged significantly from the facts.
              The opposition and the public did, indeed, get a rare glimpse into the modus operandi of Health minister Aagaard during the PAC hearings when it examined, ironically as it now turns out, matters relating to the finances of the Territory’s Health Department. She appeared as a witness. The transcripts of the evidence are available to students of politics and others. It is a shameful episode in the annals of this parliament and the parliamentary committees just how that minister presented herself. Indeed, we have spoken about it at other times but, on the vast majority of questions put to her, they were either answered by somebody else or answered insufficiently.

              That should have certainly sounded warning bells for the government. For the opposition and those few people who were unfortunate enough to sit through that debacle, there was a strong sense of foreboding about this person and her enormous potential for damage to the system. There is no doubt that anybody who saw that minister in the flesh answering questions in the PAC hearing, would have had a strong sense of disquiet about the future of the portfolios in her area.

              In a set of embarrassing interchanges and exchanges bordering on high farce, the minister avoided, pretty much, answering most of the questions. However, she did provide a few little hints of what was to come. For instance, we knew - and it is now probably beyond dispute for anybody who has had anything to do with this area - that the minister had absolutely no knowledge of the operational details of her portfolio - absolutely zip, no knowledge at all. She hides that incapacity by attempting to put a wise look on her face when she reads the statements that have been prepared by others. There are unkind commentators who would say that even the wise look is starting to fail and is something more akin to a bunny blinking into the spotlights as the Mack truck approaches.

              We know that, because of this incapacity to understand her operational area, she has total trust in certain advisors - absolute and total trust - so she believes absolutely and totally what certain people tell her. Notwithstanding that seemingly fatal flaw - and it would be fatal certainly for most ministers - she does possess what would appear to be a couple of life jackets. In the first place, in this stormy tempest that is the Health portfolio, she has a degree in business. She has a Batchelor of Business from the Queensland University of Technology.

              The second thing she has which might keep her afloat is that she has received $140m additional to my baseline, from when I was the minister. So, since I was the minister, she has received that plus $140m. That is quite astonishing; that is an incredible amount of money. That is probably the root of the problem because, so blaze about this injection of cash into the system was she, that she repeated solemn assurances on oath - much like her CEO did - to this House and to this House’s committees that she would have sufficient funds at her disposal. That is a damning thing: to give evidence on oath that you know to be wrong - that you know to be wrong. When that evidence was given you could not parade it as a …

              Mrs AAGAARD: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! There is absolutely no evidence of anything of the sort. I have not done anything of the sort, and I ask that the member withdraw.

              Mr DUNHAM: Okay. I will say it a different way: she has repeated things on oath that are not true.

              Mrs AAGAARD: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! This is not true.

              Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will seek guidance on this. There is no suggestion that there has been any lying at all, so I …

              Mr DUNHAM: No. What I have said is history has now revealed that some of the things said in parliament and to the Public Accounts Committee are not, in fact, correct. That is pretty interesting because the evidence to the PAC was about the funding to the health sector. So, this was no cunning trap that was laid; this was no cunning stratagem where we convinced the minister to innocently divulge issues like her end of year target, for instance. It was something that was well and truly known to us. Before commentators start running stories about how this actually goes way back to the past, I suggest they read the PAC report.

              My colleague has read out a part that is certainly worth reading back into evidence, and I shall do so right now because Paul Bartholomew - when we were discussing what the correct figure and that sort of stuff - said that he did not have a blow-out. And how did he know it was not a blow-out? My colleague, Dr Lim, said:
                Well, you’ve got an extra $30m from this mini-budget.

              Bartholomew contends:
                Our correct appropriation - it is not a blow-out.
                Dr Lim: Well, it is an increase, let’s say, on the previous budget.

                Mr Bartholomew: Yes.

                Dr Lim: You have been given another $34m?

                Mr Bartholomew: Yes.

                Dr Lim: Are you certain you can control THS expenditure for the rest of this financial year within
                those bounds?

                Mr Bartholomew: Absolutely ...

              Absolutely! Then he goes on to say, which I think is pretty important evidence, that there has not been one instance since 1995-96 where the department’s expenditure has exceeded its approved budget:

                … I think it is a matter of fundamental accountability that the department lives within its budget and we
                will do so again.

              Maybe it is the cynic in us, but we really were not convinced that that was the case and we used these quaint conventions of parliament to, in fact, ask the minister to verify those figures. We did so a couple of times. We did so, indeed, in this transcript, and I will read her answer out later. We also did so on 18 June, when we talked about whether the minister was confident she would come in on budget. Reading from the Parliamentary Record, 18 June, the minister said:
                I have been advised that the department’s budget will come in on target.

              She further goes on to say:
                I am saying to you that I have been advised that we are going to come in on budget, and that is as much
                as I would like to say at this stage.

              This is two weeks before the end of the financial year. Traditionally, close off of accounts generally occurs about a week after that. So, you would certainly have an inkling if it was millions, you would hope. If it was mere hundreds of thousands of dollars, you can understand that might be tricky.

              Later, we found it did not come in on target despite the assurances from Mr Bartholomew and the minister. In August, and I asked a question of the Minister:
                On 18 June you claimed in this House: ‘I have been advised that the department’s budget will come in on
                target’. Given that your budget in the 27 November 2001 mini-budget was $481m and, at the end of the year
                in the budget the Chief Minister tabled this morning, it is $499m - an $18m blow-out - can you inform this
                House whether your comments in June were accurate?

              The answer from the minister:
                Madam Speaker, yes, my comments in June were correct. I was advised of that, and I reported it to the House
                at that time.

              Okay, the minister has not misled the House. There is an explanation that she was advised of that. There is an explanation she believed that amount to be correct. But it does pose a couple of interesting conundrums. Conundrum No 1: how did the department get its hands on that cash? Because one would have thought they would have had to go back to the Treasury and go to Cabinet to get authority, and the route they would have taken for that approval would have been via the minister. So, it could well have been that there was an acting minister, she was away, it could have been that she could not recall. But there had to have been some very formal route for Treasury to say: ‘We have cashed you up some millions, tens of millions’. You would have thought the minister would have recalled that. So that is conundrum No 1.

              Conundrum No 2, is that, fresh in the minister’s mind was the matter of whether former Treasurer, Mr Reed, in his comment that he thought that the department of Health could come in $8m under, was called all sorts of nasty names. It was seen as the greatest travesty that ever existed in a parliamentary democracy anywhere in the world. This $8m of margin was made some months out, and here is the minister, some weeks out, not being able to tell us whether she was on target for that amount. These are matters that have to come to the PAC, because the calamity in funding at that level is evidence that there are some intrinsic problems, and they would go, I believe, to the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act. They would go, for instance, to the code of behavior that the Chief Minister talked about when she said that when you know there is an error in the budget, you must take the first opportunity to go to the parliament and tell the people why that number is different. Well, that did not happen either. I would also believe that the Financial Management Act has some difficulties, particularly when you look at the annual report.

              If you look at the annual report for the department, it has a preface in the front - and the minister is aware of this because a similar letter was read to her in the PAC hearing. However, there is an indication on the front that:
                The procedures within Territory Health Services afforded proper internal control, and a current description
                of these procedures, which were in accordance with the Financial Management Act can be found in the Accounting
                and Property Manual. No indication of fraud, malpractice, major breach of legislation, allegations, major error
                in or omission from the accounts or records existed, and that in accordance with the Financial Management Act
                internal audit capacity was adequate.
              So, there are some questions for parliament arising from this review, and they are questions that must be pursued. They must be pursued; we are talking significant amounts of money here. We have some issues to determine whether this minister misled parliament. That is probably for another day, given the abortive attempt even to debate this matter by way of censure motion today demonstrated that the government has closed ranks; it has something to hide on this. But I do know a little about this, and ministerial propriety because, on the eve I was to give evidence, the media ran a story that I was to give evidence and that, if I was found to have misled parliament, it could go to the Privileges Committee. They even talked about the Criminal Code and prison and things like that. So, we are talking serious stuff here. We are talking about stuff where there have been some things told to this parliament that are not true. That is what we are talking about. We are also talking about the remedies and the route we could take to fix that up. It is not good enough for the minister to stand up and say: ‘I have a report. Give me a couple of years, I will fix it up. It has been a problem from the past; I inherited it, and it was you guys who did all of this anyway’.

              It was not!. And to make that claim is not only defamatory of Mr Bansemer - who does not make that claim - it is defamatory of some senior public servants who still enjoy the confidence of this government, and who are impeccable in their credentials for managing money. To assume that during their period of stewardship of this department that these practices were commonplace, is almost actionable outside of this House. To be saying that this was a commonplace technique, 150 staff over, did not care about money, devoid of communication and management systems, is a very strange alibi for the minister to give because, in claiming her own innocence, she is pointing the finger of guilt at some people who would be most upset with this.

              There is a significant amount of data in this review document that I will not be able to get to tonight. We will, therefore, revisit it - and we will revisit in on many occasions. There are many things in here that have the ability to cause pain, distress, trauma and, dare I even say it, death for Territorians. If some of the fundamentals of managing health services are wrong, and they are wrong at the level of minister, it is not merely a matter of this heart clutching, hand wringing; it is a matter of taking fundamental responsibility. The finger of responsibility is pointed strongly at the minister.

              There are very few reports that would take such strength in pointing to the minister’s ultimate responsibility. One of the things I will pick up, as my colleague did, is ‘nobody accountable for anything’. On page 71, at the last dot point at 402:
                Everyone responsible for everything but nobody accountable for anything.

              That is a devastating comment to the people who carry delegations under the many statutes in this department. It is a devastating comment for people who have to go to court and parade their instruments of delegation and other things, to stand up, for instance, for the frail, elderly and the abused in our community. Anybody in the department who read that would feel that all of their effort was unwanted, they were unloved and they had been trashed in an excuse to keep a minister afloat.

              Talking now quickly to the origins of this report, it is interesting to see that there has certainly been a rewrite of some of the history. The minister announced this report back on 18 June, that fine day when she told us she was going to come in on budget. She said: ‘This will be a review that takes approximately three months’ - in June. Okay, July, August, September. So it was due in September. She went on to say that various members of her cheer squad, which included COTA at that time, were very pleased about it:
                They are very pleased that this is a short review and they are saying: ‘Please make sure that when
                the recommendations come down that you will implement them’.

              So we waited patiently for July, August and September. In October, the minister then told us that she was going to fudge it out a little. She said: ‘There are a lot of things that have come up. We are having a look; everybody is talking to us. I look forward to informing the House of the outcome of the review later in the year’. We know she got the report in November and she has chosen to make it public after some media pressure - and all credit to them - in a form which I do not think replicates that which was originally intended. Indeed, I do not think the review committee was that which was originally intended. For instance, if you have a look at the make-up of this committee, it included people well known to many of us in this House. I can read some of the names from the Parliamentary Record: Jennifer Prince, Peter Plummer, the new Commissioner for Public Employment, Mr Kirwan, Jenny Cleary, Didi Devanesen, Lesley Woolf and Bernadette Jago from her office. This report does not mention any of them. The front of this report does not talk about any of those people.

              Therefore, I wonder whether this three-month report, which was going to be fully implemented and have a driving team, has some how been hijacked on the way through. Seeing how it was reported to the minister, there is only one person that could have done it, and that is the minister. Nobody else had the potency to override this. Do not forget it was reporting on CEOs. No CEO would have had the temerity to go to the minister and say: ‘Look, I have just white-anted this thing, changed it around, put different people on it’. It had to have come from the minister - had to have come from her. Can I ask, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, if I could get an extension of my time.

              Dr LIM: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended to allow my colleague to complete his remarks.

                Motion agreed to.
              Mr DUNHAM: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. So its origins are clouded - well they certainly did not achieve what they set out to do. That is why we get a little worried when we hear: ‘We will do this in a year’; ‘We will do this in nine months’; ‘We will do this in a couple of years, give us a bit of time to get organised’. It took this minister 10 months on hitting the ground to work out which way was up. She has dropped a review which was supposed to be done in three months and it has taken closer to a year than that. We are not sure whether this is a convenient alibi wrapped up to say: ‘Look, it was really an inherited problem, nothing to do with us. I guess if you trust us we will get on with the job and here we go’. I was most perturbed to read, and this is on page 38, at point 109:

                The overall thrust of reviews of activities has been to identify what should have been done to give the
                department better and more appropriate focus and a high degree of transparency.
                I thought that was what these guys were after.
                  The aim was to create a situation where, in two years from now, the government will be able to show clearly
                  that a number of serious deficiencies within the department have been corrected.

                No way! No way! There is no way that you can take two years to tell us that you have budgetary control. That is just obscene. We need to know if you have budgetary control tonight - tonight, now, 6.30 pm. None of this ‘Two years we will get it under control’ stuff. We will be watching this. We do not agree with your time lines. We do not agree with how you have structured this thing. We certainly do not agree with your alibi of inheriting problems.

                I note on that point that this report is full of praise for various CLP initiatives, including the Menzies School of Health Research and some of the program initiatives we had. Interestingly, it talks about a thing called the Health Gains Unit and says that this should be implemented. Well, we implemented that the year before we left government. What the review finds is that it was not put in place by the incoming government. The incoming government saw the Health Gains Unit as some quirky little thing sitting in the department and, as a result of that, the very instrumentality that should have been assessing the appropriate investment in things, was nobbled. This review has said: ‘Why don’t we put one in place?’ Well, you had one before you got to government. The fact that you did not use it is your problem, your lookout and your heritage.
                  If you go to some of the matters in the censure motion, there are some very interesting things. For instance, the minister’s total inability to exercise her responsibilities as a minister in relation to the expending of Territory monies. ‘That is a long shot,’ the minister says: ‘How can you say that? I am a most responsible person. I care and the sick and downtrodden can rest easy with me sitting in the chair’. The sick and downtrodden would want to be very careful about putting confidence in such a person. I would take them, for instance, if they wanted to know just how this lady does business, to the transcripts of the Public Accounts Committee. There was a question put which I thought would have been a pretty easy one. I asked the minister: ‘Can you tell me what your budget appropriation is?’ Not bad, that is an easy question: how much money have you got this year.

                    Mrs Aagaard: Mr Chairman, are we talking about the new budget? What is it …

                    Mr Dunham: Can you tell me what your appropriation is?

                    Well, obviously everyone around the table knows …
                  This is the chairman by the way, not the minister:

                    … it is $447m plus $34m.

                    Mrs Aagaard: Is that what you are after, Mr Dunham?

                    Mr Dunham: I would like to know whether you are familiar with your figures ...

                    Mrs Aagaard: I have to say that it is …
                  In comes bovver boy No 2, Mr Kiely:

                    A point of order! You are badgering, Mr Dunham, you are badgering and that is all you are doing.
                    I don’t know what relevance it has. You are badgering - that you are right on this.

                    Mr Dunham: … I am asking the minister if she is aware of what her current budget is?
                  Then we go on to talk about when I gave evidence people said that I should know what the budget was. I was putting the question to the minister: did she know what the budget was.
                    Mrs Aagaard: Are you talking about the allocation for the year?

                    Mr Dunham: That you have available to you.

                    Mrs Aagaard: The one that is published in Book 2, on page 104 of the mini-budget?

                    Mr Dunham: Yes.

                    Mrs Aagaard: Do you have that book with you?

                    Mr Dunham: Yes, I do.

                    Mrs Aagaard: Then it is published there at the bottom of the page.
                    Mr Dunham: Okay, okay. The next question is, pro rata, do you believe you will achieve full expenditure
                    or will you come in over-running?

                  The very critical question of what we have in front of us. This is to the minister - what would be the date of that? - dated 27 March. We have not got a year into this yet. So less than a year ago, we were asking the question: ‘… pro-rata, will you come in on a budget?’. The interesting answer is:
                    We are asking departments, including my department, to come in on budget.
                  We have asked them.
                    Mr Dunham: Do you have monitoring devices available to see if that is happening?

                  Members interjecting.

                  The bovver boys come in and say: ‘How dare you ask whether she has any capacity to find out if that is the truth’. We go on, and I say:
                    Maybe. All I want to know is if you don’t want to answer the question, say you don’t want to answer the
                    question. Do you have a monitoring device to tell you that three-quarters of the way through the year,
                    you are on target or not on target?

                    Mrs Aagaard: The budgets are looked after obviously by the department which will keep me informed
                    of what is happening.

                  Hmm. So Dunham says:
                    So it will be exceptional reporting, do you expect?

                    Mrs Aagaard: I have given my answer to you, Mr Dunham. I just have to say at this point that I actually
                    think it is pretty amazing that you ask me questions like this …

                  Etcetera. So the question was …

                  Dr Burns: It was outside the terms of reference.

                  Mr DUNHAM: It might not have been in the terms of reference, but I think …

                  Dr Burns: Of course, it wasn’t!

                  Mr DUNHAM: … it is a salient point to ask a minister …

                  Dr Burns: Mischievous! Mischievous!

                  Mr DUNHAM: … if they know … ‘It is mischief’! Now there is an interjection. It is mischief to ask a minister in March if they know if they are going to come in on target! That’s mischief? Particularly when, a couple of months before, their CEO told us they would come in on target. That mischief manifests itself in the minister not coming in on target. I would have thought it was a pretty critical thing that she should have had some answer to, if you ask me.

                  Here is the minister saying: ‘I will trust my department and they will tell me’. This report says the department could not be trusted and they cannot tell you. In fact, they did not even understand accrual accounting.

                  There are some recommendations here about Mr Griew. This was another issue that the minister found offensive that we would talk about Mr Griew having some conditions in his contract about how he does business, particularly when it comes to coming in on budget, little things like that.

                  At page 71 of the report, the recommendation is:
                    The incoming CEO should be given a clear expectation of job security for the term of his/her contract …

                  His/her? I thought they knew who it was on the 27th, but anyway:
                    … of appointment and be given a clear mandate to manage the department within the framework of the
                    government’s policy and budget.

                  This is a recommendation which will be met, and the recommendation is: Mr Griew - unlike the previous people who tricked this minister into believing that she was going to come in on target and she did not - is going to have a contract that says: ‘You will come in on target’. The Commissioner for Public Employment did not know that. The bloke who draws up his contract did not actually know that recommendation was going to be in there. However, what he did say was that there is another set of contracts that runs in tandem, and that set of contracts is a performance agreement between this bloke and the Chief Minister or something.

                  So, it is not in his contract, but let us have a look at this bloke’s adherence to this particular issue. What he says in his memo to all staff of today is: ‘We are going to make sure that if you use a government phone, you pay for your private calls; no conferences or seminars’, and various penny-ante things - certainly nothing will get him to $27m. However, he finishes with something which is pretty important, and the minister should take it on hand. This is a quote from the CEO’s memorandum of 18 February 2003:
                    It is vital that we can manage the revised budget with confidence and I will be taking a close interest in this matter.

                  A close interest? A close interest? This is his job! This is his job - he has to take more than a close interest; he has to put his neck on the block. He has to say: ‘Minister, I will deliver’ and, if there are pieces of paper sent up to the minister that say: ‘I think there is the capacity for us to come in on target’, that actually has to be put in terms of his career.

                  When the Under Treasurer was asked what happens with recalcitrant CEOs, he gave a pretty good answer to us, and that is also in this fine book that was produced at much cost to the government by bringing people in. One of them we brought in was a fellow called Ken Clarke, and we asked Ken Clarke what happens with people who do not stay within their budgets. Dr Lim asked him:
                    So you would say that agencies would contain the costs? They would try and not make a concerted effort to
                    reduce their spending so that you have a surplus in your hand to divvy up to somebody else. You must try to
                    contain the costs so you don’t go past the allocation.

                    Mr CLARKE: They’ll stay within their budget …

                  Dr Burns: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the member’s time has expired.

                  Mr AH KIT: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The member’s time has expired …

                  Mr DUNHAM: I have been given an extension of time.

                  Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have a problem with this. There is no point of order …

                  Mr AH KIT: … and I move that he no longer be heard.

                  Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of …

                  Mr Dunham: Two gags in one night, Jack. You guys are sensitive about this.

                  Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order, member for Drysdale. There is no point of order. The House has agreed that so much of standing orders would be suspended to allow the member to complete his remarks. He has not yet completed his remarks. He was not given an extension of time. The motion was quite clear. So, there is no point of order.

                  Mr DUNHAM: In the interest of compromise, I will be brief.

                  Mr AH KIT: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, is there …

                  Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you dissenting from my ruling?

                  Mr AH KIT: No, I am not dissenting, I am asking you for a point of clarification.

                  Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Then take your seat or raise a point of order …

                  Mr AH KIT: I am asking you for clarification …

                  Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, you will take your seat! If you wish to raise a point of order, then stand up and say: ‘Point of order’, and I will ...

                  Mr AH KIT: I said point of order, earlier, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! And you said I had no point of order.

                  Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, I gave a ruling and the ruling was on the point of order. I have not heard you call point of order on another issue. If you wish to raise a point of order, you are welcome to do so. Until that time, the member has the floor.

                  Mr DUNHAM: In the interest of compromise, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will be brief, and I thank the parliament for the extension of time.

                  However, this is a salient point. This was a question of Mr Clarke, the former Under Treasurer. It asked what would happen if people do not stay within their budgets. Mr Clarke said:
                    They will stay within their budget. They might try and stay within their budget. They won’t go below that.

                    Dr Lim: So then it’s really up to the Treasury and Treasurer to really swing the big stick and say we have to
                    do something.

                    Mr Clarke: Well, the government of the day, it has to lower the targets, and they have to then make sure the
                    target is complied with, and they have to be prepared to shoot a couple if they don’t.

                  Now we know what happened to Mr Bartholomew. We know that he was well and truly out of sync.

                  Mrs AAGAARD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! There are certain accusations being made here by the member for Drysdale, which I would ask him to withdraw. They are completely incorrect.

                  Mr DUNHAM: Well, you will have to demonstrate that, won’t you?

                  Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, just withdraw those remarks.

                  Mr DUNHAM: I do not believe them to be erroneous, Madam Speaker. I was quoting. The minister might have a different point of view and she has the capacity to debate that, much the same as I do not agree with some of the things she says and I have the capacity.

                  Madam SPEAKER: You were quoting from what?

                  Mr DUNHAM: I am quoting from a transcript where it talks about the Under Treasurer saying …

                  Madam SPEAKER: Did you just quote and not make comment? Did you just quote, or did you make comments as well?

                  Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, I made some comments, and I stand by those comments. While they are debatable, I would suggest the minister take the opportunity to debate them.

                  Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, I would like you to withdraw those remarks just to keep this debate on an even keel.

                  Mr DUNHAM: I would gladly do it …

                  Madam SPEAKER: Just do it, please.

                  Mr DUNHAM: … if I can be given reciprocity, Madam Speaker, and that comments that are made that I believe to be untrue, I can make a point of order to have them withdrawn. That is the only concession I would like.

                  Madam SPEAKER: Each point of order is taken as it arrives. I have just ruled on this one. So, just withdraw it.

                  Mr DUNHAM: Okay. As it arises, I will be seeking that same latitude.

                  Madam SPEAKER: I ask you again.

                  Mr DUNHAM: I withdraw.

                  Madam SPEAKER: Now, I just need to have some clarification. Why is there no time going?

                  Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, if I may assist. The motion before the House was that so much of standing orders be suspended to allow the member to conclude his remarks. The members opposite have taken that as an extension of time. However, I would draw Madam Speaker’s attention to the precedent in this House when the same liberty was granted to the former member, Bob Collins, who remained on his feet for some five hours when given the same privilege.

                  Madam SPEAKER: It is convention in this House that an extension of time is 10 minutes.

                  Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!

                  Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Clerk, please set the time to allow the minister another 10 minutes. That is the convention member for Macdonnell, 10 minutes. Member for Drysdale, I am giving you your 10 minutes starting now.

                  Mr DUNHAM: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I appreciate it. It would have been much quicker had I been given the opportunity to canvass some of these things prior to the censure motion being gagged. I am very pleased that this will allow me some capacity to go through this. I am even more pleased that this House did not resort to a double gag of one member in one day, which would have been a very sad day for us.

                  If we look to the business of some of the issues the minister talked about in her censure debate, one of the things that was very interesting was this terrible heritage that she inherited. Not only do transcripts bear out that this is not the case, but also this report and the facts bear out that this is not the case.

                  We have an interesting series of issues which are paraded here as money issues, and they are issues that go entirely to the current minister. For instance, when Mr Bansemer talks about money - and he does that at some length in the Introduction - he cuts straight to the chase and talks about money. He talks about the blow-outs and, in doing so – and I will quickly scan this in the interest of time brevity - he talks about difficulty in 2001-02 which did not become apparent until 2002-03; the 2003 budget; the mini-budget 2001; 2001-02; deferred grants from 2001-02; and additional expenditure in 2001-02. He is quite specific about the heritage of this money problem. The heritage of this money problem comes down to this minister, and it is totally within the two budgets she has inherited - the mini-budget and this budget. This minister has to be pretty careful about saying Bansemer is supportive of her expansion of this little problem back into our days, because he is certainly not.

                  If you go to the underlying concepts and principles in this report on page 40, there are a number of things that could be taken as telling people how to suck eggs, or platitudes, but most of them do have a sound basis in health policy. Care closer to home is at page 122:
                    Efforts should be made to ensure that where clinically appropriate and economically viable, service is
                    provided close to people where they live.

                  I hope the minister takes that on board and reinstates the Palmerston 24-hour health precinct GP clinic, as it is entirely in accord with that recommendation.

                  ‘The avoidance of duplication’ is code for saying: ‘Duplication - hang on does that mean two hospitals, a private hospital and a public hospital? Yes, it does, therefore we are not going to have a private hospital’. That is a nonsense. It is a nonsense that the minister also has a very chequered career in following. Certainly, it was something we were keen to pursue in the Estimates Committee and, as members would be well aware, time was also brief there. However, there was a written question: ‘When do you anticipate opening the private facility at Alice Springs Hospital?’ The minister’s answer was thus:
                    My first priority for Alice Springs Hospital is to ensure that we have a hospital that is functioning properly
                    and providing quality services to the people of Alice Springs …

                  We know that was a big problem for her at the time.
                    … I believe that we have achieved that …

                  Well, we believe that she has not.
                    … The department advises me from informal feedback from the recent accreditation was very positive.
                    The matter of a private wing has been referred to the review team for consideration.

                  So the review team gets the blame for that.

                  She made various comments in the press about how difficult it would be to put a private hospital in place and how she did not believe, with her great knowledge of economics and her Bachelor of Business from the Queensland Institute of Technology, that this is not something that would be done. She gave it to a gentleman named Ron Parker. Ron was widely reported in the Centralian Advocate of about a year ago - in fact, 19 March. His quote from that is:
                    Asked about the new private hospital facility, Mr Parker said his opinion was that it would be viable with
                    the right approach and set of incentives. He predicted it could be up and running by the end of the
                    year, particularly if the hospital had accreditation. Mr Parker likened the accreditation of a four-star hotel …

                  Which goes on about the other hospital. The minister has said it was not doable and yet she received advice from a competent consultant and advisor to her, that it was.

                  We have debated in this House the benefits that come from a private hospital and, while I understand it does not fit within Labor Party dogma to talk about anything private, there is good economic sense in having a private hospital. In the first place, people are being treated by someone other than you. Now, as soon as that happens, there is alleviation of burden which means you do not have to have the same staff and resources and everything else. So that is the first one.

                  The second point is you should try to give people what it is they want, which is a rhetoric that is going right through this book here. To give people what they want, you have to ask them, you have to use some devices to find out about that. One of them is the uptake and maintenance of private health insurance. Many people in Alice Springs keep private health insurance because they want to have access to private medicine. So, it is giving the people what they want, it has a sound economic rationale and it is something that this government has abandoned because it has a philosophical disposition that is counter to anything that has ‘private’ in front of it. They have great difficulty in somebody making money out of medicine.

                  The minister went on to talk about the shift to acute health from community services. I suggest she goes to her annual report which has only just been tabled in this parliament. She might like to go to page 29 of that report which sets out DHS expenditure by activity. It talks about community services and acute health. While acute health has grown greatly under this government for reasons that I am sure would become evident if we took this to the Public Accounts Committee, it has not been evident from her assertion that that has been done at the expense of the community sector - certainly not in my time. The chart might be interesting for her because that is certainly a phenomena now.

                  The other issue raised in her censure this morning was about the continued delay in rebuilding at Royal Darwin Hospital. That is just nonsense. She is asking us to put ‘recurrent’ in, in the out years for a capital works program. If that is so offensive to her, why did the fully costed Access Economics report not put ‘recurrent’ into the various things that we know are in the report - for instance, radiation oncology? Radiation oncology, a good point - this is a political promise. This was a promise that was made to woo voters in a most deceitful and calculating way. The Labor Party went to people who are already frail, who are already often looking for anything that could advance their case, and said to them: ‘If you vote Labor you will get a radiation oncology service’. We knew it was a difficult thing to do. We knew that there were radiation oncology places around Australia that could not be run because of staffing issues. We knew that the promise of using their nurse promise was sleight of hand and bad accounting and, yet, it was very difficult to get this case up in the clamour that surrounded the announcement of such a worthy service.

                  It is disgraceful that they now choose to renege on that by virtue of a report from an anonymous, southern - sorry, he is not anonymous - commentator. You will be held to that. You will be held to the radiation oncology promise in the same way as you are going to be held to the stand-alone hospice service, the abandonment of the private wing in Alice Springs and various other commitments such as the extension of renal dialysis services to the people of Walungurru which, as we all know, is Kintore.

                  There will be many occasions to pursue this further but the government is on notice that we will be doing it. We will need plenty of time - maybe not extensions of time to this extent at any other time, but we will pursue this over the next few years. If the minister is a bit surprised that there is a variety of spokesmen on this side about matters relating to health, she better get used to it because we are all interested in this. We are all interested in pursuing the best interests for the people of the Northern Territory, and they will be best served with this minister being put to work somewhere else.

                  Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, it is hard to know where to start after that last speech. I am amazed that the member for Drysdale went anywhere near the Public Accounts Committee report, because there was a report that looked at a deception that he was a part of and a party to; that ministers in the former government stood up …

                  Dr LIM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member just raised the point that the member for Drysdale committed deception on the Territory, on Territorians. That was not a proven case and the member should withdraw.

                  Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, that was part of the findings of the Public Accounts Committee.

                  Madam SPEAKER: Yes. That is not a point of order.

                  Dr BURNS: It is amazing that the member would go there. One gets the feeling, the way that the member for Drysdale prosecutes a case, that it is a bit like fly paper. He weaves a case and takes a quote here and a quote there and builds this cocoon and, in the end, the cocoon is held up and, I suppose, a moth flies out of it. However, I am not convinced by it. I was on the Public Accounts Committee that heard that particular matter, and I know what went on.

                  I am also amazed that the opposition really pushed the point in Question Time of no blow-outs. ‘No blow-outs’, they said, ‘What proof do you have of blow-outs?’ I would like to quote from the Public Accounts Committee and the member for Drysdale’s own evidence that he gave. This is the evidence he gave on 6 December 2001, on page 56. He says:
                    So Treasury had a different focus on some of these numbers than some of the CEOs, and I believe that Treasury
                    was making it clear to Territory Health Services and others, that the baseline for 2001-02 had already
                    incorporated the additional costs. That is, that Health had blown their budget and they would have to argue
                    the $8m in the next year.
                  Here is the member for Drysdale himself saying in evidence that Health had blown their budget. Then, standing up here, a bit later on in February of this year, saying there have been no blow-outs. Of course, there are no blow-outs if you take the fact that if the appropriation of the department equals the expenditure. However, we saw very clearly in the Public Accounts Committee hearings that the modus operandi was for the departments, for the former government, to give ridiculously low allocations at the beginning of the year and then top it up as the year went through.

                  A case in point was that 2000-01 year where, basically, they were allocated $432m, and that was added to through the year. At the end, it went to somewhere like $446m or $448m. The former Treasurer, the member for Katherine, in his evidence on 11 March, talked about this very issue. He said:
                    In addition to that, there are other emerging issues …

                  This is page 9, I might add.
                    … particularly in areas such as health, where additional funding might be required throughout the course
                    of the year. I think if you are familiar with budgetting to that agency and others over the last decade or so,
                    you will see that there has been consistent increases in their budgets. Not just at budget time, but during
                    the course of the year, either to meet unforeseen, emerging circumstances or to undertake activities that
                    the government has decided to pursue that were not evident at the time the budget was put in place.

                  Basically, this business about there never having been a budget blow-out is a little obfuscation. Talking of obfuscation, one quote that I have always liked from the member for Drysdale, is when he was confronted by what Mr Bartholomew said about a proposed deception that he discussed with the member for Drysdale when he was minister for Health: I said to him:

                  So, he’s changed ‘target’ …

                  Meaning the member for Drysdale was saying it was not a deception, it was a target:

                  So he’s changed ‘target’ to ‘proposed deception’ …

                  Here are the words from the member for Drysdale:
                    These are not irreconcilable concepts, Mr Chairman ...

                  Here is someone who can have a ‘target’ the same as a ‘proposed deception’. Therefore, I put very little credence in what the member for Drysdale has to say. In fact, much of the time I just get a headache from what he has to say.

                  Also, on this issue of fiscal responsibility and discipline, on page 4, the member for Drysdale said, on 6 December:
                    Several years ago, the government and Treasury, it’s fair to say, were dissatisfied with Territory Health
                    Services’ management strategy, budget management strategy, and they looked at ways where they could
                    have more confidence in the numbers that they were being presented and more confidence in forcing the
                    community sector savings.

                  The problems that have been identified in this report - and I would also suggest in the Parker report and the Cresap review - have been ongoing problems for some time. It is ridiculous for the opposition to come in here today and argue it has just occurred in the last 18 months. It is the height of foolishness, because their own evidence undermines their case.

                  I will leave the PAC and turn to the report, because the report is worthwhile, and we have been diverted enough. I will reiterate what I said, that, in many ways, this report does repeat what the Cresap review said and also what the Parker review said. It also builds in some very important areas, particularly those areas of fiscal discipline and planning, and making those processes more transparent. I would like to move through the report and talk to it.

                  It is important that this was a very consultative review and, as others have pointed out, departmental officers have had a mighty chance to comment on this. Probably the predominance out of that 132 written submissions and discussions with 484 people who presented oral submissions, were departmental people. So, in many ways, the views that are expressed in here are the views of people in the department, warts and all, and it is a very honest thing to have happened.

                  On page 13, the report talks about inadequate management in key areas, lack of transparency in resource allocation, poor budget control, and service creep. I can remember the launches and successive launches of Strategy 21. It was hailed as the best thing since sliced bread. Implicit in Strategy 21 was this purchaser/provider model, which the Health minister has already said is very unlikely that it was ever going to work properly in the Territory, given the scale of operations here. It might work in a places like Sydney or Melbourne, or a large region in southern states, but it was never really going to work here in the Territory. My view of what happened with that particular purchaser/provider split, is that it actually put in another layer of bureaucracy and brought in people who were service providers away from their service provision points into a level of bureaucracy. The whole thing seemed to go around in circles. I know the member for Drysdale was very critical of this last dot point on page 71: ‘Everyone responsible for everything, but no one accountable for anything’.

                  On the surface of it, you can argue that it is an over-generalisation. However, I have commented in this House a number of times on my experience when I was in the non-government sector, being part of the committee to implement the Preventable Chronic Diseases Strategy. There was confusion about who we were reporting to, what was our area, what resources we had, who we were recommending to, and what would happen with our recommendations - it changed from week to week. I am not having a go at particular departmental people, but there was an element of people saying: ‘We are all responsible for it’. Then, when a particular instance would come up, no one wanted to go near it. Everyone was confused. They would say: ‘Oh, well, we are still settling our purchaser/provider model’, ‘We do not really know whether that is going to work’, and ‘We do not know who we have to ask to do that’. There was a lot of confusion over the purchaser/provider model. I am glad that this report recommends that it goes.

                  In recommendation 402, it talks about the adverse circumstances: ‘A constant succession of CEOs or acting CEOs’. I did a short calculation. Since Ray Norman to the present incumbent, there have been six CEOs and two acting CEOs. That is not a recipe for stability. I am not pointing the finger at any CEO. However, whenever you see a rapid turnover like that, the alarm bells should have been ringing. We are talking about them ringing before the last 18 months, as well.

                  Lack of budget discipline: that became very evident to me within the Public Accounts Committee. The very fact that neither the Education department nor the Health department had an internal audit in the three years prior to 2002, is very worrying. Here we have a Health department with expenditure between $450m and $500m, and an Education department with expenditure of about $350m or upwards. We are talking about nearly $1bn of expenditure that the former government would not even try to get financial responsibility in by ensuring an internal audit program was in place.

                  I am sure that we have heard the member for Drysdale mumble on about breaking laws or conventions, but I would have thought that under the Financial Management Act, it is compulsory for these organisations to have internal audits. Here is someone who is in charge of a large agency not ensuring internal audits took place. That has been one of the problems, and that is a major area of this report: having a Chief Financial Officer beefing up the audit functions within the department is crucial to reigning in expenditure and making sure that those scarce health resources, in dollars, are spent effectively and in the right area. There has to be a lot more focus in the department.

                  Organisation of silos: I have talked about that to some degree within the purchase/provider model. Poor linkages between strategic directions, purchasing plan and budgets has been alluded to by the Health minister - too few people trying to do too much with too many people doing little of relevance to the priorities and objectives of the department. I have told the story in this place about the Miwatj Aboriginal ATSIC council having a meeting - they called it their health meeting - and inviting representatives from all agencies of the Northern Territory government and the Commonwealth to come along and talk about the nuts and bolts of infrastructure that would support them to better the health of people living in the East Arnhem region. It was unfortunate that it became a bit of a by-word that every organisation, ATSIC, DEET – Commonwealth DEET I am talking about - Territory organisations like Transport and Works and Local Government, all sent their one representative, but Territory Health Services sent about four. There was a lack of coordination between what people were doing, and it was evident to those outside the Health department as well.

                  There are many important recommendations within this report. I would like to thumb through a few. There is recommendation No 26 on page 16, about having a smaller executive with clearly defined areas of responsibility and accountability. Hear, hear! A Principal Medical Advisor is a very wise move, to expand and build on the legislative functions, if you like, of the Chief Health Officer and to have a more strategic position there. Departmental committees I have just mentioned. No 46 says there should be a rigorous examination of departmental committees and working groups, and previous recommendations should be undertaken. That is a very important aspect.

                  I have mentioned previous reviews and I do not think we should throw out the Cresap review or the Parker review. They provide a very good foundation for this review. The difference about this review is that this government is absolutely committed to implementing it because we realise, as the member for Drysdale rightly pointed out, that our electoral success is contingent on it. Our fiscal plans to try and bring the Territory budget back into the black within the next couple of years is also dependant on it. We have a strong commitment within our party, on this side of government, to make this review work.

                  I notice the mild criticism and, if you like, sarcasm of the member for Drysdale towards Mr Robert Griew, the new CEO of Territory Health. I have only heard good things about Mr Griew from a whole range of people. I cannot say the same thing of the former minister. I wish Mr Griew well. He has a very difficult job in front of him and he is going to give it his best shot. Although he might seem fairly softly spoken, there is a lot of steel in him. I know there is a lot of steel in him and he is going to need that. I ask all employees of the Department of Health and Community Services to get behind their new CEO because it is the way forward.

                  People have been very dissatisfied for a long time within the Health department for a variety of reasons. It came to me when I was doorknocking, when I was in the non-government sector and had a lot to do with the Health department. There are many people in that department now who are taking heart at this review, who want the government to implement it, and are going to come right behind us to implement it. Nearly 100% of people working in the Health department - all of them I know - are very dedicated, skilled people. They are looking for that direction and inspiration that never really came before. All they got is this turgid, roundabout carping.

                  It is just evident to me from comments: ‘Well, we are all interested in this on the other side about health’, that the member for Drysdale, who was the Health minister and also the shadow minister for Health, is now he still trying to insinuate himself in the area and justify what he says. Well, it does not wash with me. I see right through it and most people in the Health department would see right through it as well.

                  It has been mentioned here about previous achievements of the Health department over the years, and I do not want to be entirely negative. I have said here before that the Centre for Disease Control is an exemplary model. They have a national and international reputation and do a fantastic job. However, it is very significant that they never became part of the purchaser/provider system, and that is why they remained functional. I congratulate the Centre for Disease Control and I am sure that they are going to get right behind what is happening. Oral health services is very important. There are many battlers out there who have trouble getting oral health services. It is an important issue for the Territory, and is something we, as a government, have to get behind.

                  I am pleased to see the joining of mental health and alcohol and drug services, because we all know that often people with mental health problems also have alcohol and drug problems. For too long, professionally, people said: ‘I am an alcohol worker’, and ‘I am a mental health worker’, and never the twain shall meet’. I believe it is very important to integrate those services, and that can be done very efficiently. I welcome that particular aspect.

                  Recommendation 105 is all about performance evaluation and audit. I referred to that before, and that is very important. Budget finance and general services, once again very important. I mentioned before the creation of a Chief Financial Officer within the department who will have the clout and the know-how to get to the bottom of these budget issues that have been so troubling over the years.

                  I have lauded the report, but I would have to say that I agree on one recommendation that the government has rejected - I know there are others that the Health minister will speak about - and that is the health professionals’ licensing authority. Recommendations 116 and 117 recommend that registration fees should be increased to bring them in line with other states and territories. I believe some of the registration fees for health professionals paid in other states and territories are exorbitant. In the Territory we want to have a registration system that is not a barrier to people coming here, so that they can come here, and pay a reasonable amount to be registered. That is something that does encourage some health professionals to come to the Territory, and we need to keep that.

                  There are other things I could speak about such as the establishment of an office of Aboriginal health and that is a very important aspect of the recommendations

                  Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I have not been able to go into the structure of the department. They are very good structures and, as I said previously, I commend this report. To some degree there are recommendations in here that have appeared in previous reports but, as I said, I believe this government has the will to implement this report. There is a CEO who can do it and there is goodwill in the department and a will to do it. It will be painful, but the benefits are there for everybody.

                  Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I am astounded at the vitriol that the member for Johnston has for the member for Drysdale. Granted he has a very biased view - a very political view - on many things. However, I see the report as a reasonably positive document, in the sense that it will now at least give this hopeless minister a chance to do something that she has not done for the last 18 months. For that, I see it as a positive thing.

                  The minister should be really ashamed that she has, in the last 18 months, not managed the department well and, through her mismanagement, this report has come out with many scathing things about the department. When the leadership is bad, so is the rest of the department. The department heads have said to me over and over again: ‘We are leaderless, we do not know what we are doing, we do not know where we are going, we are doing the best we can’. As a consequence of that loss of direction, obviously things are going to go wrong, and they have.

                  I want to concentrate most of my remarks on Central Australia, and refer, first of all, to the member for Stuart alluding to the fact that they might want to withdraw management of the Department of Health and Community Services to a central office. That rings a lot of alarm bells for me and it should also ring a lot of alarm bells for staff in the Central Australian office of the Department of Health and Community Services.

                  How many people are going to lose their jobs in Alice Springs? If they want to continue to work for the department, do they have to relocate to Darwin? The circumstances of health management in Darwin are quite different from those in Alice Springs, and you need very senior staff in Alice Springs to help make appropriate decisions about the Central Australian region. What this does is concentrate all the decision-making in Darwin and Alice Springs will be the forgotten centre. It has been forgotten already for the last 18 months. Things have not happened in Alice Springs because this government has continued to ignore Alice Springs.

                  Take, for instance, the Alice Springs private hospital facility. The minister made every excuse she possibly could in these last few hours. Remember, it was not that long ago when she had Ron Parker as the Acting Manager for the hospital in Alice Springs. Ron Parker said: ‘I will deliver a private hospital into Alice Springs, no problems at all, within the year’. The minister stood side by side with him and said the same thing: ‘Yes, we will do it’. Suddenly, it is not on.

                  This government does not really care about Alice Springs or what people think. All they have to do is just listen to the radio street interviews about whether people want to have a private hospital in Alice Springs. Read the Centralian Advocate and you will see that people say they want to have a private hospital facility. It is a very viable service in Alice Springs. If you consider the number of general practitioners in Alice Springs, the private specialists who are in practice in the town, plus all the consultants in the Alice Springs Hospital with the rights to private practice, they could easily fill a 15 bed hospital without any problems. In a system where you are already short of funds and overloaded with public patients, you would think that you would take advantage of having a private hospital to take some of the load from you and turn the costs around to the private health system, instead of trying to carry the burden yourself. But no, philosophically, this Labor Party cannot see that a private hospital system can exist.

                  Ms Lawrie: Rubbish!

                  Dr Toyne: We did the figures, unlike you.

                  Dr LIM: I tell you what: I hear all these interjections across the floor …

                  Dr Toyne: You were interjecting all through mine. You don’t like it in return, do you?

                  Dr LIM: I challenge the minister to set up a select committee in this Chamber. Set up a select committee of this parliament to look into a private hospital for Alice Springs. I volunteer to chair it for you and deliver the private hospital for you. I challenged the minister to take it up, but she would not.

                  As long as probably 10 or 15 years ago, the late Peter Sitzler and his partners were prepared to build a stand-alone private hospital in Alice Springs then. Business people in town were prepared to commit their own funds to build something. Ten, 15 years later, it would definitely be more viable, especially when the numbers of people who are privately insured in Alice Springs is reasonably high. That is the way I see the Alice Springs private hospital going. Obviously, this government is not prepared to do it and there is nothing much we can do about it while we are in opposition.

                  I now talk about renal dialysis and the Kintore example that the member for Stuart was so very proud to talk about in the last term of this parliament. I even congratulated him on helping to raise the $1m through art sales and all that. However, I wonder whether he is going back to the people in Sydney who bought that art and other artefacts to raise the money; whether he has explained to those people who gave the money what the money is being used for today. Now, if he did that, I wonder whether those people will still be happy with the contribution they made to the $1m that was collected.

                  Dr Toyne: What are you alleging?

                  Dr LIM: The member for Stuart asked the question: what am I alluding to? Maybe he needs to ask those people who gave him the money what they think of what has happened in Kintore. The minister herself said: ‘It is clinically dangerous to have a dialysis unit in Kintore’. Those were her own words. We have said all along that you cannot just simply plonk a dialysis service out in the middle of nowhere, where power and the quality of water cannot be guaranteed. There are still no guarantees even today, after 18 months under your government - and that is precisely the point. It is not as easy as going out there with a machine and expecting people to suddenly get better; it just does not work like that.

                  One of the recommendations made by this Bansemer report was the pooling of medical and nursing staff into one Territory-wide service. That, according to the report and to some of the commentators who have spoken about it over the last couple of weeks, might provide a larger pool of expertise. It might also be able to attract staff from interstate to come and work in the Territory because they have a pool that they can work from. However, imagine if you were recruited to live in Darwin with your family and have children going to school and somebody says: ‘Okay, you are needed in Tennant Creek, off you go. You are going to relocate down there for the next three months or six months’. So, what do you do? Uproot the whole family and go to live in Tennant Creek?

                  Mr McAdam: Why not?

                  Dr LIM: ‘Why not?’, says the member for Barkly.

                  Ms Lawrie: It is a good place.

                  Dr LIM: Great. That is why the member for Barkly says: ‘Why not?’. Lots of people love Tennant Creek; I enjoy Tennant Creek. However, a family that is established in another place might not find it so easy to relocate to another town in the Northern Territory. That is going to cause a lot of difficulty, so it is not going to work. It is not going to work, and it is important for the minister to understand that.

                  The way the whole Health department has been managed over the last year and a half has been abysmal. Every day I talk to the staff at the Alice Springs Hospital, to my colleagues here in the Top End, and they are saying: ‘We do not know where we are going; what has happened to us’. People in the bureaucracy in the Health and Community Services Department just shake their heads and say: ‘This has been the worst it has ever been’. It is an indictment on how this minister has managed her department - an indictment.

                  A little levity perhaps, but a letter was floated around in Alice Springs in the last couple of weeks. It was written on 2 February, by a doctor who, while working the midnight to dawn shift one night, was looking for some food and could not even find a toaster. His comment was that, while sucking on a piece of frozen bread, he wondered what was happening upstairs in administration; that somebody in administration had to go around collecting all toasters in the hospital. That is a very small petty gesture perhaps, but it is about taking away services and conveniences from hard-working staff - staff whom the minister says she values. She then turns around and does such a petty little gesture. For what? What was happening was the old manual toasters were the ones that were in the Alice Springs Hospital. They had never bothered to change those toasters. Instead, they left the toasters there, and made the staff use them. They would get busy, the toast burnt, the smoke that came from the burnt bread set off the alarm, the fire brigade turned up and it cost money for the fire brigade to attend.

                  What they did was take the toasters away. Instead of saying: ‘Hey, let us manage it properly. Let us get proper toasters and things might be all right’. It is the silly little things that this department does, and all it does is demoralise the staff who have worked their backsides off to keep the system afloat.

                  Obviously, the minister is not across that sort of thing and nor are the CEOs. What has happened is you have a top heavy department that does not know what the clinicians are doing - people who are at the coalface, working very hard to make sure that the system continues to function despite all the obstacles. The administration is so divorced from these people that they do not know what is going on down there. For the last 18 months, all that the administration and the minister has been concerned about is keeping to the bottom line - a bottom line that continues to blow out week after week.

                  What the minister should be doing instead is saying: ‘Let us look after our patients. It is more important to look after our patients. If we look after our patients, they get well, then you do not have this revolving door syndrome’. At the moment, you have the revolving door syndrome because patients are not getting well, and they are discharged way too early. The minister talked about tight bed management and making the clinicians make clinical decisions about people going into hospital beds. What does that mean - tight bed management? Does it means that patients will get out of bed long before they are well enough to be reasonably discharged - get them out early, and then delay their admission until they are so sick they cannot survive outside? They are making policy decisions that are going to impact on clinical care patients. That is this government run by a lay person telling a professional how to care for their patients. That is an absolute nonsense.

                  What they should be doing is ensuring that clinicians understand what the budget is about. They can then tie their clinical treatment of patients within what resources they have. Instead, you are saying: ‘No, you have to have very tight bed management. I do not care how you do it as long as the beds are well maintained and the patients move in and out’. The reporter who interviewed the minister said: ‘But is that not about getting people out of hospital beds earlier and, therefore, not needing as many staff?’. You have a contradiction here now. You have patients in beds, getting in and out quickly and have fewer staff.

                  The minister says: ‘No, we are not about sacking people. We are not about retrenchments, we are not about anything else’. But there is no recruitment. You heard the member for Drysdale speak about the circular that was sent out by the CEO. Recruitment has been on hold so, gradually by attrition, our staff numbers are going to decrease. It is a natural course of events within the health system that when you have less staff it means less beds can be managed. Less beds that can be managed means less per-patient services. This is how this government - the government for the people - is going to deal with the budget blow-out in the Health department: by cutting back on patient services, so Territorians will get less services, less care. When you say: ‘Let us open up a private facility so that they can at least go somewhere else’ - ‘No you cannot have that either’. So where does that leave Territorians? Absolutely nowhere to turn. They get on planes and fly south using their private insurance to pay for their access to the private system in Adelaide or elsewhere. I am sure you recall the days back in the 1970s, or even the early 1980s, when people had Dr Ansett as their back-up. They would say: ‘Let us fly down south because the facilities are not there’.

                  In the late 1980s, Alice Springs Hospital in particular, grew to be a very strong medical entity that provided services of which people were proud. People used to flock to the hospital because they knew they could get service there. That had continued, however, over the last 18 months, there has been a small litany of complaints. We have heard of people waiting in the emergency department for hours looking for treatment, and the services are not being delivered.

                  The minister was interviewed on radio several times throughout the last week or so. The media was quizzing her on how she was going to manage this budget blow-out that she has. She really did not give the reporters any answer. She has between a $20m to $30m budget blow-out. She says she is going to find $15m to fund that deficit, and demands of the hospitals a $5m cutback on services. Is that what tight bed management is about – a cutback on services? The $15m she is going to find - where is it going to come from? Are there other services in the Territory that we are not going to get because the $15m is going to be pumped into the Health department?

                  It is important for people to understand that the Alice Springs region needs the Alice Springs Hospital to be functioning at 100% capacity. It is the only hospital we have for at least 500 miles in radius. The closest hospital to us that will take any patients from Alice Springs would be either Royal Darwin or Royal Adelaide. We already assist the Tennant Creek Hospital in many ways and, for the government to now cut back on services in Alice Springs is unacceptable. People in Alice Springs need more than just a second-rate hospital. The CLP government has always maintained a great presence in the Alice Springs Hospital, and now this is just not there. I fear for Central Australia. I have lived there nearly 22 years, been a doctor there for the vast majority of those years, and I have seen good health care slowly whittle down to being just as sick as the patients that it wants to looks after.

                  This is not a good way for the minister to deal with health. The Bansemer report will give her some directions and I hope she will implement as many of them as possible. However, remember to keep Alice Springs fully staffed and independent of the Top End because it has to be. It has to have a core of people there who are able to make decisions on the spot quickly for Central Australia. You need to ensure that both the Tennant Creek Hospital and the Alice Springs Hospital are managed by a team there - in concert with Darwin obviously - able to make very significant decisions without having to refer to Darwin all the time. If the departmental office was to close and be shifted to Darwin, then things would definitely not work. It has to have a core of people in Central Australia.

                  Madam Speaker, the Bansemer report will go some way to helping the minister make some decisions. I hope she deals with it seriously and ensures she does not blow out her budget like she has done over the last 18 months.

                  Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I speak in relation to the Minister for Health and Community Services’ statement in relation to the health review. It was with a sense of something approaching wry amusement - but a sense of amusement devoid of any pleasure or satisfaction - that I read the report that has been prepared and presented by Alan Bansemer and his team.

                  If I could, for a moment, take the time to have a look at history. About five years ago, I was trying to establish the goals and purpose which was to fundamentally refocus the nature and process of health service delivery in the Katherine West region.

                  It is interesting, when the members for Drysdale and Port Darwin constantly - and I have heard the member for Greatorex as well - talk about the coordinated care trials as being an initiative of the CLP government. Each time, I have stood up and tried to make clear that it was not an initiative of the CLP government; it was actually an initiative of the federal Labor government. The Northern Territory government of the day, which was the CLP, was initially keen to embrace the notion of a coordinated care trial that seemed to guarantee an additional stream of Commonwealth funding in the form of per capita MBS/PBS cash-outs, and supplementary miscellaneous grants associated with the proposed project. However, when it became clear that the new Katherine West Health Board was going to have a life of its own, rather than just being a bank account or a financial weigh station through which existing services would be purchased with Commonwealth dollars, the board certainly started to encounter some resistance and concerns.

                  Negotiations on the terms of a three-way legal agreement between the Commonwealth, the Northern Territory and the Katherine West Health Board was tough. The position that was argued on behalf of the board was that the department - or THS as it was in those days - was involved in costs and service shifting that was a normal part of the activity of the government at that time. As a service purchaser, Katherine West Health Board felt that it should be entitled, of right, to have access to the relevant THS financial and accounting records if it was to buy those services often relating to those services to be purchased, or to have an independent audit carried out. What were we told? Our arguments were dismissed with assurances by the department that the government, at that time, would not stoop to engaging in cost shifting and that the department’s internal auditing processes were of exceptionally high quality, and guaranteed the highest level of financial efficiency and accountability.

                  It has taken some years for the truth to come out, but now it has been revealed - and people on the other side should remember this. Mr Bansemer makes it clear that a culture of cost and service shifting and financial fudging has been an ingrained feature of the Northern Territory department responsible for health for years. The previous government, presumably, turned a blind eye to this. It is virtually inconceivable to think that former CLP Health ministers were not aware of it. They all sit here on the front bench - and I pick up on what the minister was saying this morning: B1, B2 and B3. Were you blind to this, or did you simply choose to close your ears and eyes simultaneously? You accuse the current minister of not knowing what the department is doing. Is this because the three of you had no idea of what your department was doing when you lot were responsible for health? Here we have members on the other side saying that they had a glowing health system. That system only started having trouble over the past 18 months? I think not. The system has been waiting a long time to be fixed.

                  The shadow spokesperson for health was part of a government that allowed an apparent increase in resources spent on management, driven by the absurd - and I mean absurd –funder/provider/purchaser model, a strategy endorsed and supported by the CLP government. This model was implemented at the expense of service provision, and anyone who has worked at the coalface of health services in remote communities would certainly support this. It resulted in the separation of those at the coalface from health planning and processing - which is picked up in the report by Alan Bansemer. Clearly evident by the mess left by the previous CLP ministers is the amount of money that was wasted in setting it up. This money could have been expended on providing desperately needed services.

                  There are good, hard-working individuals in the health sector and in our public service. More importantly, the hard yards faced by health centre staff in our remote area clinics is all too often forgotten. The health system has never accommodated nor supported these workers. Nursing staff and Aboriginal health workers have, for too many years, struggled to address and meet the growing demands from the increasing health burdens. I applaud the minister for Health for her courage for standing up and taking on the responsibility for fixing the past wrongs that the previous regime had allowed to deteriorate to the point that it was fortunate that our government was elected when it was. So there are some good things happening in Aboriginal health in the Northern Territory at least, for the first time in decades.

                  Policy and practice for the Northern Territory is moving slowly in the right direction and the potential for real progress is there, but only if things are done properly, as outlined in the minister’s statement to the House. Raising indigenous health standards is not only the right thing for us in government to do, it is in the best interests of all Territorians. I commend the minister’s statement to the House.

                  Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, tonight I clarify a few points that were made by the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General regarding my behaviour and activity in relation to what is happening at Kintore. I have already discussed this with the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General behind the scenes so that there are no surprises in it for him. However, I wish to place on the record that I believe his comments were, at the very least, pre-emptive of anything I may do but, certainly, did not reflected any intention that I had.

                  The minister made comments about a letter I had circulated - I believe was the term he used - which is not correct. I sent the minister a single letter which has not gone to any other individual. Not a long letter; it is dated 5 February 2003 and is addressed to the Hon Peter Toyne, MLA, re Kintore dialysis trust fund.
                    Dear minister,

                    I am writing to you for clarification on a rumour that has come to my ears regarding the trust fund that
                    was established to build a renal dialysis unit in Kintore.

                    The substance of the rumour was that, firstly, the trust fund was being used to fly patients back to Alice
                    Springs for dialysis rather than on any renal treatments in Kintore and, secondly, some of those funds
                    are being used in Tennant Creek’s new facilities

                    Could you please advise as to the truth of these rumours so that I may scotch them at their source, or
                    if there has been any shift in the use of these funds in any way other than originally intended by the trust.

                    If you have any questions regarding the matter, please don’t hesitate to contact me in my office.

                  Hardly what I would consider a mischievous letter. I would say it is a letter seeking information and clarification. I draw the minister’s attention to the last paragraph: ‘If you have any questions regarding this matter, please don’t hesitate to contact me in my office’. I find it disappointing, honestly, that the minister has chosen to take the route that he did in his criticisms of my activities, when he could easily have contacted my office or me by mobile personally - and he knows my mobile phone number.

                  Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table this letter.

                  Leave granted.

                  Mr ELFERINK: The issues I have raised about this in the past were actually issues confirmed two days after I wrote this letter, by the now minister for Health. On 28 November 2000 - so we are talking a little over two years ago - I talked about this in this House, as did the now Minister for Justice and Attorney-General. One of the things I did was to congratulate the people of Kintore and I called it an excellent program to raise $1m. I then said that I had some concerns about the plans that were set aside for that $1m, regarding their ability to make $1m deliver a renal dialysis service.

                  An issue I raised on that day was that of water standards. The Health minister, on 7 February on the Stateline program, said that water standards was one of the issues that the people of Kintore faced. Physically, a renal dialysis machine needs a very pure source of water. I heard the minister - I think it was the minister - suggesting that water may even be trucked in for purposes of these renal dialysis machines. If that is the choice the minister makes, well and good.

                  I am concerned about a comment in her own review that is the subject of the ministerial statement today, about what is happening in Kintore. I draw members’ attention to paragraph 330 on page 54:
                    Despite comparatively high level of medical input, the Kintore community offers discontinuous primary
                    health care programs. Major public health concerns must be addressed in Kintore, including currently
                    high rates of scabies, diabetes and poor environmental health status. The latter may be exacerbated
                    by increased amounts of medical waste if HD and PD …

                  which, I presume, is haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis:
                    … is undertaken in the community. There are uncertainties as to the level of understanding by community
                    members of the requirements and complexities of renal dialysis.

                  I share those concerns with the reviewer. I hear that the minister is talking about introducing the standard of essential services into the community of Kintore, as well as proper power supplies. I believe she said solar cells on the roof of the new health clinic there which was built with federal funds to the tune of $1.5m. I am certainly aware - talking to people at Kintore - that a room has been set aside. I am advised by the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General and Minister for Central Australia, that a renal dialysis machine will be operating inside the clinic.

                  The original $1m that was put together can still be put to any number of programs connected with renal issues. However, I am a little concerned now that the taxpayers may be asked to foot the bill to truck all of this water in. If it is good enough for Kintore, I certainly hope it will be good enough for Docker River, Finke, Titjakala, Santa Teresa and good enough for any number of other communities in my electorate. If taxpayer funding is specifically going to the people of Kintore, then I hope that the government is casting a wider net and is taking its program of supplying water to renal dialysis machines in the bush to all other communities, and not just a particular community.

                  I am not denying, by any stretch of the imagination, that the people of Kintore should receive this sort of treatment. I am just seeking – and I am sure that the government would be sensitive to this word - some equity in the service delivery approach. At no point have I criticised or attacked the minister or anybody for trying to raise this money. What I do know is that I have spoken to one of the people who was involved in the sale of the paintings on the east coast who was concerned about some of these rumours, and it was after speaking to that person that I was inspired to write a letter to the minister.

                  If there is any malfeasance on my part out of my behaviour or activities in relation to this, I would ask the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General to make that malfeasance clear and I will gladly be held accountable for my actions. However, as far as I can see, I certainly have not engaged in any behaviour which is immoral, unethical, snide, underhanded or back door. In actual fact, I thought that by approaching the minister who was central to a large degree to the raising of this money, by corresponding directly, that I would at least be extended the courtesy of reply other than the fashion in which the reply has been forthcoming.

                  However, I ask the minister for Health to answer the issues I raise about supply of similar services to other communities in my electorate, as well as throughout the rest of the Northern Territory. I look forward to a comprehensive answer from her.

                  Mr McADAM (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I speak in support of the Minister for Health and Community Services’ statement.

                  The Bansemer report is a very timely document which addresses many issues presently confronting our health care services in the Territory. I will describe it as a gutsy report, quite confronting in parts and, contrary to the assertions of the member for Drysdale, it can and will serve as a blueprint for the future of health services in the Territory.

                  I acknowledge the Martin government and congratulate the Minister for Health and Community Services for commissioning this report. It is important to understand that it was only 10 months after we won government that the minister and the government saw fit to commission this report.

                  Mr Bansemer said in his preface that many previous reviews in the past have fallen down in the implementation stage. That is a very clear and sad indictment of the previous CLP government. There is absolutely no doubt that they failed to provide good stewardship in the provision of health care to the people of the Territory. I am not surprised because it was the same attitude in respect of the Collins report. They commissioned it; nothing happened. I suspect that is precisely why Mr Alan Bansemer referred to a lack of commitment on their part to implement previous reports. It is also important, as the member for Johnston made very clear, that there were in excess of 130-odd people who provided responses to the consultative process. I refer you to page 85 of the Bansemer report, paragraphs 501 to 504.

                  Terminology is used there such as: secretive, insular, risk adverse, not to be trusted, possessed of a bunker mentality, don’t know who to speak to. It goes on to say: ‘Agencies of government have lost faith in its capacity to perform’. Paragraph 503, last sentence: ‘… leading to criticism that it is secretive and not informed’. All of those descriptions are indicative of the position that some Territory Health personnel were placed in, because those same descriptions were used by people outside in the community during the periods of the CLP stewardship of not only the Territory, but in their responsibilities for health. For the CLP to suggest otherwise is absolutely preposterous. It is stupid to suggest that these comments can, in any way, be attributed or, indeed, reflect upon the present government. It goes on to say, in paragraph 504: ‘To change the current perception will require strong leadership’. I believe that we have made the right decision in appointing the CEO, Mr Robert Griew, whom I am certain will ensure that implementation will occur on this occasion.

                  Very clearly, the retention of the aeromedical retrieval plane in the Barkly is good news for everyone in my region, and vindicates our government’s position in supporting regional capacity building. The fact that the plane will be upgraded to provide medical retrieval services as part of a broader aerial medical retrieval service will provide an increased level of care for many people in our region. For the first time, the plane in question will also be used to transport doctors, nurses, health workers and other specialists to many of the communities and stations in the Barkly. It did not occur before, and yet, it could easily have been done. They failed to address it. This initiative alone will save many hours of travel by vehicle, quite often on substandard roads. Many a time I have observed a medical officer, nurses, health workers, other people driving at speed on substandard roads to consult at communities in my region. It always amazes me that those people were not involved in more accidents. This new initiative will also have the capacity to transfer patients to Tennant Creek for non-urgent medical treatment upon referral by the DMO whilst on location.

                  At the moment consultants are retained by the North Barkly Health Steering Committee, which is establishing the PHCAP roll-out in the northern part of the Barkly. It is also looking at options for the provision of outreach services to their members, and there may be an opportunity for the North Barkly Health Steering Committee to enter into discussions with Territory Health Services in Tennant Creek to explore options of sharing the plane. I am quite certain there could be cost savings beneficial to the respective health services.

                  Of concern also are the current arrangements for health care in the Territory, where there appears to be a focus on service provision from Alice Springs and Darwin. The Bansemer report believes that there is considerable opportunity to provide increased services in regional centres and the communities. Obviously, this would alleviate some of the social dislocation which occurs. Already in the Barkly, we have observed the establishment of a renal haemodialysis facility which has proven to be successful - contrary to the views of the member for ‘great tricks’ - and much appreciated by the patients and their families; and also, our capacity to perform cataract surgery at the hospital in Tennant Creek. This initiative now means that up to 50 to 60 patients, both indigenous and non-indigenous, do not have to travel to Alice Springs and can be treated locally. I can assure everyone in this House that it is certainly a service welcomed by the ophthalmologist.

                  The Bansemer report also calls for a review of the role and function of THS in providing services to the Barkly specifically. The report refers to whether obstetrics should be carried out at the hospital. I welcome that review, but also suggest that we have a look at what other services can be carried out locally. Mention is made in the Bansemer report that community feelings in the Barkly were exceptionally high and vociferous regarding the need for the medivac plane, and the adequacy of the outreach services being provided. I can attest to those feelings, and it is for these concerns that I would like to see the establishment of small, regional health committees consisting of experts from Territory Health, of course, Commonwealth Health, Anyinginyi Congress, the North Barkly Health Steering Committee or the board in the future, pastoralists, communities in the bush - perhaps no more than about 8 to 10 people meeting on a bimonthly basis to discuss issues of concern regarding health in our region. I put this suggestion to Territory Health during Mr Bansemer’s consultations last year, and I hope it will be taken on board. Whether we like it or not, a more effective dialogue is warranted, thus ensuring transparency and accountability at a local level and ensuring better coordination of services, less duplication, and the maximising our health dollar.

                  I ask for consideration by Territory Health Services in Katherine to form a similar type committee to liaise and consult with people who live in the Borroloola, Robinson River and Gulf region who are also establishing a PHCAP program.

                  The use of telehealth must be explored in the Territory. I understand that this was an option for Ali Curung some years ago but, as per normal, was never implemented. It is being used in other jurisdictions with success. I understand it should be cost effective, given the isolation of many of our clinics and the vast distances to the nearest doctor or hospital. The recommendation to link up with existing telehealth networks in either Queensland or Western Australia is worth having a look at. I also suggest that discussions occur with the Outback Digital Network as part of this process.

                  I previously alluded to the establishment of a regional health committee. Accordingly, I applaud the initiative by the minister for Health to establish advisory councils for health, family and children’s services and disability services. This is a critical step in the right direction.

                  In the past, the lack of consumer and stakeholder input has severely restricted community participation and has resulted in a siege mentality on the part of some people in Territory Health. I also welcome the appointment of a new Chief Finance Officer, as previously outlined by the minister for Health. Clearly, this is an important role and critical to the development and proliferation of an adherence to accounting standards for departmental accounting processes.

                  Of concern is paragraph 747 on page 142 of the Bansemer report, which expresses disquiet about the move to accrual accounting within the department. Mr Bansemer goes on to say:
                    It appears that to us there has been insufficient staff training, too little attention paid to systems and
                    processes to support the change, and incomplete communication with and education of staff about
                    implications and details of the change.

                  Mr Bansemer goes on to say:
                    This will need to change and change soon.

                  Obviously, these concerns will be of interest to the Public Accounts Committee and, I suspect, will be the subject of a report to the Public Accounts Committee in the future, as indeed will be other departments which will be required to provide progress of their transfer from cash to accrual accounting.

                  On page 144, Mr Bansemer recommends that the role of the departmental audit committee chaired by the CEO should be strengthened, and calls for an independent, external, qualified accountant with extensive audit experience and a representative from the Auditor-General’s Office on the internal audit committee - although I would perhaps prefer that the Auditor-General’s nominee have observer status only. I applaud these suggestions and, if possible, they should be implemented. I also suggest that other government departments and agencies give consideration to the appointment of independent accountants or people with appropriate skills to their respective internal audit processes.

                  Clearly, one of our biggest challenges will be how we respond to the chronic ill health of the indigenous sector. There is no need to delve into all the data information freely available. It has all been said before. I would like to commend Mr Bansemer for his frank and honest assessment regarding the present unsatisfactory status of indigenous health in our jurisdiction. The establishment of an Office of Indigenous Health in Territory Health Services is welcomed and, hopefully, will provide a real focus in addressing many of the concerns alluded to in the Bansemer report.

                  I suspect the biggest challenge will be to identify and maximise opportunities for intersectional team work in the delivery of health and community services to indigenous people in communities throughout the Territory. This is particularly so in relation to the PHCAP initiatives presently being rolled out in Barkly, and it may also apply to PHCAP in other regions. I am of the view that there are some real difficulties and, perhaps a degree of confusion, in respect to the goals of PHCAP and the potential benefits that may well be derived.

                  I cannot stress enough the importance of the need for a very clear and transparent joint strategic planning process, incorporating all stakeholders, including non-indigenous stakeholders, local government bodies, pastoralists and, where possible, other non-indigenous representation on the proposed health boards.

                  Equally, we must reinstate the proper and legitimate role of indigenous health workers as integral and legitimate members providing a range of health care services across programs, at both a community-based level and within Territory Health. This will be no easy task and, I suspect in some instances, THS and the community-based health organisations will have to seriously consider a wholesale culture change to facilitate indigenous health workers. Also of importance is for indigenous health workers themselves to bite the bullet and to be honest in how they see themselves delivering programs at all levels. The health worker forums provide a real opportunity for health workers’ views to be known. I encourage the proposed head of the new Office of Indigenous Health to address this issue as a matter of priority.

                  Finally, in respect to indigenous health workers, I fully support an increased focus on men’s health issues, and that it be linked to alcohol programs. I also support the implementation of a pilot project with Tangentyere Council and the Central Australian Aboriginal Medical Congress in Alice Springs. It is important that we do not, and should not, underestimate the importance of men’s health programs in the Northern Territory. I do not believe that they have been sufficiently addressed in the past, and I trust that there will be a real focus in this area.

                  Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I commend the Bansemer report to the Assembly and the minister for Health. I wish the minister well in implementing the major recommendations as, indeed, I do in respect of all the hard-working and dedicated personnel within the department.

                  Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I want to comment on a couple of issues that I have a particular interest in that have been raised in the review.

                  As members well know, I do not have a background in health, but I do have extensive experience in working with children in the Family Matters Court who have been declared in need of care. I note, in passing, that the minister announced recently that the act will be abolished. I look forward to participating in any efforts that she makes to improve that act. It is certainly the case that the act does need to be reviewed. It was a good act in many respects, but it came in around 1983, and it is probably time for a review. I would encourage the minister to obtain the detailed recommendations and answers to various problems that I raised in relation to the act, which I provided to the Department of Justice and the minister’s office following my maiden speech.
                    My concerns arise from comments in the review document contained at page 92 in relation to foster carers. Not to put too fine a point on it, I am appalled by some of the comments made and take this opportunity to outline why that is. My concern relates to the role that the author of the report apparently sees for foster parents in the context of children declared in need of care. With respect to the author, my view is that his comments are quite absurd. The author properly states at paragraph 545 that foster care is the principal way in which care is provided to children who cannot live with their families. He goes on to say:
                      Most foster care is of short duration.

                    A paragraph later, at paragraph 546, the author states:
                      As part of the partnership between the department and foster carers, foster carers should always participate
                      in case planning conferences and receive copies of documented case plans and updates as they occur.

                    That is a nonsense and clearly shows that the author spoke to a selected few. In my experience, I know of the occasional frustrations encountered by foster carers who can feel removed from the decision-making process when it comes to planning for a child they are looking after. However, to suggest that foster carers should participate in case planning is quite absurd and, I believe, represents an entirely new way of looking at their roles and, I suspect, is a position that would be unprecedented in any other jurisdiction in Australia. It demonstrates no understanding at all of the existing Community Welfare Act or its purpose or, indeed, child welfare legislation. The reasons why these comments cause me alarm are as follows.

                    Firstly, it suggests that foster carers should receive copies of documentation that is highly confidential. These may include psychiatric reports and other medical reports. It might also include detailed backgrounds and family history of a particular child, and those matters do not, and ought not, fall within the domain of foster carers. It is information that qualified people - namely social workers with delegations from the minister, lawyers acting for the parties, and the courts - should only have. They should not fall within the province of any other person. Apart from anything else, this is about the rights of the child. Children certainly deserve protection, but they also deserve privacy and they need to be assured of confidentiality at a time of trauma when they are taken into care. Therefore, the comments made by the author demonstrate, or tend to suggest - and based on this fear is why I am raising them, very sincerely now - that those very important issues of privacy and confidentiality are secondary concerns. My view is that they should not be, and I do not think that any right thinking person would have any contrary view.

                    The second reason why the author’s comments at the paragraphs I mentioned should cause alarm, is that they seem to support the proposition that foster carers should actively participate in the long-term planning for children who are in care. Foster carers are not experts. The relevant decisions are made by experts: social workers experienced in child protection with ministerial delegation, medical experts, lawyers and the courts. This is not an area where foster parents should become actively involved, important though their role is. Foster carers perform an invaluable function and ought to be supported by governments and the department in particular ways. However, my experience is that foster carers are invariably kept appraised of relevant developments, and often their views are sought where appropriate. They do have a critical role to perform but their expertise does not lie in the planning decisions of the children who are in need of care or their families.

                    Thirdly, and somewhat ironically, foster carers are often involved for short periods, a fact acknowledged by the author of the report. Therefore, for him to suggest only a paragraph or two later that foster carers should be involved in the long-term planning decisions shows, without doubt, that he has simply does not know what he is talking about.

                    Fourthly, it can be the case - and I have seen a few cases of this - where the interests of the foster carers can be in conflict with the interests of the child declared in need of care and/or that child’s family. I have known of cases where, for instance, foster carers want to adopt the children for whom they care. I know of other cases where foster carers have views that are entirely different from the department, the experts involved, and the court that ends up making the relevant decision. So, at times the interest and the views are in conflict with the principles that underlie the act and the role that they, as foster carers, need to perform.

                    Finally, and importantly, foster carers are not party to the legal proceedings that bring about a declaration that a child is in need of care and, in my view, nowhere else in this country are foster carers parties to any such legal proceedings. It is relevant for us to consider why it is that foster carers should not be parties to the proceedings. The proceeding is all about whether or not a child should be declared in need of care. Certain evidence needs to be brought before the court and, accordingly, the court makes a decision. While those proceedings are on foot, and in the event that a decision is made declaring the child to be in need of care, the child is placed with foster carers whose role is to ensure the safety of that child for the period for which the child is with them. The department properly works towards a re-unification of the child with the parents, so the foster parents need to be considered in isolation and they should not, under any circumstances, be brought into the legal proceedings or play any active role in a long-term planning for these children. It is chalk and cheese; you just cannot mix them together.

                    I hope that I have been able to articulate why I am concerned about an area that is of particular interest to me. It does appear to me that the author has listened, possibly, to one or two aggrieved people, maybe more. They would be foster parents who would be disgruntled with the department. I know of these people, but that is not a reason to completely overhaul the system or turn it upside down to get foster parents actively involved in the long-term planning for these children.

                    I should say, on a more positive note, that I welcome any efforts made to assist foster carers regarding training opportunities. I trust that, having been positive and constructive in that sense, that the minister, in a spirit of goodwill, will take on the concerns I have raised about foster carers.

                    Briefly, there was another area that concerned me, and that was in relation to comments the author made about children with disabilities. The author asserts, at paragraphs 459 and 450 at page 93 that:
                      Some children in foster care also have a disability.

                    Also that:
                      Many of these children should not be in the care of the minister as the process results in the parents
                      losing responsibility for their children and often all contact with their children. Rather, whenever
                      possible, families should retain responsibility for their children with relevant assistance being provided
                      to the family by Disability Services and/or Family and Children’s Services.

                    He goes on:
                      The department should re-examine the whole question of foster care for children with disabilities.

                    Again, with respect to the author, that is arrant nonsense. The fact is that child protection legislation exists to protect children - any kind of children - who are at risk of harm. These are all thoroughly outlined in the act. That is the purpose of the act. Orders by the courts are only made when the court is satisfied that the children will be at risk if an order is not made. To follow through the author’s logic, if the government and department, and a child’s family, cannot look after children with disabilities, then who will?

                    The state has an obligation to ensure safety and protection of these children - of all children. There are no separate categories, although I would have thought that children with disabilities, in particular, run a grave risk of being put on the bottom of the pile and therefore, I would have thought, are likely to be at greater risk for all sorts of reasons than children who do not have disabilities. Government has responsibility to care for children who are at risk, and the author seems not to have demonstrated, in my view, any understanding of the principles that underlie child protection legislation in the Territory or, indeed, anywhere else in this country.

                    In those two areas, it is probably not surprising that I am naturally suspicious about the rest of the contents of the report. To me, it undermines the credibility of the author. Certainly, I suggest that the comments he has made in relation to child protection or children in care might cause alarm for others. However, I hope and pray, very sincerely, that the minister, in her infinite wisdom, can take on board my grave concerns and, that in subsequent decisions when the Community Welfare Act is reviewed, that the nonsense outlined by the author of this report is not included in the act or any government policy.

                    Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I thank all honourable members for their contribution today. It has been a long debate; it has been a good debate. Health in the Northern Territory is something which is very significant, and I believe that this review, if nothing else, has caused people to consider the importance of Health and Community Services in the Northern Territory, and that in itself is a very good thing.

                    With the exception of the member for Araluen, the responses we have had from the opposition have been quite disappointing; negative, backward-looking comments. They seem to be defensive, and trying to deny any kind of responsibility. Fine, fine. It is disappointing, though.

                    I firstly take up the comments from the member for Araluen. I have absolute confidence in Mr Bansemer and his review. However, I would be happy to take on board the comments that the member for Araluen has raised. They certainly can be considered in the context of the Community Welfare Act, which we are expecting to have consultation on for the rest of the year. Thank you for those comments.

                    I also take up the comments made by the member for Port Darwin. It was a very disappointing response from the member for Port Darwin. She seemed to have failed to understand the key messages of the report and failed to understand the impact of key recommendations. She demonstrated exactly the mentality that led to 10 years of financial mismanagement under the CLP. The opposition claims that the review report deals with problems that arose only in the last 18 months. When the member for Port Darwin reads from page 72 of the report, with approval, the endorsement of some initiatives of the last decade; well that is fine. However, she did not go on to read the following words:
                      Development of policy is one thing; successful implementation is another. Progress in implementation
                      has been very poor.

                    The opposition claims the review deals with only the last 18 months. Did the member for Port Darwin also miss the following paragraph on page 71:
                      Adding to the impact of fragmentation is the fact that departmental management has, for the past five
                      years or so, been adversely affected by the following factors: a constant succession of relatively
                      short-term incumbents in the office of CEO; lack of budget discipline; organisation of silos that
                      requires a convoluted and generally ineffective interlocking network of senior level executive and
                      standing committees; poor linkages between strategic directions, purchasing plans and budgets;
                      too few people trying to do too much, with too many people doing little of relevance to the priorities
                      and objectives of the department; everyone responsible for everything but no one accountable for
                      anything.

                    That has been going on for at least five years - five years, not 18 months, which is what the member for Port Darwin seems to think.

                    The member for Port Darwin also made some unusual claims in relation to a number of things. I suppose the strangest one, from my point of view, was in relation to the hospice. We, on this side of the House, have made no comments about the hospice other than we have not received final plans or costing. I am afraid that seems to be some kind of delusional situation there.

                    The member for Port Darwin also made some comments regarding mental health services. In fact, we actually have a mental health report which I am due to receive in the next few weeks. That will be looking at that whole issue of mental health services in the Northern Territory.

                    The opposition claims the department has come in on budget every year since 1995-96. The difference between estimates and actual in every year since 1995-96 is a total of $82.469m. That seems to be a fairly significant difference. In 1995-96, $14m; 1996-97, $11.7m; 1997-98, $19.2m; 1998-99, $4m; 1999-2000, $9.3m; 2000-01, $15.2m; and 2001-02, $8.8m. In their response today, the opposition continues to demonstrate the same attitude to financial management that led to this result in the first place.

                    Under Labor, clinicians, as before, are responsible for clinical decisions, but we are also holding the department accountable for financial decisions for managing within budget, including in hospitals. Apparently, this did not seem to happen under the CLP, where money had to be transferred from other areas of the department to prop up the hospitals. The opposition is always quick to channel funds into hospitals, usually at the expense of the community services, but children die in communities also. When do we ever hear the opposition speak about the need for more resources for child protection? Indeed, maybe they should be talking more to the member for Araluen, who seems to have more interest in children than many of the other members.

                    The review report is entirely about the legacy of problems left behind by the member for Drysdale when he was minister. It is curious that, today, he has not taken any form of responsibility regarding the department and the situation he left this government with, and yet, on radio the other day he was quite happy to say that he was responsible for a number of things. Very curious that he was not willing to get up today and make any kind of comment. Also, the department structure lambasted by the review was implemented by the member for Drysdale. It was designed following a report by Parker and another by Professor Gaston in 1999. It was the member for Drysdale who promised the Royal Darwin Hospital extensions without any recurrent funds. It was also the member for Drysdale who wasted money on a private wing at Alice Springs Hospital that no one in the private sector wanted to run.

                    Mr Dunham: You do not understand this, do you? You do not have a clue, do you?

                    Mrs AAGAARD: The member for Drysdale’s comments generally tonight for, I suppose, 10 to 15 minutes, were just a personal attack on me. Therefore, I am not going to make any response to those at all. It is not appropriate in a House such as this to get into that low level of debate. I will not make any reference whatsoever to those comments.

                    The only comment I will make is in relation to the budget. I said this afternoon and I will repeat it: my advice to the House on projected Department of Health and Community Services 2001-02 expenditure was based on the written advice provided to me by the department. I made that clear at the time. The information provided to the Estimates Committee was correct. The level of expenditure on service delivery and the department at the end of 2001-02 was offset by under expenditure in other areas, particularly in the grants area. The number of payments which would customarily be made in June for the first quarter of the next financial year, were made in July and so, 2001-02 expenditure included only three-quarters grants payments in a number of cases.

                    Although the advice provided to me by the department in the last few months of 2001-02 that it would come in on budget was close to being technically correct, the department only achieved this by deferring payments into 2002-03, and the level of expenditure on services was higher than would be indicated merely by the total end of year expenditure.

                    One of the driving reasons for the review was my increasing unease about the finances of the department and its capacity to deliver on the government’s health agenda. I can assure honourable members, as I have in this statement, that matters to do with accountability auditing are being implemented, and is a matter which this government takes very seriously.

                    The comments from the Minister for Central Australia were, as usual, forward looking. He has taken a great deal of interest, both in remote services and services relating to Alice Springs. He commented on the administration and management structures, and supported the recommendations of the review in a way which demonstrates the importance of both having regional coordination but, also, line of management systems within the department. This has been very well received throughout the Territory judging from the comments we have received on this side of the House, and it is going to have wonderful outcomes in the future.

                    There was considerable debate tonight regarding renal services. I want to clear up this business to do with Kintore. I said earlier that, in Kintore, we have been left with a situation where there is a very poor water and power supply. There is no question about that. As I said earlier in the day, this is, once again, the legacy of governments which were not interested in anything to do with infrastructure in the bush. Therefore, we have this terrible situation where people with very serious renal disease are finding themselves - even though they have the will to try to improve their own health status - unable to provide services themselves, even though they have raised a considerable amount of money to provide haemodialysis services in their communities.

                    We have been working, as a government, very closely with the Western Dialysis Unit people. It is very important that we try to do whatever we can to make sure that there is some form of renal services available in that community.

                    Mr Dunham: That, surely, should be your first port of call if it is a big problem

                    Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, you really are very trying sometimes.

                    Mrs AAGAARD: That is a very curious comment from the member for Drysdale because he was actually the Minister for Essential Services and, apparently, did not think that the provision of a decent water supply and power at Kintore was a priority of any kind.

                    I mentioned today that I had had conversations with the Minister for Central Australia regarding the possibility of perhaps having some kind of solar power service attached to the health clinic, and also being able to truck in water. This is very much in the early stages, but it would possibly be using the money that has already been raised from the Western Dialysis Unit. We are very hopeful we will be able to do something but, unfortunately, it will not be in the short term.

                    The member for Greatorex also raised the issues of renal dialysis and I am afraid that most of the other things the member for Greatorex said were just so negative that it is not worth making any comments about them at all.
                      The Minister for Tourism raised some very important points. His comments on fiscal discipline and transparency are ones which were very important. I appreciated his comments regarding my new CEO, Mr Griew. I was very disappointed with some of the snide and rude comments relating to my new CEO. As a government and indeed, as a parliament, we need to support our public service. The public service is there for all Territorians, not just for the government of the day. We should be getting behind our senior public servants and making sure they have the confidence of the whole House so they can move on important things such as improving outcomes for health and community services in the Northern Territory. I am appalled by the snide comments about my new CEO which have come from the other side of the House. I sincerely hope that this debate will not go outside this House and that there will be bipartisan support for Mr Griew.
                        The Minister for Tourism also raised the issue of the Chief Finance Officer. It is fairly amazing when you think about it that, in the largest agency with the largest budget, the CLP did not have a Chief Finance Officer. This is a very important position. It is one which will be advertised very soon, and will ensure much more accountability within the department.

                        I also pick up on the Minister for Tourism’s comments regarding the combination of alcohol and other drugs and mental health. This will actually mean that we will be ahead of the pack in Australia in these areas: co-morbidity, dual diagnosis are very common things, particularly in the Northern Territory and we can be looking at very significant changes in that area. Something we do know about is itinerancy. Many of those people have dual diagnosis problems and this is going to be a very significant move in relation to the Northern Territory. So, thank you very much to the Minister for Tourism for those comments.

                        I was very pleased that the member for Barkly is so pleased with the aeromedical service. Yes, it is good that we are going to have that plane upgraded, but also that it is going to be used for the district medical officers. In the past, district medical officers have had to drive out communities which has meant that patients in those areas have often had to wait up to a week or more to get prescriptions after the DMO has been - a very silly situation. This plane will now be able to be used for DMO visits. That is a very positive move for the Northern Territory, and particularly for the people of the Barkly. In relation to that as well, there is, of course, the coordinated aeromedical retrieval service which will mean a much improved service for the whole of the Northern Territory, so that there will be clinical decisions on where a plane comes to pick up a patient. Sometimes, say if you were in the Barkly, it may be better for you to be picked up by pressurised plane depending on the clinical situation in which you find yourself, and the plane might come from Katherine, Alice Springs, or perhaps from Mt Isa. It is a similar situation, of course, throughout the Northern Territory.
                          It has been very interesting listening to all the comments from today’s speakers. I am very pleased that there were so many members involved in the debate.

                          Before I conclude, I would like to thank Mr Bansemer again. It is a very extensive and comprehensive report; one which will be used as evidence for a five-year health strategy for the Department of Health and Community Services. It is a significant document; it will change the face of Health and Community Services in a much more positive way for the Northern Territory. I put on record my thanks to the staff of the Department of Health and Community Services. I cannot say enough about what a great staff we have there. We have very professional people and, Madam Speaker, I have to say that the response we have had is that they are right behind this review. They want to see changes and we are going to do everything we can to make sure those changes happen.

                          Motion agreed to; statement noted.
                          ADJOURNMENT

                          Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

                          Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, as this is the first day of the first sittings after the Christmas break, it is appropriate that I report on the study visit that I undertook overseas as per the Remuneration Tribunal Determination relating to overseas travel, for which I thank you sincerely for approving, as it was most valuable.

                          A report has been provided to you, Madam Speaker, this day. I daresay that at her convenience, Madam Speaker will make that report available to all members of the Assembly and to those who take an interest in these matters. The report can be divided into two distinct periods: Africa during the period 4 to 18 December 2002; and the United States from 6 to 18 January 2003.

                          In the time available to me this evening, I will speak on the United States part of the trip and perhaps report on the other part tomorrow night. We will see how we go.

                          The United States part of the study visit included New York, Washington and Fort Knox in Kentucky. The objectives for New York were to gain a personal insight into the crime reduction methods employed by the New York Police Department to successfully reduce crime in that city in recent years; to visit Ground Zero and pay my respects; to pay a courtesy call on the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr Kofi Annan; and to obtain briefings from the United Nations personnel on UN activities involving Australia.

                          If we take the NYPD part of this first, the crime reduction methods that have been employed by the NYPD, particularly over the last 10 years, are legendary. They are the subject of many academic studies and, in fact, as the member for Wanguri tabled in this Assembly, were also the subject of a visit by a previous Chief Minister and others a few years ago. My visit built on that experience.

                          The first thing that one has to understand when it comes to New York City and the NYPD, is that New York is a different city to what it was 10 years ago, and even years before that. If anyone takes the time to pull out some of the videos from shops to have a look some glimpses of New York, if they have not been there, a couple spring to mind: Taking of Pelham One Two Three gives you a pretty good insight into the way the subway used to look in those days with its graffiti; and Dog Day Afternoon is another one which gives you a glimpse of the way the city used to look in those days.

                          Nowadays, New York City is astounding. I was there in 1984 and again in 1994. In both 1984 and 1994, on two occasions I attempted to use the subway - on one occasion I used it. On both occasions I was intimidated; I felt the whole atmosphere very threatening. Anyone who talked to you about going to New York City said how dangerous the city was, how you had to walk in only particular areas that were busy, and the whole atmosphere of New York City was quite threatening to a visitor who was not familiar with it.

                          In the lower Manhattan area in particular, where I was, I walked with my 13-year-old child at 11 pm, promenaded all around the waterfront area and it was perfectly safe. It is quite astounding that one literally felt safer than in many cities in Australia walking around that New York area and, frankly, safer than in some parts of Darwin; which is a real indictment on us on some of the problems that we have to deal with in Darwin. The credit for that needs to go squarely where it is deserved, and that is with the New York Police Department and the achievements of that department with the support of the Mayor, and the particular strategies it has put in place.

                          There have been some criticisms: they say that the New York Police Department was only one factor in the way the crime was reduced in New York. Other factors such as an improving economy, the crack trade moved on, employment improved, bad elements moved to other cities than New York - they are all there in the academic studies if one wants to read them. However, what also is apparent more so nowadays, is that the reasons that have been given other than the strategies that have been employed by the New York Police Department, have more and more fallen by the wayside. There is now enough data over about 10 years of experience to show that there is a lesson to be learned as to how the NYPD achieved the reduction in crime it did.

                          Other cities in the United States have taken up those strategies. Bill Bratton, who was the NYPD Police Chief at the time when the strategies were first initiated, has now been hired by the LAPD. He is now being heralded as starting some of the initiatives that are occurring in that city. Other senior officers in the higher echelon of the NYPD have moved on to important positions in other police forces in the United States.

                          I wanted to get a feel of what it was like from the police - from the policing perspective. I was not interested in getting briefings with view graphs about the strategies; I was aware of what they were. What I wanted to know was whether they translated to the policeman on the beat and how well the power down methods and strategies actually translated to the precinct and borough level. What I wanted to do was get into that atmosphere. I was hosted by Detective Tom Scotto, the President of the Detectives Endowment Organisation, an organisation not unlike the Police Association in the Northern Territory. It has far wider responsibilities on a national level, far more many members but essentially it acts as a lobby group on behalf of issues that affect detectives in the NYPD in particular. Tom Scotto has been in the job for many years - more than 10 years, in fact. He has been in New York right through the transition of these strategies. He was instrumental in how some of these strategies were implemented.

                          In his office he has many photos of himself with Presidents Clinton and Bush, meeting about those particular strategies, so it is clear that he is quite instrumental at the highest echelons of government in getting the message through. He organised for me to be hosted by a number of police officers and to visit a number of organisations within the NYPD in order to get the information I needed.

                          Crime rates in New York over the past 10 years, across all types - and this is documented - have declined by more than 70% for robbery, 60% for total violent offences, and 60% for total property offences. The NYPD would point to three tenets that they employ in order to lower crime. The first tenet, which I think is important, is that they believe that the success of the police organisation is not measured by activity; the success of the police organisation is measured by the visible absence of crime. For some, that in itself may not mean much, but it was a very important cultural change in the NYPD where they measured their performance by the absence of crime - not by statistics that are run out to say: ‘We are doing better this month than we did last month’. They measured it by a clear indication across all crime sectors that there was a direct correlation between their efforts and the absence of crime and disorder.

                          The first tenet that they focussed on was to solve the problem, not the incident. This, in itself, developed this notion called ‘problem solving’ within the police. I notice that our Police Commissioner talks a lot about problem solving; it comes from that same tenet. Basically, it is harnessing all of the resources you have to look at episodes and localities of crime in order to address what is not only the crime that is being committed, but the symptoms of that crime. By addressing the symptoms, obviously you would get a decrease in criminal activity. The police took that as their primary responsibility. I say that as a notion of the community oriented policing concepts. There is no doubt that the NYPD employed community oriented policing concepts. There is no doubt that they saw the involvement of the community as instrumental in their effectiveness, but they saw the problems as theirs to fix, and set about fixing them.

                          They were supported enormously by Mayor Giuliani, who not only ensured that the strategy that the police came up with was supported at the highest echelons of government but, I believe, he was also instrumental in ensuring that the vast bulk of the legal profession also supported the efforts that the police were employing. Perhaps that came from his experience as a District Attorney. Some might remember that Giuliani had a great reputation as a District Attorney. He was the one who essentially cleaned up the Mafia in New York as DA, and gaoled some of the big crime bosses. I believe that this relationship he had with the legal profession was something that is important, particularly when you look at some of the strategies that politicians come up with. In Australia, not only in the Northern Territory, you immediately run into this antagonistic approach from the legal profession. There is no doubt that there were elements of the legal profession who objected strongly to the approach that was taken by the NYPD. There were elements of the profession who felt that the strategies that were being employed were too tough on the most disadvantaged people in their society.

                          However, that had to be balanced by the support from the general public, who essentially said that crime was out of control, they wanted a change, and strongly supported the NYPD approach. There are a whole number of cases still backed up in the courts which object to different police methods that were employed. However, the result was that the police, supported by the politicians, powered through and ensured that those strategies were widely implemented.

                          Problem solving is more than a name, it involves the harnessing of resources in order to gather the intelligence you need to properly deal with crime. That involved a large investment by the NYPD in those intelligence resources. It is quite stunning, frankly, to see the array of crime intelligence that is assembled, right down to individual police efforts on the beat. They can the track the difference in performance by individual constables or police officers; police units; all examples of proactive activity of policing, and there is literally nothing that goes on at a precinct level that is not captured by that intelligence analysis. Not only is it available at the precinct level, it is also available to the Police Commissioner. They track and account against their performance regularly at police meetings. So, problem solving in itself involves a large amount of increased police resources.

                          The second tenet they employed was what has been called the ‘broken windows’ theory. Most people would be familiar with that. It comes from an academic theory that essentially said: ‘If your neighbourhood is giving the appearance of breaking down, crime will flourish. If the little incidents are not attended to, the large incidents will flourish. Criminal activity flowers in an atmosphere of disarray’. The broken windows theory then lead to what many have called zero tolerance policing. Basically, the New York police approach was that, if a crime was on the books it was attended to. If you are not going to attend to that particular activity, take it off the books because, if you do not attend it, it is seen as a criminal activity not attended to by police, and that in itself will give the impression that police are not doing their job and crime will flourish.

                          The strategy first started in the New York subway system which was a disaster area; a dangerous area - trains were graffitied, people were threatened and were scared to use the subway system. Bill Bratton, who was the boss of the Transit Authority at the time, started on small steps. He would not let one carriage leave the sheds in the morning if it had one piece of graffiti on it. The carriages were cleaned down every night and, if there was one piece of graffiti on those carriages, they did not leave the sheds. A large amount of criminal activity and vandalism was occurring in the sheds at night, so the increased activity in the sheds, the fact that graffiti artists and others could never see the results of their handy work being presented to the public, led to the fact that graffiti fell away.

                          The New York subway system today is a pleasure to behold. The trains are spotless, there is not one piece of rubbish on any carriage and it is, in itself, a remarkable effort. It is clear that my report on the trip will take some adjournments. I undertake to do that. However, I will say before I sit down I have much more to say on NYPD on another parts of the trip and I will do that at a later time.

                          Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I wish to alert members to the situation that occurred in my electorate with a number of people receiving letters from the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority. Last week, I notified the minister of my concerns, raised a number of questions with him and, of course, it was not until today when it hit the headlines that perhaps something has started to happen.

                          This is a map showing members just how widespread the area is where the letters have gone to people within this area. It is not just one, two or eight people who have received letters; it is a large number of people. The really stupid part of the whole exercise is that some of these houses were built up to 20 years ago. This is a subdivision that has been there a long time. There are a few new blocks in this area here, but this area along here has been developed since the 1980s. Therefore, to suddenly get a letter from the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority stating that you have a sacred site on your land has, obviously, caused many residents a great deal of concern.

                          Let me read to you some of the things the letter has said. For instance:
                            Sites listed as recorded sacred sites are sites that have not yet been evaluated or placed in the register.

                          So, they have not been recorded as a registered site:
                            The authority does not purport to hold detailed information regarding these sites.

                          They do not even know all the details about it:
                            The information attached to this letter regarding the recording of sacred sites should also be noted,
                            as the offence provisions of the act apply to all sacred sites.

                          That is basically saying to residents: ‘We are telling you that you have a sacred site. It really has not been researched properly. We do not even know where the boundary is but, under the act, you are responsible and you can be charged with offence’.
                            The symbols representing sites on the attached map are not intended to show precisely the extent of
                            each site.

                          Therefore, this wavy line that goes along here is something that someone has guessed:
                            In each case the extent of the site may be much greater.

                          How vague is this for residents? No wonder they are becoming concerned.
                            However, custodians have asked to point out that there are restrictions upon activities which alter or
                            damage the features of the site such as the building of steps, paths, or garden beds, the introduction
                            of exotic plant species …

                          Only native plants, so no vegie gardens, no citrus trees:
                            … the storage of building materials, no sheds and the disposal of rubbish.

                          That is what has concerned residents; that they have received this letter saying: ‘There is a sacred site on your land and you have to act under the provision of the act’. It makes it even more laughable, that this happened in …

                          A member: Loraine, table it.

                          Mrs BRAHAM: I will table when I finish here.

                          Those letters went out in January this year. However, in August 2001, this particular resident had this letter from the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority:
                            I advise the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority has no registered or recorded site within the area. This
                            does not necessarily mean there are no sacred sites located in this area, but rather, reflects the situation
                            that the Aboriginal custodians for this area have not sought protection for sacred sites under the Northern
                            Territory law, and no other information on the location of sites is available to the authority.

                          So, a couple of years ago, custodians were saying: ‘No, we have nothing to record here’. Now suddenly, we have all this recording appear.

                          Is it any wonder the residents are perturbed? This must be the biggest PR disaster for the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority that I can think of. Of course, for the relationships between the Aboriginal custodians and Alice Springs people, it is a disaster also.

                          I spoke to the minister’s office and this is what I want him to confirm: he has said that there will be no witch hunt, that no one will be prosecuted for work already done. So, for all these people with houses that have been there for a long time, who built swimming pools, put in paths and planted trees, is he saying: ‘No, they will not be prosecuted’? I want that confirmed. He said work already done will not require a certificate. I want to be able to tell all those people who have dug into the hill and put up fences and what have you, that they do not require a certificate, because this is some of the information I have been told..

                          ‘Work still to be done will not be jeopardised and no fee will be charged’. Well, that is good. That is a compromise, and the minister says that in his press release:
                            Authority certificates for landowners will be expedient and I informed the Areas Protection Authority
                            we would waiver [sic] the $50 prescribed fee.

                          He also said in his press release:
                            The authority is not contemplating any legal action against ordinary landowners.

                          I am not sure what ‘ordinary landowners’ refers to. He also says:
                            This is a serious area and I deeply regret the hurt that this stupid mistake of the past has caused the property
                            owners in question.

                          I am hoping that he is quite sincere in what he has done because I wonder if the Aboriginal custodians even know what is going on in their name. Did they really initiate this, or has this been something initiated by officers within the protection authority? I believe the AAPA should write an apology to the residents in that area. They should have a letter clarifying what is going on.

                          All sacred sites in any urban area in the Territory should be registered by now. We have had years and years to get sacred sites identified and registered, and that is the way it should be. We have another development out Larapinta way coming on soon, and I just hope the AAPA have done their work. There is no point in telling us it is up to the landowners to sort it out. It is really up to Aboriginal custodians and the AAPA to get their act together and make sure they have identified sacred sites and registered them. We have lived with sacred sites for many years in the Territory. People have them on their land. We are not saying that they should not be there; we are saying there has to be fair play, natural justice, and people have to own their freehold property and be able to do what they want within reason.

                          The point is most people are reasonable. They do not destroy the environment. They pay $120 000 for these blocks of land. They build houses worth $250 000 to $300 000. They are not going to put up something stupidly. They are not going to spoil the environment; they are going to appreciate the hills around them. Therefore, let us get these things back in perspective. These are people who are not damaging the land, but they certainly are feeling very wounded and damaged at the moment.

                          I would like to see the minister clarify many things. I asked him for a fact sheet a week ago so that residents could have that fact sheet and would know exactly what is going on. I cannot understand how this could have happened and why the minister has not reacted sooner to the concerns I raised. I have had a number of concerns from constituents; they just do not understand. I have to admit, I thought the member for Macdonnell’s press release was a little over the top when he said that landowners should be compensated for their losses; that they have lost the right to build their houses. Well, that is not completely true, because you can still build your house, but you have to do it within the authority’s guidelines. However, this is not about that.

                          This is about receiving letters from the authority 20 years after you have built your house. This is about receiving a letter from the authority when a subdivision has been established, when gardens are there, when people have put in all the amenities of their home. This is what this is about. This is about the process, and if we do not get the process right then, of course, you get people upset and annoyed, and relationships break down. I am hoping that the minister will be able to give us some very straight answers on this problem that has occurred.

                          I am expecting the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority to get back to all those residents they wrote to. I am hoping they will clarify, and the minister is true to his word when he says that he will go down and sort it out himself and give some comfort to those people who are still confused about the whole process and why they are receiving letters so long after the event, expecting them to conform with something they knew nothing about.

                          I am concerned that so many landowners have been unaware of the rules concerning their block. You have to wonder where the fault lies. When a developer these days develops land, it is clear that sacred sites research should be done and the authority’s certificates should be presented. However, it is certainly not in the interests of good relationships to come in once all this has occurred. I believe there is no point in saying that residents have the responsibility to apply for a clearance. There is a responsibility on the part of AAPA and the custodians to do their homework when they know a development is going on.

                          This area here, as you can see, is quite vast. There are some sacred sites identified on this map. Many people will remember the Dominic Miller land fiasco, when he tried to build something on his land, and was told, after he bought land freehold, that he was not able to do it. If we are selling freehold land to people, then they should have rights as well. We have to respect the rights of all people in the Territory, no matter who we are.

                          Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table this map so that people can see exactly what I am talking about. I look forward to the minister’s reply.

                          Leave granted.

                          Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will pick up where the member for Braitling left off in relation to this. I defend the comments I made in my press release. However, I agree with everything else the member for Braitling had to say in relation to the matter. There are many people out there who are very concerned, due to what turns out to be an error within the department that has caused people to feel that they could not, or should not, have purchased land in these areas.

                          Full credit to the minister, who immediately identified the issue and came out on ABC radio this afternoon, I think, and made clear that this was an issue that was a mistake, and the matter would be dealt with appropriately.

                          However, I do wish to draw one issue to the attention of the House, and I certainly hope that the minister will respond to it. I presume that is why he is here this evening. What concerns me is the comments on ABC radio this afternoon, when asked about compensation, the minister said:
                            Well, they are quite entitled to that but that is for the legal advice to be provided to me from the
                            Justice Department.
                          Once again, compensation was raised and the minister said:
                            I can’t pre-empt the legal advice at this stage, but I will be working as hard as possible to look at
                            what compensation forms, you know, that the people are entitled to and, you know, as I say, without
                            that amendment last year …

                          And he goes on to talk about the amendment that he brought before this House last year.

                          I urge the minister to make an outright and clear indication tonight that he will pay compensation to those people who have lost property rights anticipated by section 50 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, and that that compensation be just and expressed in just terms. I do not want to see a situation where people affected by this have to find themselves going to lawyers to pursue this matter through the courts.

                          I hope that, when the minister is talking about legal advice, he is not talking about fighting this but is actually talking about some framework where he can offer compensation which is just to those people who have been affected by this error. I certainly look forward to the minister’s comments in relation to this.

                          I now speak on another issue of some concern to me. It was an issue that was raised with me on the evening of 4 February 2003 - fully two weeks ago, a fortnight ago today. The matter was of such urgency that I not only wrote a letter to the minister for Health, but I faxed the letter to the minister for Health on the day in question because I thought that this matter could not, and should not, be ignored. I will read into Hansard the contents of my letter. It is addressed to Hon Jane Aagaard, MLA, Minister for Health, Parliament House, Mitchell Street, Darwin, dated 5 February 2003 at 9.30 am, although the fax went a little later that day:

                          Re: Care in ICU Alice Springs Hospital.

                          Dear Minister.

                            I am writing to you on a matter of the gravest concern. The issue was raised with me last night during
                            dinner conversation and it is a matter that I feel needs urgent attention. During a conversation, the
                            person made allegations in the following terms:

                            On 3 February 2003, a patient was in the ICU on a respirator having their breathing assisted. The
                            person was brought to the ICU two weeks prior and was gravely ill and not expected to live. The
                            person has a chronic airway or lung disease which means that their breathing needs to be assisted
                            by a ventilator. The person spent two weeks with their breathing being assisted and, consequently,
                            the patient’s condition improved remarkably. Nevertheless, this person would, in every likelihood,
                            not survive if the machine were to be turned off.

                            The person I had dinner with told me that he had visited the hospital and seen the patient conscious,
                            lucid and sitting up in bed listening to a walkman of some sort. He was told by staff of the hospital that
                            there was an intention to sedate the patient to a point of unconsciousness and then, after a period, turn
                            the ventilator off. This had the potential to let the patient die. Indeed, it was expressed by staff at the
                            hospital that the intention of this was to make room in the ICU as the patient was terminal in any instance.
                          On 4 February 2003, he …

                          ‘He’ being the person I had dinner with:
                            … attended the hospital and was advised that he had misunderstood the intention of what had been said
                            the day before. The person who told me this said he was left with the impression that the hospital was
                            ‘covering itself’ and he had clearly heard and understood the intention of the hospital toward their
                            patient. The impression was reinforced by a ward nurse who expressed her anger to the person who
                            told me by saying that ‘these things had happened before’.

                            I questioned this person a little further regarding the matter and he was adamant of the detail of what
                            had occurred. The patient is called …

                          I have blanked out the name:
                            … about 50 years of age. He is from Hermannsberg and, more recently, was living in Alice Springs due
                            to his illnesses. Under normal circumstances, I would have dismissed such talk as one of the usual rumours
                            that is heard from time to time in politics. However, the person who told me this is known to me and is a person
                            of unquestionable integrity, and he related the story to me as a witness in the first person. I cannot ignore
                            this account.

                            If you choose to investigate this matter …
                          Mr Kiely: Then why didn’t you report it to the police?

                            Mr ELFERINK: … the person is willing to give his details …
                          Mr Kiely: Why didn’t you report it to the police? You should be answering that question. A crime was reported to you and you did not report it to the police. Why not?

                          Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
                            Mr Kiely: It is a police matter, why didn’t you report it?

                              Mr ELFERINK: If you choose to investigate this matter, the person will be willing to give his details to investigators from the department …
                            Mr Kiely: You need to be investigated. You need to be investigated for a clear breach …
                              Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

                                Mr ELFERINK: … and assist in any way possible. I will provide his name to investigators if they contact me.

                                Once again, I urge you to turn your attention to this matter as a thing of the gravest import. If you have
                                any questions whatsoever regarding this, please do not hesitate to contact me in my office.

                                Signed, yours truly.

                              Mr Kiely: Did you involve the police? It is a police matter.

                              Mr ELFERINK: I addressed this letter directly to the minister for Health, with a courtesy copy to the Ombudsman.

                              Mr Kiely: You should go to the Police Commissioner.

                              Mr ELFERINK: Two weeks later, I have had no response from the Health department, nor from the minister’s office, and I am wondering what has happened.

                              As for the member for Sanderson who sits in here and bleats about why didn’t I report it to the police - I reported it to the appropriate authority immediately. That is exactly what my duties and responsibilities are and that is what I have done …

                              Mr Kiely: The police are the right authorities. You breached the law, sunshine! You should be done for it.

                              Mr ELFERINK: … and I will continue to defend people whom your government - you, you moron - believe in protecting. I can tell you something now, mate, you are the smart …

                              Mr Kiely: You and you mates have cheapened the whole issue! You have cheapened the lot of it.

                              Mr ELFERINK: … so and so who came into this Chamber and ignored a child in need of care and had to be investigated yourself, you grub!

                              Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Comments through the Chair please, member for Macdonnell.

                              Mr ELFERINK: Yes, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. The fact of the matter is, this is an urgent matter. I have heard nothing from the minister’s office - not a phone call, nothing. The only time that I get any response from this government in relation to some of the gravest matters I raise is when I come into this Chamber and raise it here. Why do I have to raise it here? Because nothing comes out of the 5th floor, especially from the Health minister’s office. I believe that I did the correct thing. I know I did the correct thing: I advised the minister responsible for the care of this patient, and I have heard nothing.

                              Dr Burns: Is the patient alive or dead?

                              Mr ELFERINK: I have actually no idea. That is the point. That is the issue I have at the moment.

                              Mr Kiely: You do not get to know people’s medical conditions.

                              Mr ELFERINK: I do not know what the condition of this patient is.

                              The member for Johnston may want to proceed with this on the glibbest of terms, but the fact of the matter is, there is nothing glib about this at all. The member for Sanderson can sit here and joke and laugh and poke as much fun, but does he care enough to go out and find out what is going on? Not a chance - not a chance.

                              I have also forwarded a courtesy …

                              Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I have had this allegation made that I sit here and laugh and joke and make fun about this. I am not making fun about this serious issue - an issue that he should have reported to the police when first he became aware of it, when he is culpable of perhaps aiding a crime. He sits there and has a go at the minister.

                              Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, it is not a point of order. Resume your seat.

                              Mr ELFERINK: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I had correspondence from the Ombudsman’s Office in relation to this. Putting it briefly, the Ombudsman’s Office advised me that it was a matter for the Health Complaints Commission – Mr Boyce, the Ombudsman, is also the commissioner. The advice I received from the Ombudsman was, curiously, that some pamphlets were enclosed. If the person wanted to make the complaint they could do so, or somebody could make the complaint on their behalf. I have since spoken to the Ombudsman about it. He agrees with me that the letter was probably not couched in the best possible words. However, I have asked him, as the Health Commissioner, to keep a watching brief on this matter. I certainly hope that the Health minister takes some action and, for pity’s sake, contacts me so I can provide her with the name of this person.

                              I do not know what more I can do to get the Health minister to respond to this issue, but I am very concerned about the practice, if it is indeed occurring.

                              Mr AH KIT (Arnhem): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I hopefully give some clarification to what has happened in Alice Springs with the Carmichael Estate. It was brought to my attention, obviously, this morning with the newspaper - and rightly so raised in the House tonight. I was a bit disappointed because I was prepared in Question Time to respond. However, the opportunity now presents itself.

                              I would like to not so much set the record straight, but report to the House on how I am actioning the concerns of people who have purchased properties in that estate. I quickly received a briefing and was able to issue a press release this morning which I will table, titled Carmichael Estate Sacred Sites: Getting it right.

                              It is quite easy, as the minister responsible for Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority - or for any minister - to apportion blame in this situation. That is not what I want to do in this exercise, and it is not a trait that I believe I have. The buck stops with me; I am the minister responsible. What has happened in this situation is that there have been some serious errors made by staff of the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority in the Alice Springs office.

                              The concerns raised in the Centralian Advocate and on ABC radio in Alice Springs were warranted; there is no doubt. They were raised this morning. I raise it, as I say, because what worries me is some of the mischievous statements that are being made by the member for Macdonnell in a media release this afternoon. I have that with me and it is titled Landowners Must Be Compensated. We will come to that part shortly, because I know he has asked in the Chamber tonight for me to respond to that issue.

                              The issue is, as we know, that of sacred sites in the Carmichael Estate. The rocky ridges and elevated plateau surrounding the Carmichael Estate are of traditional significance to the Arrernte people whose traditional country includes Alice Springs. Within that area, particular trees and rock outcrops comprise specific site features that have traditional interpretations. This area comprises recorded sacred site 5650-361. This site was recorded in 1993 prior to the subdivision of the Carmichael Estate. Over that year, and in 1994, discussions were held with Arrernte families to establish conditions necessary to protect the site.

                              Grant Tiver of Rubino’s Pty Ltd, the developer, was involved in those discussions. As a result of those discussion, Authority Certificate C1994/096 was issued to Rubino’s Pty Ltd for the subdivision and related infrastructure work. Under the certificate, no work was permitted on top of the ridges, with the exception of ridges on four blocks. Also, the slopes of the ridges were not to be excavated except for some 15 identified areas. In 1997, an additional authority certificate was issues to Rubino’s Pty Ltd for a retardation dam, concrete spillway and associated drainage works to be built within the valley. That certificate did not impose any new conditions on land use. Under the 1994 authority certificate, Rubino’s Pty Ltd was obliged to inform subsequent purchasers of the blocks of the conditions relating to the works on the ridge.

                              In March 1998, the authority received complaints that works within Stage Four of the development of the Carmichael Estate, which is the northern end of Tmara Mara Circuit and Brandt Court, were excavating the slopes of the ridges. The authority formally advised Rubino’s Pty Ltd that Stage Four of the development intruded on the sacred site, and that works may not occur on the sacred site without an authority certificate.

                              In July 1998, the authority issued a complaint and summons against Rubino’s Pty Ltd for carrying out work on a sacred site contrary to an authority certificate. There was disagreement between the authority and Rubino’s Pty Ltd over whether the Authority Certificate C1994/096 extended to Stage Four. The matter was resolved through a formal agreement in 1999. The authority is unable, for legal reasons, to divulge the contents of this agreement. However, the authority is investigating whether Rubino’s Pty Ltd has complied with its obligations under the agreement.

                              The authority has proceeded on the basis that Rubino’s Pty Ltd is obliged, legally or morally, or both, to inform those purchasing lots in the Carmichael Estate of the extent of the sacred site. The expectation that this obligation had been fulfilled was the basis for the recent mail-out to landowners in the vicinity of the Carmichael Estate. The mail-out was also stimulated by custodians’ complaints that works are continuing in the vicinity of the Carmichael Estate, contrary to their wishes for site protection.

                              The recorded site has been recorded with increasing precision on maps. Maps issued to the public are intended only to reflect the geographical features of the recorded area. On 5 February 2003, the authority wrote to all landowners, including the developer, Rubino’s Pty Ltd, within the Carmichael Estate, and the landowners of lots on the northern side of Battarbee Street and Griffiths Place, adjoining the elevated sacred site area. The purpose of the letter was to remind landowners of the existence of the site, and to invite them to contact the authority should they need an authority certificate.

                              I acknowledge that the wording and manner of distribution of this letter has led to unnecessary concern. Landowners on the northern side of Batterbee Street and Griffiths Place whose lots lie outside the Carmichael Estate would not necessarily have had prior knowledge of the site. This seems to be because there has been a serious error made by the Alice Springs office of the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority in erroneously issuing register inspection documents that stated there were no sacred sites on a number of properties in the area. This erroneous advice appears to have affected eight owners of properties.

                              Although each of these erroneous register inspection documents were issued under the previous government, we will not walk away from our responsibilities to both the property owners and the site custodians. I am informed that the documents carry the qualification that where there is no record of a site, this does not mean that there is no site, and that only an authority certificate can provide this certainty. However, I regret to inform the House that the authority made a serious error in that its own records showed the very existence of the site in question.

                              The authority is instituting a thorough research of its records, as well as adopting new procedures to ensure this cannot happen again. A number of concerned landowners have contacted the authority for further clarification. An information sheet will be issued to landowners seeking clarification. The authority staff will deal individually with landowners and progress authority certificates covering proposed works and uses of site areas as required. Authority certificates for landowners will be expedited, and I am informed the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority will waive the $50 prescribed fee. The authority is examining Rubino’s Pty Ltd compliance with the authority certificate, and other obligations, to inform landowners of sacred site issues in the Carmichael Estate.

                              The authority is not contemplating any legal action against ordinary landowners. Landowners do not need to apply for authority certificates for work already completed. This means that no current structures are threatened. Custodians are aware of the concerns raised by the landowners. I am writing to the eight people who have received erroneous register inspection documents, and would be happy to meet with them when I visit Alice Springs in early March.

                              Before I conclude, I table a media release that I am issuing this evening. It basically explains the series of events and what my intentions are to rectify the problem.

                              What I want to explain in the few minutes available to me is the point that was made by the member for Macdonnell about compensation. I refer members of this Chamber to the debate and the introduction of the amendment that I brought into the House in the sittings last November. From memory, the amendment that I moved, which had the support of the member for Macdonnell and others, was for ‘just compensation’. That now shows, quite clearly, the need to introduce that amendment to pick up these types of situations, hoping that they would not arise but, nevertheless, allowing for that just compensation clause so that these people were not going to be left out on a limb.

                              I am not in a position to pre-empt the compensation that possibly will be available to those people; that is a matter for advice I need to receive from the Department of Justice. As I said, I will be meeting with those people. I certainly hope that they will understand the position that I have moved with regarding sorting out this serious error that was made by the officers in the Alice Springs Office of Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority.

                              As I said in my opening comments, it would have been easy to blame a number of public servants or former ministers who were responsible. However, I do not think that is going to achieve anything. What we have to do, in this case, is keep our eye on the ball. The ball, obviously, is the concerns that these people who, in good faith, purchased blocks of land, are dealt with in a manner that sees them achieve their dreams of owning their houses on the blocks of land that they purchased. Therefore, we will work through this to ensure that we get an outcome that is satisfactory to all parties concerned.

                              Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak about Chinese New Year, my usual first adjournment for the year for the last nine years. This year is the year of the goat or ram or sheep, whichever you choose to call it. It is a celebration of Chinese New Year which starts on the first day of Spring in China and coincides with 1 February this year.

                              There are many stories about how the Chinese calendar came about. It is some 4071 years old, so this year is 4071. It is based on the lunar calendar. Using the lunar calendar also, Chinese astrology links one of 12 animals to each of the 12 year cycles. There are many stories about how the 12 animals came about and how the names were allocated each year. I have given you one which I often quote – a book written by Neil Sommerville. He writes this Chinese Astrology book every year. This year, I thought I would give a different story, and this one is produced by the Chung Wah Society in their Chinese New Year banquet menu from the dinner last Saturday night. It reads:
                                Legend has it that once upon a time, the Jade King was bored so he asked advisers to bring him 12 animals,
                                which he considered a good sampling. An invitation went to the rat, then to the ox, the tiger, the rabbit, the
                                dragon, the snake, the horse, the ram, the monkey, the rooster and the dog asking for their presence at the
                                palace. When they lined up, however, the king found that their were only 11 and so he sent his servant down
                                to earth to retrieve a 12th animal. The servant ran into a man carrying a pig and he took it and delivered it
                                to the king. The animals stood in front of the king in no particular order. The rat, because he was the
                                smallest, hopped onto the ox’s back and began playing the flute which impressed the king who gave him first
                                place. Second was given to the ox because of its good sportsmanship, then was placed the tiger, the rabbit,
                                the dragon, the snake, the horse, the goat, the monkey, the rooster, the dog, with the pig in 12th place.

                              This year is the year of the goat and, because it is on a 12-yearly cycle people born in the years 1991, 1979, 1967, and 12 years backwards and so on, would be born in the year of the goat. Goat people are said to get on very well with people born in the year of the horse, which was last year, and the year of the rabbit, which was 1999.

                              What does the Chinese horoscope say about the goat? People born in the year of the goat are thought to be charming, elegant, artistic and like material comforts. However, goats tend to worry more than necessary and complain too much. A career in acting or gardening seems successful for those born in this year. They give some examples of people born in the year of the goat: Gene Hackman, George Harrison, Leonard Nimoy – Dr Spock - and even Mikhail Gorbachov.

                              This morning we saw the blessing of the Chamber by the lion dance. I was glad that I was given the opportunity to lead the lion dance into the Chamber. We saw a traditional blessing of the Chamber and the desks of various members in the Chamber. All members, I am glad to say, made offerings to the lion. In Chinese tradition, it is said that being blessed by the lion you receive, tenfold, the reward that you offered in your offering.

                              The Chinese New Year festival has been celebrated in Darwin for many decades. In Alice Springs, we only started that some six years ago in a more public fashion than previously. In days gone by, I am sure that many Chinese families would celebrate their Chinese New Year quietly within the family home. However, as the Vice Patron of the Chung Wah Society, I have been fortunate to be able to invite the Chung Wah lion dance to Alice Springs to bless houses, homes and business houses there, and they do that in a very much welcomed fashion. We start on the Monday with a blessing of the main mall in Alice Springs and, over the years, we have been able to convince the mall market traders to come out with their stalls on the day so that the stalls also get blessed. Caravan parks and offices, including government offices, get blessed over the next day.

                              This year, we blessed the Town Council and the Council library; we even blessed the offices of the Department of Corporate and Information Services at the Alice Plaza. At six premises this year, we let off a whole string of fire crackers: one outside the Yipirinya Centre; one at Alice Plaza; one at a private home - where else did we go? We had one in the mall, and, of course, I let off one outside my office. It was funny that the Central Advocate wrote a little article in ‘Dingo’ commenting that a couple of council workers were concerned about the debris that the fire crackers caused outside the office on the footpath. I suppose they did not understand that, in fact, the shavings from the explosion of the fire crackers was red paper: it was meant to be scattered around the entry to the front door of the premises, and the more of the shavings that enter the front of the premises, the more good luck it is supposed to represent.

                              A couple of the Chinese restaurants also had that. In fact, one Chinese restaurant had its front doors wide open so that just about all the shavings blew right into the restaurant. However, the proprietress was very pleased with the result and, accordingly, she responded with a very generous offering to the Chung Wah Lion Dance Troupe.

                              Over the last two weeks, Chinese New Year celebrations started with the New Year dinner held by the Hakka Association at the Cypriot Hall at Batten Road. It was a very successful function. Apparently, 300 people purchased tickets for the function, and some 200 others turned up at the door, unannounced. The poor organisers were running around madly trying to make sure there was enough food to feed everybody; so much so that the function started a little later. However, the time we waited for the food to arrive was well used by everybody mingling, talking, catching up with old friends whom you may not see from one year to the next.

                              That is what Chinese New Year is about: you get to see relatives and old friends. In more traditional places, married adults would give the little red packet offerings to their younger, unmarried relatives, particularly children. I remember when I was a kid, one of the best things about Chinese New Year was running around to visit as many rellies as you could, and touch them for a red packet. Ideally, the red packet should contain at least a coin and a note. When people are making personal offerings to relatives, it could be anything that you can afford, but when you make an offering to a blessing of a lion, one needs to make a significant contribution.

                              I travelled with the Lion Dance Troupe to Alice Springs to have the blessings in Alice Springs over the next Sunday and Monday, and then returned to Darwin to join with many members of the Hong Kong Australian Business Association to celebrate another Chinese New Year function, this time at the casino. This function was hosted by the Hong Kong Australian Business Association. We had guest speakers from Sydney who were involved with the Hong Kong Trade Development Authority. Ms Jenny Wallis, who represented the organisation, spoke very well about the cross-linkages between Australia and Hong Kong, and sought closer ties between the Northern Territory and her little island of Hong Kong.

                              It is a good way of demonstrating that there are, indeed, many commonalities that the Northern Territory has with South-East Asia, and that we must not forget our significant population of ethnic Chinese in the Territory, and allow us to build very strong links with countries in South-East Asia. Many people have only recently arrived from that area and, if they are not recent arrivals, would have had strong family links into that area for many decades.

                              Last weekend was a culmination of Chinese New Year celebrations and, because Chinese New Year celebrations go on for 15 days, the particular date, 15 February, was seen as a very significant day for the Chinese community.

                              The Chung Wah Society’s annual Chinese New Year banquet was held last Saturday night at the MGM Grand. It was, once again, an oversubscribed function. Each year when the tickets come up for sale, within two weeks they will be all taken up. This year was no exception. I thought the function went particularly well this year. We had two entertainers from Sydney to entertain the crowd. This year, at least, the airconditioning did not break down, so that made the room a lot more comfortable. I remember last year, when the airconditioner broke down for some three to four hours, it was a terribly hot evening which spoilt the celebrations for many people.

                              Sunday morning was meant to be the last day of the celebrations, with a dragon boat race at Cullen Bay. All went according to plan: all the tents and shade cloths went up, all the teams had gathered at Cullen Bay and then we proceeded with a Buddhist blessing of the day’s events. Unfortunately, half-way through the prayers a huge monsoonal thunderstorm came blasting right through Cullen Bay and literally drowned the event. The lawn adjacent to the marina was absolutely flooded, just about everybody got soaked to the skin and, because of many lightning strikes that occurred over Cullen Bay, the organisers decided that it was safer not to have the dragon boat race that day. It has been reorganised for Sunday this week coming. I hope that all the people who wanted to participate last Sunday will be able to turn up this Sunday to take part in the races and finish off the Chinese New Year celebrations for 2003.

                              This year is supposed to be a peaceful year, the year of the goat. It is supposed to bring in an air of contentment because of the genial nature of the goat. It is a year of hope, reconciliation and healing. While there might be some anxious moments this year, it is thought that major attempts will be made to settle disputes and bring peace to troubled areas. If this comes true, it bodes well for what is happening in the Middle East for all of us, and we hope to see a peaceful year for 2003.

                              It is also a year where medicine will prosper and people will be interested in their own wellbeing, looking into their own diets, exercise and general lifestyle. That will also rub off onto politicians, leading to world leaders bringing about a greater understanding between them all. I wish everybody a happy Chinese New Year, which in Mandarin is Coong Xi Fa Cai, or in Cantonese, is Kung Hee Fat Choy.

                              Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I talk about an event which I have had the pleasure of attending twice now. That event is the NT Junior Cricket presentation. Last year, I presented trophies to the Under 15 NT side which toured Bundaberg. It was a great night and I was asked again this year to assist in the presentation.

                              I have been a supporter of the junior cricket in the Sanderson district for quite some time now. The parents of these kids do a great job. The value of cricket in the Territory is being showcased by the Territory government in the work that being doing to bring international cricket to Marrara and to the people of the Territory. This augers well for the sport in Darwin, as well as Alice Springs. In future years, we can look forward to seeing stronger and greater representative teams doing well, just like this junior cricket side did last year.

                              I was invited to present the trophies with Terry Newman, President of the NT Junior Cricket Association. I was talking to the parents there, and it was a pleasure to see such proud, supportive parents and other family members gathered for the occasion. It was an intimate do at the Police and Citizens Youth Club at Berrimah, where I am sure quite a number of us have been. It is a great venue for activities such as this. There is a great open space, with barbecues, a little kiosk, and the swimming pool and grass surrounds.

                              The Under 15 cricketers represented the Northern Territory at the Queensland Under 15 Development Carnival in Bundaberg from 13 to 17 January 2003. The Northern Territory representatives secured convincing wins against Brisbane North and Darling Downs, with a nail-biting tie against Central Queensland. This was a wonderful result from a splendid team of boys from the Northern Territory. The team consisted of the following players: Chris Allen, captain; Shane Compain, vice-captain; Gareth Renfrey from Alice Springs; Todd Pemble; Todd Shaw; David Champion; Rowan Langworthy; Lindsay Peckham; Paul White; Tim Garner; Scott White; and James Lambden. Chris Allen, Shane Compain and Tim Garner were picked as part of the 15 player group to be rewarded as team of the carnival. This speaks volumes for these lads’ dedication to their sport of choice and these three, in particular, have a great future in cricket in the Darwin area, and perhaps even interstate where many of our cricketers of great potential end up due to the greater competitiveness down there.

                              Trophy winners at the presentation held in Darwin were Chris Allen, who had a batting average of 34; Shane Compain, with a batting aggregate of 347 runs, not to be sneezed at; Tim Garner had a bowling average of 13 wickets; David Champion, a bowling average of 15; and Rowan Langworthy was the coach/manager’s choice, with Todd Pemble as most improved player. These lads are quite dedicated to their sport.

                              They are going great places because of the support given to them by the Northern Territory Cricket Association and the vice-president, Wally Mauger. The good thing about the NT Cricket Association is that it is representative of cricket right across the Territory. The president is in Alice Springs, and the vice-president is in Darwin - they have a great working relationship. It is under the umbrella of the NTCA that these kids, and the other representative sides that we send away, will do well in future.

                              Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
                            Last updated: 04 Aug 2016
                            ￴