2002-11-28
Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, we have some visitors in the gallery today. I would like to welcome the Year 6 students from Essington School accompanied by their teacher Miss Johanna Riddell. On behalf of all members, I extend to you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 339 petitioners praying that the Banyan Tree or the Tree of Life on Lot 191 Adelaide River be allowed to live and grow unencumbered by giving alternative access to Lot 133. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Mr KIELY: We the undersigned respectively showeth that Lot 191 Adelaide River …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson. You don’t have to read it.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, in accordance with the terms of appointment, I nominate myself as the Independent member for the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I want to speak this morning on the relinquishment by Brigadier Mike Silverstone CSC of his command of Northern Command and to outline the outstanding contribution he has made during his tenure.
A career soldier, Brigadier Silverstone has served in a wide range of training, operations and strategic planning appointments. These have included postings to the Inventory Centre, the Director of Inventory, Army Headquarters and Headquarters Australian Defence Force. In addition to these appointments, Brigadier Silverstone served for two years as the Australian exchange instructor at the US Army’s Command and General Staff College.
In recognition of his distinguished service as commanding officer of the Special Air Service Regiment, he was awarded a Conspicuous Service Cross in 1998.
Following his command of the multinational peace monitoring group in Bougainville, Brigadier Silverstone came to his current post of Northern Command on 2 January 2001. Headquarters Northern Command was established in 1988 as Australia’s first joint force operational headquarters. Its primary responsibility is for planning and conducting the defence of Northern Australia. Appointments for the Commander of Northern Command are taken between the three services, and Brigadier Silverstone will be handing command of Northern Command to Air Commander Stephen Walker on 2 December, and we look forward to working closely with Air Commander Stephen Walker for the duration of his posting.
In his two years as Commander, Northern Command, Brigadier Silverstone has had responsibility for the Australian Defence Forces support to border protection operations. In this role, his area of operations has incorporated all of the Territory, northern Queensland north of Mt Isa and Cairns, the Pilbara and Kimberley region of Western Australia, adjacent waters and air space out to Australia’s exclusive economic zone. Brigadier Silverstone has also been responsible for overseeing the provision of Defence assistance for the civil community, particularly in response to effects of extreme weather during the Wet Season. As the senior Australian Defence Force officer in the Territory, he represents the interests of sailors, soldiers and airmen, along with their families, seeking proper recognition of their service by the Australia Defence Organisation in effectively integrating them into the Territory community.
In conjunction with government, Brigadier Silverstone reviewed the Territory’s industry Defence coordination arrangements. This review led to the establishment of the Northern Territory Defence Industry Government Group, whose purpose is to provide a formal communications process for the support and sustainment of operations, exercises and major activities in Northern Australia. He also played a key role in reviewing, from a Defence support perspective, drafts of the government’s economic development strategy Building a Better Territory as it was finalised for release earlier this year. His involvement was much appreciated by government.
In recognition of his critical role in promoting the capabilities and expertise of the Territory’s research community to the Australian Defence Organisation, Brigadier Silverstone was appointed as a member of the Northern Territory government’s Research and Development Advisory Council. He also re-established the United Services Institute of the Territory and, in so doing, greatly assisted public discussion of Defence issues.
After a short but well-earned break, in January Brigadier Silverstone will take up his new appointment in Canberra as Director General Intelligence Capability Support to Operations.
Madam Speaker, the Northern Territory government - and I know this parliament - places on the public record its appreciation of Brigadier Silverstone’s contribution as Commander Northern Command, and extends to him, his wife Sharon and their two sons, its very best wishes for their future. It also extends to Brigadier Silverstone and his family the prospect of a warm welcome whenever they visit the Territory.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I also take the opportunity to wish Brigadier Mike Silverstone all the very best in his future Defence career. He is an outstanding career soldier, a personal friend of mine; we have served together over the years in various postings.
To my mind, he epitomises the SAS in many respects. There are people who conjure up an image of the SAS as being only physical. In fact, the SAS are selected for most attributes other than physical and, in that regard, Mike Silverstone is the quiet achiever. He is not only a quiet achiever throughout his career, including the SAS, but he has also been tested on many occasions, not the least being when he was Commander of the SAS Regiment when the Blackhawk tragedy occurred in Townsville.
As Commander of NORCOM, he also quietly, and unknown to many people, has organised the operations of NORCOM in a way that even NORCOM itself probably never envisaged. NORCOM was set up within the Defence Force as, I suppose, a headquarters that many thought would never ever see operations. However, in fact, the events in East Timor saw NORCOM come to the fore. NORCOM has quietly gone about an outstanding task in dealing with the illegal immigrants or illegal refugees coming to Australia; all of those operations coordinated out of NORCOM and commanded by Brigadier Silverstone.
An outstanding career soldier who will do great things further in his career. I wish him and his wife all the very best for the future. I take the opportunity of welcoming Air Commodore Steve Walker, a former student of mine at the Navy Staff College. I know Steve Walker will also make his mark. He is an F1/11 navigator, an outstanding Defence soldier in his own right.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, one of my highest priorities as Attorney-General is to reduce crime and to help victims overcome the impact of crimes committed against them. It has become apparent that the operation of the Crimes Victims Assistance Scheme may not be the best way to provide the help the victims need. Concerns have been expressed about the length of time cases take to finalise, the distress caused to the victim with additional court proceedings and the difficulties in settling cases. The passage of the Crimes (Victims Amendment) Amendment Act in October was the first stage of our process to assist victims of crime. Those amendments will ensure that legal fees are of a smaller proportion to the overall cost of the scheme so that more available funds go to assist victims. We will be carefully monitoring the effects of those amendments.
In October, I also announced a full review of the Crime (Victims Assistance) Act over the next year. As a first step, I am releasing a draft discussion paper to encourage further debate and community input to our consideration of a more responsive assistance scheme. I will table that, Madam Speaker.
The Department of Justice will now undertake consultation with victims and other stakeholders as a first input into that review. We want to talk to victims and others who have been involved in the victims assistance process, to canvass their ideas about the best way we can proceed. We are determined to put victims first and to ensure that the assistance that is available has a maximum possible effect. Some of the ideas that we are seeking comment on include: immediate access to counselling and other assistance rather than a compensation payment long after the event; a charter of victims’ rights; and whether an administrative process to assess claims would be preferable to the present system. We want to hear from victims of crime about what would help them to recover quickly from the effects of offences committed against them.
The discussion paper will be posted on the government web site and sent direct to stakeholders. Advertisements seeking input will be placed in newspapers, and the Department of Justice will ensure consultation with groups including indigenous groups throughout the Territory. This government is committed to repairing the victim assistance scheme and we will do it with input from those who have most experience and stake in this arrangement within our government system; and that is the victims of crime.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, there is absolutely no doubt that the victims of crime are a special category of people who need the support of government and, indeed, have received the support of the previous government through the introduction of the crimes victims’ assistance legislation. It is interesting to hear the Attorney-General talk about reducing the distress which a victim endures after an offence has been committed, and especially in light of the fact that the reduction in legal fees and the reduction of the scale which is paid to solicitors to help them will effectively mean, under the amendment he introduced at the last sittings, that many of those victims will not be able to secure the help of a solicitor, thus adding to their distress.
I must say the review of the act is welcomed. Indeed, the opposition will look forward to playing an active role in that and, hopefully, contributing to that process. People who are involved in organisations like VOCAL, I would imagine will have an important input into the process.
However, it is one thing to talk about putting victims first and the rhetoric which we constantly hear paraded out by this government in terms of six-point plans, blah, blah, blah. But, ultimately it seems, they are intent on not spending money in this area. They are talking about ways of avoiding paying these people compensation, of avoiding trying to put these people back in the position they would have been; and that is the truth. That is what it is all about. You have pushed the rhetoric to one side; it is all about money. Quite frankly, I do not have any problem with government spending whatever it thinks appropriate in paying people compensation, providing counselling, and ensuring that they are properly represented. So I look forward to the review. I am suspicious it is all about penny pinching and affecting a sector of our community that most needs our help.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I welcome the opposition’s somewhat grudging support for our initiative. I can certainly assure you we are going to support victims of crime. If you feel that that support is not there at the moment, we have spent $5.25m in the last 12-month period on compensating victims.
What we are taking on now is a much more complicated task: that is to provide a package of support to victims which is going to actually give them the support that they need - particularly in the period soon after the offences have been committed - if they have suffered, whether it be financial, property, personal or physical damage as a result of that offence.
Victimisation is what we are looking at here: what aspects of victimisation there are and what support mechanisms we can put in place to deal with those aspects of victimisation, in every context around the Territory, whether that be remote communities or our main urban centres. We are up for this task; it is the harder of the two tasks. We would welcome constructive input from the opposition.
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I provide a report on the status of the Darwin Port Corporation operations. The corporation has an establishment of 52 people and in the last financial year produced revenue turnover of $16.7m, handling in the order of 900 000 tonnes of cargo. The corporation’s commercial focus is based on the establishment of world class port facilities at East Arm Wharf and its significant community service obligation functions on behalf of the NT government.
The corporation has invested considerable effort and resources in working to achieve its government owned corporation status over the last 18 months or so. Extensive work has been undertaken under the guidance of the Northern Territory Treasury to restructure its accounting systems to one based on newly established lines of business. The corporation has, in particular, undertaken work which has been reflected in draft documents being forwarded to NT Treasury for consideration. Those documents include the Statement of Corporate Intent, Commercial Business plan, Constitution, and amendment to Darwin Port Corporation legislation to conform with the Government Owned Corporations Act.
The government did have a target date for progression of the corporation to GOC status by 1 January 2003. However, as was experienced with the Power and Water Authority, considerably more work is required by the corporation, the NT Treasury and regulating agencies and is now unlikely, given legislative sitting dates for passing of legislative amendments, GOC status will be achieved prior to 1 July 2003.
East Arm Wharf is the future growth business area for the corporation. With the completion of Stage I, worth $100m, the corporation has progressively transferred rig tenders, livestock and bulk commodity trades from the city port to East Arm. Stage II works, at an estimated cost of $93m, are now under way in order to meet the requirements of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway and port facilities associated with the joint user terminal, and involve the following:
construction of the rail access causeway and a four hectare rail container terminal;
The completion date of these wharves is expected to be October 2003; however, the crane will be relocated to the East Arm wharf in May 2003. Once the container crane is relocated to East Arm, all container traffic will be relocated accordingly, which will leave the discharge of petroleum tankers at the Iron Ore Wharf as the only large scale commercial shipping activity in the city port. Relocating this activity will be determined by the establishment of an agreement with the major oil companies for the establishment of a joint user terminal at East Arm. Officers of my department are currently negotiating arrangements with the oil companies.
On this basis, I have agreed with the corporation that all of its commercial operational functions will be withdrawn from the city port and be relocated to East Arm Wharf by the end of 2003. Only particular requirements associated with petroleum tanker discharges will remain. The relocation will involve the establishment of port control, pilot boat facilities and maintenance workshop facilities. The corporation is currently addressing a number of expressions of interest from port users such as Customs, AQIS, stevedores, etcetera, in establishing a central port administration facility.
Planning is currently being undertaken, and it is likely that the facility will be established during 2004. Budget capacity is currently being established for all facility consideration and consolidation. In terms of business growth, the corporation has a number of potential growth trades. With the establishment of railway operations and landbridging, container numbers are projected to grow to 50 000 TEUs per annum over five years of operation, and 100 000 TEUs per annum over 10 years. This compares now with the current 10 000 TEUs per annum.
Bulk trade in relation to the export of manganese is currently being addressed, and consideration is being given to justification for train unloading, stockpiling and ship-loading equipment. In relation to smaller trades, the corporation has recognised the shortage of cargo handling areas at East Arm adjacent to the wharf, and is negotiating the reclamation of a nominal six hectare area adjacent to the main port gate house. The corporation also continues to pursue consolidation of port activities in Darwin Harbour with the concept of establishing base load trades which would promote the introduction of scheduled liner service into Darwin and would complement the railway project.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, today I address the concerns of overcrowding at Bakewell Primary School. Yesterday, I talked about enrolments at Bakewell Primary being at capacity and projected to increase in both preschool and primary, where the school has a permanent prescool capacity of 100 student places and a primary capacity of 480. DEET has provided an additional four transportables since the school opened, taking the primary capacity to 600. It currently has 566 primary age students accommodated within that 600 capacity.
In line with the DEET Infrastructure Strategic Plan, schools for Rosebery and Farrar have been planned as part of the capital works and forward works program. Until such time as those schools are constructed, DEET will endeavour to manage enrolments from these emerging suburbs in transportable accommodation at Bakewell, Woodroffe, Driver and Moulden. However, to address the immediate demand at Bakewell, DEET has made provision on the current 2002-03 minor new works program for construction of two transportable classrooms at $350 000, and an additional two transportables and toilet facilities in 2003-04 minor new works program, should that level of demand continue. I talked yesterday about the need to upgrade the power to the site in order to accommodate these additional rooms at a cost of $150 000. That is being worked upon now to allow that to happen as an absolute priority, even though the $150 000 was not inside the original costing.
That capacity figure that we talked about is based on up to 30 students per classroom. The NT News article today mentions 20 classrooms, but it fails to mention that the school also has the following teaching spaces: two general purpose rooms which is what they report as the stage; the library resource area; a special education classroom; community room; five withdrawal rooms; plus the multipurpose hall. All of the above areas are in addition to the classroom spaces not included in the above capacity total. It should be noted that, when the additional two transportables are on site in 2003, the capacity will increase to 660 which will reduce the utilisation rate to 85%, which would then be within acceptable levels of utilisation.
DEET officers have consulted with the school council regarding the strategy proposed to accommodate enrolment growth. That strategy was presented to the school council meeting on 11 September 2002, which was attended by the Acting Manager, Infrastructure, and the Director of Financial Services. In addition, DEET is writing to all parents explaining the current situation, to emphasise this pressure is temporary and DEET is doing everything in its power to minimise impact on students.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, my understanding is that, at the meeting on 11 November, the position of the school was put fairly clearly that they did genuinely need the four demountables that they understood was committed to. It may be difficult for demographists to understand that, as a Grade 7 class leaves at one end, we have three discrete intakes of transition at the other end. Therefore, we cannot just take one class at the top and add one class at the bottom; it is too simple, because we have more entering at the bottom end. The solution to this is quite clear. I was honestly astounded that there was not a recognition of the dramatic and real growth in Palmerston when we had it referenced to Rosebery Primary School being a solution. In fact, it was not acknowledged formally in any respect and reflected in the budget papers.
That is the solution to the problem we have in Woodroffe, Bakewell - which is bearing the greater brunt of it because Rosebery, with Darla now being opened up, there is no place for these students to go other than demountables in Driver – I am not sure about Gray, but certainly Bakewell and Woodroffe. They are excellent schools receiving an extraordinary amount of pressure. The fact is that they do need four demountables immediately to solve the current problem. They also need the ablution block because, with the high level of female teachers on staff, there is simply not enough toilet facilities for the female staff. They do need the ablution block - plain and simple.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): I thank the member for his comment, Madam Speaker. He really should know that he is at liberty to contact me at any time on these issues. I will certainly talk to him if he has a view that the information that I have from the department is incorrect. I can just reiterate: current population 566; two demountables at the start of 2003 increases that to 660. On my reckoning there is a spare capacity of 94. Those figures do not suggest that you need an additional two right at the start of 2003. The situation will be monitored very closely for immediate inclusion midway through the year if that demand continued at the pace that it is.
So, on my reckoning, and the advice from the department, is that it is within the numbers; that you get down to 85%. Okay, that is going to increase, and if that got up to 100% again by mid next year, then those extras would come in. I suggest to the member, pick up the phone, give me a ring, e-mail – whatever - always happy to talk to you if you think we do not have it right.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, it really sounds as though your voice is suffering today. If you want to give it a rest, that would be fine by me.
Mr STIRLING: It is the member for Daly’s fault!
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend section 132 of the Police Administration Act to enable members of the Northern Territory police to manage some persons in custody more practically and safely. The bill, when passed, will assist in ensuring that persons who still appear to be seriously affected by alcohol or a drug, after being in custody for six hours receive an available level of medical attention.
The amendments arise from a recommendation made last year by the Territory Coroner in an inquest into the death of a man who had been released from protective custody. On 4 December 2000, Mr George M was taken into protective custody in Katherine under section 128 of the Police Administration Act, and was detained for in excess of six hours, then released. Approximately half-an-hour following his release, the man was fatally struck by a motor vehicle whilst crossing the Stuart Highway. Post mortem blood analysis showed the deceased had a concentration of alcohol in his blood of more than 0.33 at the time of his death.
A Coronial inquest was held in August 2001. On 12 October 2001, the Coroner handed down his findings from the inquest. At page 15 of his decision, the coroner found that:
The actions of Northern Territory police were not criticised and were found to have been appropriate.
Although the operation of section 132 was considered by the Coroner during the inquest, the effects of this finding was that section 132 procedure of the Police Administration Act was irrelevant to the death. The current provisions of section 132 of the Police Administration Act require, with one exception, that where a person has been in custody for six hours and continues to be intoxicated - which has a technical meaning, being ‘apparently seriously affected by alcohol’ - the police must ‘… bring the person … before a justice …’ as soon as practicable. The purpose of this process is to authorise further detention.
The exception I referred to is contained in section 129(3) of the act. That section currently provides that, where a person is still intoxicated at midnight, they may be held without any further authority until 7.30 am. This provision applies regardless of whether the person continues to be intoxicated until that time, and its operation and effect will remain unchanged. Although the Coroner did not criticise the actions of the Northern Territory Police in releasing the deceased, and in fact found the member’s actions were appropriate, he did note that there are various practical difficulties in applying section 132. These difficulties are particular apparent in isolated or remote localities. The current provisions also do not specifically acknowledge or address the possible health risks to intoxicated persons at this time.
and
The amendments proposed by the bill recognise these issues. The process which the bill intends to provide for is already being applied by the Northern Territory police in practice. Although people rarely appear to be still seriously affected by alcohol after six hours in custody, it is the Northern Territory police’s policy to seek medical attention when this occurs. The Territory government considers it important to recognise these matters in legislation. It is the Northern Territory police’s current practice to assess each intoxicated person at the time of admission to the watch-house. The person is then checked at regular intervals whilst in custody.
The times during which any serious health risks are most likely to become apparent or arise are at admission and during the first hour or two in custody. People in protective custody are currently permitted to sleep off the effects of alcohol or drugs, particularly between midnight and 7.30 am. The bill will not alter this current exception to the six-hour period contained in section 129(3) of the act.
This exception exists due to people’s usual sleeping habits, regardless of whether they are intoxicated. Members of the police are currently able to seek medical attention for persons between midnight and 7.30 am in appropriate circumstances, and this discretion will continue to apply. Where it appears that a person’s condition is deteriorating rather than improving, or any circumstances become apparent which may be cause for serious concern, expert medical assistance is sought.
Nor will the bill alter the rights which persons currently have under section 133 of the Police Administration Act. Section 133 entitles a person in protective custody to request a member of the Northern Territory police to take him or her before a justice to make an application to the justice for their release. Section 133 currently requires the member of the Northern Territory police, if it is reasonably practical, to do so forthwith. This right is unaffected by the amendments and will remain.
The clauses and definitions which provide for the process are drafted to ensure as much flexibility as possible. The central requirement on members of the Northern Territory police will be to arrange for a health practitioner to attend to the person who appears to be still intoxicated as soon as practicable. The definition of ‘health practitioner’ is deliberately very broad. Remote locations in the Territory do not enjoy the same levels of medical expertise which exist in the more populous centres of the Territory. Despite this, those places that have at least a police station and a health clinic will be able to rely on the provisions in cases of persons with substance abuse problems, which may also be masking a serious acute medical problem.
The bill provides the Northern Territory police with authority to continue to detain persons in custody for the purpose of arranging for a health practitioner to attend to the person. The precise manner in which the provisions will operate will obviously depend on what location of the Territory the provisions are being applied. These matters are currently being discussed and decided between the Northern Territory police and the Department of Health and Community Services.
This legislation will assist members of the Northern Territory police to better manage persons in custody who suffer serious health problems and chronic alcohol or other substance abuse. The bill is constructive legislation which is intended to ensure that, where required, members of the Northern Territory police consider an available level of medical attention for persons who may suffer from these problems and who may be most at risk. The amendments are consistent with the Coroner’s recommendations handed down on 12 October 2001, and will also give members of the Northern Territory police certainty and confidence in carrying out this aspect of their duties. The bill, when passed, should also assist in preventing deaths in custody. As such, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time. The main purpose of this bill is to introduce environmental offences and penalties that are consistent with the Environmental Offences and Penalties Act, improve the management of the environmental aspects of petroleum activities, and to remove certain provisions in the Petroleum Act that are no longer relevant.
The Petroleum Act applies to land within the Northern Territory but not to offshore areas beyond the low water mark. Some of the more significant amendments relating to environmental matters are as follows:
the removal of specific operational conditions such at the reporting of the location of base camps;
methods of waste disposal; underground water flow and water quality; as well as the requirement to
provide an environmental management plan for exploration. These issues are covered by the general
conditions in section 58 of the act relating to general conditions, as well as under the regulations and
directions issued by the minister under section 71 of the Petroleum Act;
under title. This will ensure that the holder had complied with title conditions and that the area is
rehabilitated to an acceptable level;
conditions will be possible at any time during the term of the licence. Currently, it is only reviewable
at the grant, renewal, transfer or variation of a title. This will enable changes to be made to the amount
of security held by the government. If there is an increased risk to the environment, then the security can
be increased. Or conversely, if progressive rehabilitation is undertaken, the security can be reduced, and
operations under the act. These offences and penalties are consistent with the Environmental Offences
and Penalties Act.
Another group of amendments relates to the deletion of provisions considered obsolete and, therefore, inconsistent with current petroleum title administration. These include:
the removal of the requirement to lodge a statutory declaration stating the applicant’s interest, if any,
in any application or granted title under the Petroleum Act or the repealed act; that is, the Petroleum
(Mining and Prospecting) Ordinance. This requirement is no longer considered relevant and it does
not add any merit to the application; and
published in the NT News and the Koori Mail, the relevance of the publication of applications in the Gazette
is diminished.
Other amendments are administrative in nature and clarify certain provisions to enable a more efficient administration of petroleum titles and applications. These include: amending the annual fee which was formerly referred to as ‘rent’, to be lodged when the offer of grant is accepted by the applicant; making the term of the permit five years instead of having a term which can vary from two to five years; amending the term ‘permit’ to ‘exploration permit’ to indicate the nature of the title and the type of activities that would be conducted under that title; inserting a condition that a retention licence holder must discover a commercially exploitable accumulation of petroleum within his retention licence area prior to the grant of a production licence - this will ensure consistency with the existing requirement for an exploration permit holder to do the same before the grant of a production licence; standardising the acceptance period for an offer of grant or renewal to 28 days; maintaining consistency between the suspension of the permit conditions and a period of extension of the term of the permit; and including a penalty regime to conform to the Northern Territory government policy of establishing a penalty units structure for offences.
The amendments will also incorporate the shift to a new geocentric datum, the Geocentric Datum of Australia, or GDA94, to describe the position of titles. As honourable members will recall a similar amendment to the Northern Territory Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act passed through the House earlier this week. The background to this amendment is that on 1 January 2000, Australia adopted a new world-wide coordinate system called GDA94 to replace the existing AGD66. This shift in datum means that the physical position of a title will remain the same on the earth’s surface but its coordinates will change as they will be referenced under the new datum. In principle, the amendments provide for the description of a point, line, block or other area in a title or instruments in latitude and longitude under the GDA94. The distance between the same set of coordinates for a position on the different datums will be approximately 200 m to the north-east.
The advantages of this shift are that it is compatible with modern survey techniques. It provides for the integration and compatibility with an international global system and it includes the direct use of satellite positioning systems. The new datum is based at the earth’s centre of mass and is linked directly to the orbit of satellites. The change will allow Australian latitudes and longitudes to be integrated in the new global system for greater accuracy and efficiency. The Commonwealth Petroleum (Submerged Land) Act has adopted this system and the amendments to the Petroleum Act are consistent with that legislation.
Finally, the amendments also include the updated gender provisions to keep in line with Northern Territory government policy.
Madam Speaker, the amendments proposed by this bill will facilitate better management of the environmental aspects of petroleum activities and provide for better petroleum title administration. I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend various Northern Territory laws in minor respects or to correct minor errors which have come to light. None of the changes proposed reflect substantive changes in policy. A number of acts have been identified as having served their purpose and the bill effects their repeal. These include the Commission of Inquiry (Chamberlain Convictions) Act, the Criminal Law (Regulatory Offences) Act, the Racing, Gaming and Liquor Commission Act Repeal Act, the Transfer of Powers (Law) Act; and the Transfer of Powers (Health) Act. A similar situation exists with section 3 and the schedule to the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act.
Clause 9 corrects a mistake contained in section 190 of the Law of Property Act. The Law of Property Act repealed the Perpetuities Act 1994 and replaced it with Part 11 of the Law of Property Act. In particular, section 190 of the Law of Property Act replaced section 11 of the Perpetuities Act. In the course of repeal and reenactment, the word ‘not’ was inadvertently left out of section 190. Clause 9 remedies that error with clause 2(2) providing that this correction is deemed to have occurred on 1 December 2000, being the date of commencement of Law of Property Act.
Clause 12 of the bill amends the Unit Titles Act in such a way that all fees other than court fees can be set by regulations made under the Registration Act. Currently, the Registration Regulations provide for the fees payable to the Registrar-General under the Unit Titles Act, but do not cover other fees collected by the Registrar-General for various other processes in place under the Unit Titles Act. This amendment will enable the preparation of consolidated regulations under the Registration Act covering all of the fees payable to the Land Titles Office in respect of dealings with land.
Another amendment worth noting in this bill is the inclusion of a definition of ‘order of the court’, in section 19 of the Local Court Act. This will overcome a potential problem that, in practice and in accordance with rule 4.04 of the Local Court Rules, appeals from decisions of the court constituted by a Judicial Registrar or Registrar, go to a magistrate. Technically, the act currently provides that appeals from the local court which, according to a current definition includes a Registrar or Judicial Registrar, are to the Supreme Court.
Other amendments are consequential to the repeal of other legislation. For example, the repeal of the Caravans Parks Act requires definitions to be inserted into those acts, regulations or by-laws that relied on the Caravan Parks Act for definitions of caravans and caravan parks.
The schedules to the bill contain a number of minor changes to other acts and regulations. Amendments such as those to the Disasters Act and to the Health Practitioners and Allied Professionals Registration Act aim to remove the need to constantly amend this legislation every time a department’s name is changed. The regulation making provisions in the Darwin Port Corporation Act are amended by changing the maximum penalty so it is expressed in terms of penalty units. This will make sure that the regulations and the act express penalties in the same terms. The other amendments made by the bill are of a very minor nature and are generally self-explanatory.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Statute Law Revision Bill (No 3) 2002 to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 16 October 2002.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, this bill principally covers two areas of application of the legislation of payroll taxes. The amendment demonstrates that, from the point of view of legislation in this particular area of payroll tax, and indeed, the collection of any taxes, that it is necessary for a government to ensure that the ability to apply those taxes and to collect them is watertight.
From the second-reading speech, it is not evident that there have been problems in relation to the collection of taxes. To quote the second-reading speech: ‘to clarify anomalies that could potentially hinder the recovery powers under the act’, is an appropriate course of action for a government to take in identifying problems before they arise and taking action to ensure that they do not; that is, amending the legislation as is the case with this amendment to ensure that the ability exists to be able to do so.
From that point of view, the opposition supports the amendments, recognises the purposes for which they are being made, and considers it appropriate – I suppose housekeeping would be an appropriate term - to ensure that the ability to recover payroll tax or monies owed to the commissioner is sound. From that point of view, we support the bill.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition spokesperson on these matters for their support of this bill. The amendments are straightforward, albeit minor. They do close off that loophole in the event that they are unable to recover additional tax in these two areas of further tax, and whether the particular group member was an employer or not. It is consistent with most other jurisdictions’ tax legislation in the payroll tax area. We thank the opposition for their support.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 17 September 2002.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I can put on the record that the opposition will be supporting this bill. The main purpose of the bill is to implement the National Competition Policy Review of the Agents Licensing Act.
The review actually started many years ago in 1995 when the Commonwealth, states and territories signed an agreement. There are, in fact, 14 recommendations that were made. They were made by what the Attorney-General referred to as the Centre of International Economics.
I have discussed the second-reading speech and portions of the proposed bill with representatives from the real estate industry, and I am happy to report that, although there it was not unanimous, generally speaking they were comfortable with the proposed changes. In fact, one leading proprietor of the second largest real estate firm in Darwin said frankly, he has no real difficulty with the changes. They are interested in some reforms to the procedural aspects of the Agents Licensing Board, and he is going to play an active role in that.
The opposition, as I said, will be supporting the bill in general terms. I note something that has been happening for years, of course - and not that we are really making the point - but the deletion of the so-called sexist references from the act, deleting the word ‘chairman’ to replace it with ‘chairperson’. Obviously – perhaps the Attorney-General is aware of this - but as a matter of grammar ‘chairman’ is the Latin derivative of ‘manis’ being the chair in charge of and making sure that everyone behaves. The word ‘man’ as it appears there is not a sexist term; it is really that Latin phrase. So that is how the term ‘chairman’ came about. It certainly is no reference to the sex of the person sitting at the end of the table. In any event, it is only a minor thing. I know it is being changed to ‘chairperson’, but ‘chairman’ is actually the correct term. The word ‘man’ appears in the word ‘woman’ as well and it does not denote or have any similar connotations.
In any event, the opposition support the lengthy bill and the numerous amendments, and I can say that the industry generally supports it as well.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I support the Agents Licensing Amendment Bill as proposed by the Attorney-General.
As outlined by the Attorney-General, the main purpose of the bill is to implement reform as identified by the National Competition Policy review of the Agents Licensing Act. Clearly, this legislation is designed to further protect the consumers of real estate, businesses and conveyancing services, in respect to potential misconduct or negligence on the part of agents. Having said that, I also wish to make it very clear that, by far and away, the majority of agents presently performing these functions in the Territory are of high repute, and are regarded well in our community.
Equally, these amendments proposed by the Attorney-General provide certainty in respect to the real estate industry, business and the conveyancing industry and their operations. Of importance also, is that these amendments allow for conveyancing agents to be permitted to prepare mortgages, leases and business sale contracts subject, of course, to them having the appropriate qualifications to provide such services. These amendments augur well for the consumer, as it will provide a basis for more competition in the marketplace and, accordingly, more options in terms of product.
The amendment bill provides far more objective criteria in determining if an agent is a fit and proper person to hold a licence. This is another consumer protection provision. This bill also seeks to address the educational requirements for agents. It is imperative that the right mix be accommodated, and the bill allows the Agents Licensing Board the authority to approve competency-based courses, provided there is consultation with the industry bodies and relevant government agencies. These provisions draw on the experience of the unnecessary tension experienced interstate between the industry and the licensing authorities, industry bodies and educational regulators. The previous arrangements for industry training are less than satisfactory, whereby the Real Estate Institute in the Northern Territory is the sole provider of training content and delivery.
Clause 26 of the bill allows other training providers to access funding from the Fidelity Fund for the purpose of providing educational courses. This amendment provides for real competition and allows education institutions, such as, for example the NTU, to compete in the industry.
Clause 31 of the bill removes the requirement for an agent to maintain an office in the Territory in order to practice here. Times have moved on and, in this day and age, it is a simple fact that businesses have the capacity to operate and perform on a national and, indeed, an international level. The requirement to have a trust account in the Northern Territory and other compliances will remain. No longer will the industry be required to have licensed agents in each and every office. Under the proposed amendments, it will be sufficient to assign the management role to a business manager. One business manager may have responsibility for more than one office. The business manager must exercise appropriate control of each office and severe penalties will apply where this is not done. This amendment will result in some savings in efficiency in the industry without sacrificing industry standards.
Membership of the Agents Licensing Board will now be drawn from the entire industry, not just from nominees, as was the case in the past, of the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory. This amendment will ensure a more representative board.
Madam Speaker, the Agents Licensing Amendment Bill 2002 is a good package of reforms and will improve competition in the industry, and this must be good news for consumers. I urge members to support the bill.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition for their support of what is a fairly routine reform as part of our overall reforms in view of the national competition policies. You are right to say that there is no great heat about these reforms in the industry. We have had extensive consultation with the real estate industry and conveyancing agents and, while it is to some extent a brave new world; that there is some new deregulated arrangements, particularly the ability of interstate firms to operate more freely into the Northern Territory, equally, I suppose the opportunity is there for the reverse to happen.
Everyone has accepted that these are sensible reforms. They are reforms that the industry can live with, and life will go on. Probably in more recent conversations I have had with the real estate industry, they are much more interested in how the economy and the property market is going than these particular structural changes. I again welcome the opposition’s support and commend the member for Barkly’s contribution to the debate. It was, as usual, well researched and reflects very much what the bill is trying to do.
Just one other issue. I share the member for Goyder’s comments about how language does change. However, language does change; it is not frozen in time. I personally find ‘chairwoman’ a bit of a mouthful as well. But that is coming into common use and our legislation has to reflect the contemporary use of language rather than its roots. I accept the learned gentleman’s explanation of where ‘chairman’ originated from, but we have reflected the contemporary uses in the act, as we try to do with all legislation that we bring forward.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 4:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 32.1.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 8, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 9:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 32.2.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 12, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 13:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 32.3.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 32.4.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 25, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 26:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 32.5.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 32.6.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 28 to 30, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 31:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 32.7.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 32.8.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 17 October 2002.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, at the outset let me say that no one denies that pool fencing will not help prevent children drowning. It is one of many measures which will help prevent children drowning, but is also only one measure in a combination of several others, the most important of which is parental vigilance.
In April 2002, the Chief Minister flagged that she would introduce Territory-wide pool fencing legislation, then went on to coerce local government into complying with her wishes; shoe-horning her draft on the run into the throats of local government. The process that the Chief Minister took is an example of how this government has approached many of its social engineering agenda; that is, it announces what it wants to do then embarks on the gammon consultation process. It is a classic case of how not to make a decision.
On her so-called round of consultations, the Chief Minister found that many of her plans were unworkable. As the Lord Mayor of Darwin said to me, and I quote:
I quote again:
The Minister for Community Development wants all private swimming pools to be fenced according to Australian Standards and I wonder if he truly understands what that means. In his second-reading speech, the minister intimated that all new swimming pools would have to comply, but existing swimming pools do not need to have complying fences until the properties are sold. Furthermore, all swimming pools must be registered within 18 months of the legislation. To encourage pool owners to register and comply with the pool fencing requirements, the minister has provided a cash bonus of up to one-third, or $5000, and an interest-free loan up to the remaining two-thirds, to assist non-complying pool owners to do so. This incentive is denied every Territorian who has been responsible and put in complying fencing. Those who have taken the bother to comply with Australian Standards from the very beginning - even those who have just done so in the last few weeks - will not be able to receive the grant or the interest-free loan.
I now come to the next point about the exemption of pools in properties of two hectares or larger. What is the rationale for this? Can a child not drown in a pool on a two hectare or larger block? What difference is there between a child walking from its home, down a road, through a neighbour’s backyard and falling into a pool, whether it is in a large or small block? At the moment, the municipal by-laws require these pools in two hectare or larger blocks to be fenced. This legislation says they do not have to fence it. Is this then legislation which is designed to make swimming pools safer? I think not. May I ask: what is a swimming pool? What is the definition? By definition on page 4 of the bill …
Dr Burns: What is the definition of ‘death’?
Dr LIM: If I may? On page 4:
(a) is capable of being filled with water to a depth of 300 millimetres or more at the deepest point
of the swimming pool; and
used, for the purpose of swimming, wading, paddling or another human aquatic activity,
(d) a structure that is within a bathroom that is within a building; or
(e) a structure that is prescribed not to be a swimming pool for the purposes of this act …
Can the minister then explain to me: does this apply to any supermarket vinyl splash pool, one of those that can hold water to a depth of 300 mm or more? If I have this vinyl splash pool in my backyard …
Dr Burns: Always got the big picture; always the big picture man, but he never made it.
Mr Bonson: Always targetting the …
Mr Dunham: This is not a frivolous issue you know. This is quite a serious issue we are trying to discuss here.
Dr Burns: It is a serious issue.
Mr Dunham: Well, then stop interjecting, just let him have a go.
Dr LIM: This legislation has been on the books for all of us for a long time. This is about preventing child deaths. The frivolous, inane interjections from the members for Johnston and Millner are really very distressing and most unfortunate. It just reflects the mental attitude that these guys have.
Let me come back again to asking the minister: does this legislation apply to those supermarket vinyl splash pools? They might contain 300 mm of water or more. If this vinyl splash pool was in my backyard, I assume from the legislation, the draft bill, that I must have a complying fence around it. Is that right, minister? I hope to hear your response in your reply.
What happens then if I have this say, 2 m by 1 m contraption in my tiled lounge or bathroom? It is the same vinyl pool with 300 mm of water or more. Am I allowed to have it unfenced? I look forward to the minister responding to that.
I assume that this legislation is Territory-wide; is that correct minister? I saw this paper that you dropped off this morning for all of us. It looks like a PowerPoint presentation that you have given us a hard copy of, and it says on the third slide, on the third dot point:
If you can give me a reassurance that it applies across the Territory, that would be fine because I cannot find it anywhere in the legislation. I find it difficult to envisage how the government proposes to regulate all pools across the Territory, including many remote communities, settlements and townships. Perhaps in his reply the minister can reassure me that this legislation does apply to all private pools across the Territory, and then explain how he proposes to regulate these pools.
I would like to know how many personnel the minister proposes to have in this dedicated unit of inspectors he spoke about. How long will they take to cover the Territory to ensure all pools are registered? I have talked to some municipal councils about the inspection units. Municipal council inspection units will tell you that dedicated units will not have the effectiveness of general inspection units that they, the councils, have. The networking among members of the general inspection units, each doing jobs that will bring them into contact with pools and fences, would be able to identify and report non-compliant pools. A dedicated unit would have to rely on specific inspections, invited or not invited, aerial photography or even satellite photography. I wonder how many Territorians are going to tolerate a government that spies on them from the sky? What powers will these inspectors have? Minister, I look forward to your explanation.
Each registration of a swimming pool will need some form of compliance audit or check. That means an application fee will be required to register. In the second-reading speech, the minister never once mentioned the application fee. I ask the minister to advise this House of the fee, when it is payable and whether every pool fence has to be inspected following the application.
I vaguely recall $100 was mentioned by someone as the application fee. I quickly flicked through this PowerPoint hard copy that you provided us and I cannot identify what the fee structure is.
Ms Martin: Haven’t you flicked through the act, Richard?
Dr LIM: Well, $100. There it is on …
Ms Martin: Yes. Flick through the act as well. Dead give away.
Dr LIM: I am not sure what page this is now, but probably about the fifth or sixth page, $100. Thank you very much for that. Anyway, another new tax, isn’t it? It is another new tax that this government promised it would not introduce.
Mr Henderson: Are you supporting it or not supporting it?
Dr LIM: Yes, we are. A new tax for wanting to have a pool or spa in this tropical climate. The way I see it, this legislation was designed to catch pool owners in Darwin. The minister was careful with his words when he said there was consultation. He admitted that he had no part to play in the consultation. The Chief Minister met with the Darwin City Council, the minister’s department staff met with representatives of the Local Government Association of the NT, but the minister did nothing.
This legislation is a hastily drawn up mish-mash which attempts to extract the Chief Minister and her rash commitment from further embarrassment except that, on closer examination, it puts her deeper into it. On the one hand she said and I quote:
This is not rocket science.
And then she said later:
It is a very complex issue.
Now, it is either simple or it is complex; it cannot be both. I wonder if the Chief Minister to this day understands what she has created. Next we hear the Chief Minister say, and I quote again:
And then contradicts herself by saying, and I quote again:
We are doing the work, complex work it is.
No wonder Territorians are confused and angry that this is being imposed upon them so hastily in such a heavy-handed way. The Chief Minister was so very keen to reassure people saying, and I quote again:
No? Well, what is the registration fee for the inspection if the fence complies with the Darwin City Council by-laws at present? When the property is to be sold, at the time of conveyancing, does the fence have to be inspected and perhaps be brought to the standards stipulated by the legislation? If not, may the property be sold? Not penalised? Tell me another porky pie.
The Country Liberal Party has always maintained that we support private pool fencing. We also supported that local government was the best level of government to control pool fencing with their by-laws. They are the closest level of government to Territorians and have a strong sense of the desires and needs of the community. In my years with the Alice Springs Town Council and my continuing association with local government since then, I have never heard any calls from any local government for Territory-wide private pool fencing legislation.
The Darwin and Palmerston City Councils’ private swimming pool by-laws require a person to apply to council before construction of a private pool. I repeat: these councils, the Darwin and Palmerston City Councils, require a person to apply to council before construction of a private pool. Nowhere in this government legislation does it say that a person must apply to construct a swimming pool. Minister, if you can find it for me, I would like you to show me where it is.
I have pointed out many of the deficiencies in this legislation. It needs major correction before it can be used - if at all. The councils, particularly the Palmerston City Council, have by-laws that are better than this legislation that is being proposed by government. This government is going to repeal these by-laws. You are going to repeal by-laws that are stronger than yours. It does not make any legislative sense. You are trying to introduce legislation to improve child safety in private swimming pools. You are bringing in legislation to improve the safety, yet you are introducing legislation that is weaker than that which some councils have. Now, don’t you think that you should have at least adopted those by-laws that set a higher bar than your piece of legislation? That, to me, would be more logical. What you have done is not logical, and all it does is water down the Palmerston City Council by-laws - you have watered it down.
Mr Ah Kit: So, you want to go and tell the other councils to come into line with Palmerston? Is that what you want to do?
Dr LIM: No, while I support pool fencing, this piece of legislation has a lot of work to be done - has a lot to be done. The councils can do better, and we shall retain the responsibility with councils and …
Members interjecting.
Dr LIM: If you really want to do it properly, it would be better for you to resource the councils to introduce by-laws across the Territory - and resource them to implement the by-laws, with an appropriate inspection unit. That is what you should do, and that would be a better way to spend your money than what you are doing here.
I wish you had dropped this PowerPoint overhead a lot earlier than an hour ago. If you wanted us to seriously consider this, you should have done this several days ago. I am sure this was prepared only this morning. It prepared this morning, was it?
Let me go to slide No 4, minister. I ask you to explain this for me: in slide No 4, dot point three, swimming pools and spas located on commercial properties are not covered by this legislation. I ask you: what does that mean? Do you mean a motel, or a block of units that is owned by one private company or private person who rents it out as rental accommodation? What is a commercial property; how do you define it? It is not in this bill either; I cannot find it anywhere. Minister, I ask you to explain that. Can a child drown as easily in a motel pool as in a private swimming pool in the backyard? I suggest to you that there is just as much likelihood of a child drowning there than anywhere else. Why are you doing this exemption? I do not understand that, and I look forward to your explanation.
I have spoken a little about the role of the department and its inspection unit. Minister, I am not sure how many people you can have in the unit. I would like you to tell me about that, because I would be most interested to know how you propose that unit will be able to do all the swimming pools in Darwin, Palmerston, Litchfield and further south. At a briefing, I was told that you were going to have six inspectors in Darwin and two in Alice Springs. I do not think it is going to be adequate. I would like you to think about it before you reply, and give me an appropriate response.
I said earlier that your legislation does not require anybody - whether it be a builder or a private person - to apply to the inspection unit - I assume that is what it is, or the authority - before they can dig a hole in the backyard. Well, with last night’s rain, had there been a hole in the backyard last night, and the person dug that without any permit, the hole would be pretty full by now - and there is no fence! Is that a swimming pool? Under your definition it is!
A member interjecting.
Dr LIM: Minister, there are a lot of questions you need to respond to. Now, you laugh, minister, but a Darwin City Council or Palmerston City Council by-law will require that the private person or a company actually put in an application - that is the first thing - so the council is aware that the person is constructing a swimming pool in the backyard. When I was living in South Australia, the same thing applied. I had to apply for a permit to build. Then the first thing I had to do before I put a hole in the ground was to put a fence around the area where I was going to dig the hole. Because, what would happen is - like last night - that hole would have been filled by the rain. Then what do you do? A child could have fallen in first thing in the morning before their parents are out of bed. Are you going to take responsibility for that? So minister, your legislation is flawed.
Mr Ah Kit: So, what do you want to fence - buffalo wallows on five acre blocks? What do you want?
Dr LIM: Your legislation is flawed. Look at it closely. Why are you absolving all of Litchfield’s two hectare and larger blocks from fencing? It does not make sense. Do you think that a child would not drown in that swimming pool? Of course, it will! The house and a swimming pool are not to be going to be hundreds of metres away from each other; they are going to be pretty close to each other on a two hectare block, but you are saying in your legislation that they do not have to fence it.
Mr Kiely: Talk to the member for Goyder, he will back you on that one.
Mr Ah Kit: Member for Goyder, member for Nelson …
Dr LIM: I am not asking the member for Goyder. This is your legislation, minister, you answer. The member for Goyder and I have talked, but this is your legislation and you have to respond to that.
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Apart from the members for Nightcliff and Barkly, the interjections have been frequent, common and in a very jocular vein about this very serious matter. I would ask you to afford my colleague some protection from those interjections.
Madam SPEAKER: As people know, interjections that interrupt the flow of the speech are unacceptable. Members of government should also realise that the purpose of the second reading speeches is for people to raise issues about legislation, and it is their opportunity to do so. You should at least, when you are speaking, also raise any concerns you have about the legislation. We should allow the member for Greatorex to have his say.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, could I just make a point there? If the style of the speech is one that keeps on posing questions to government and directly doing it to a minister, then it is very difficult not to respond. Maybe that is part of the problem we have.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, I know there is …
Mr DUNHAM: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, in posing questions, he is …
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me, member for Drysdale, resume your seat. There are times when both sides are very provocative in their remarks, and you are well aware of that. That is what usually causes the interjections to come about. If members do not want to be interrupted by interjections I suggest they do not make provocative remarks. Member for Greatorex, you have the floor.
Dr LIM: Thank you, Madam Speaker. In response to the Chief Minister’s comments about my posing questions, that is what it is about. The second-reading speech is to pose questions to the minister, to the government, so that he can address them in his response or in his reply closing debate. If he cannot do it, then he has a problem.
I look forward to some very logical responses. I am sure the minister has logical and clear reasons for what he has done. I do not know what they are, reading from the second-reading speech. I cannot make out what it is. On slide No 7, ‘registration of swimming pools and spas’, the first dot point:
Anyway, I have posed quite a few questions, and the minister, I hope, has taken note and will respond to them. If he cannot, then it is really hard for us to really support this particular piece of legislation. I still say to you, minister, that local government has better by-laws in place and you should seriously consider how you can provide more resources to them so they can do their job better and ensure that their tighter legislation can be in place rather than yours.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, on this very important matter I state categorically, at the beginning, that I support swimming pool fencing. The reason I support swimming pool fencing is that I do know that one of the main reasons for death of toddlers under a certain age is by drowning in pools, and secondly baths. Therefore, there is a strong case to be put for swimming pool fences.
The difficulty I have is that the government, of its own volition, has decided to separate it into small premises and large premises. In the case of the Litchfield Shire, that means that a block above two hectares is now exempt and a block under two hectares is not exempt. There are some areas in my electorate where the one hectare blocks are right across the road from two hectare blocks. A two hectare block is roughly 100 m wide by 200 m long. A one hectare block is roughly 100 m wide by 100 m long. There are different shapes, but if you just average it out, that is what it is.
It is very fair for the owner of a one hectare block who is sitting across the road from a two hectare block to ask: ‘Why am I required to be registered when the person on the other side who has a pool does not have to be registered?’ The government, by making that exemption, has actually made itself a rod for the future, especially if it wants to introduce some form of protection around pools on larger blocks. I emphasised with the minister that the reason I was looking at the process was to recognise that the rural area, especially Litchfield Shire, does not have any by-laws. Another thing was that people had built pools with the understanding that there were not any by-laws so you have pools with quite substantial gardens and various things around them and that, if one was to try and enforce pool fences on some of those places, not only would it cause a lot of angst but it would also require a very brave swimming pool inspector. I was suggesting a look at common sense and, although you have taken up some of the issues I raised, by exempting the two hectare block you have actually created a problem which might come back to bite us later on. Anyway, I make that as a preliminary statement.
I also thank the minister for the briefings. Briefings have two good things about them. You can put your opinion to the people at the briefing and, hopefully, they take them on board. You can go away feeling really good about it and say: ‘Well, obviously the government believes that some of the things I am putting forward have common sense’. They are thinking: ‘We are a government that will listen to common sense and implement some of them’. However, I must admit that I came away from these briefings saying: ‘I have Buckley’s’.
Regardless of whether I have Buckley’s, I intend to put my thoughts about the swimming pool fence legislation to parliament. Hopefully, people will understand that what I am trying to do is not move away from the idea of fencing swimming pools - as I said, I support it - but apply a little common sense into how the legislation should be put into place. In fact, what I am trying to do is save the government money. We all know that this government wants to save money because, after all, it said there was a black hole: it is looking at deficit reduction, looking for fiscal integrity - my favourite phrase, it had spending cuts, and we have a budget development levy. I thought that this government would then make sure this legislation went through in a manner that would be most efficient - especially from the financial point of view. However, the government, from what I gathered at the briefings, is going to have 10 inspectors. That is what I was told.
A member: It has gone to 10 now, has it?
Mr WOOD: My briefing notes say 10 inspectors. Not only will those inspectors require to be paid, I imagine they will have other back-up staff within the Department of Community Development. They will have office space, vehicles and all the other costs that go with that. I would imagine that is at least $0.5m upwards - and a fair way upwards. I am being very conservative; I am just working on a figure that $50 000 per inspector including a vehicle, etcetera, and 10 of them - $0.5m.
But as I say to the government: have I got a deal for you! In fact, I have two deals, because the approach to how this legislation is to be run is the wrong way. I do not believe I actually should be speaking to the Minister for Community Development on this bill. I believe I should be speaking to the minister responsible for the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment because this bill should come under the building code.
The member for Greatorex has said he believed this legislation would be better put under local government and give local government the finances to run it properly. My argument is that, in the Northern Territory, at no stage has government of any persuasion believed the council should have either planning control or building code control - building legislation. I know because I have been battling for years trying to get local government to have planning controls.
Some councils, in their wisdom, decided to take on swimming pool legislation which, in most councils in Australia, would come under their building regulations. These councils, for whatever reason, took on swimming pool regulations. Some of them took on the sign legislation. I know why the government would love them to have those because they are probably about the most controversially pieces of legislation local government can take on. They are difficult, they cause controversy and they are hard to manage at times. However, as the government is taking it back and does not believe that local governments should have building regulations as one of their functions then, surely, we should be looking at bringing swimming pool fencing under building regulations. It just makes sense.
For instance, in the Northern part of Australia in the cyclone region, if you want to build a solid fence - I think it is one metre high – you are required to get an engineering certificate. It is a fence - just a fence! So what is the difference between that fence and a swimming pool fence? I cannot see any difference. You could use the system we have already. In fact, you could use section 50 of the Building Act, which deals with safety standards around a construction. In the definitions of a swimming pool, the word ‘structure’ is used - I will just double check there: ‘A swimming pool is an excavation, structure or vessel’. If it is a ‘structure’ all that has to be declared is that you cannot build that structure or, even if you can build it - and I take on some of the points from the member for Greatorex about perhaps getting a permit before you build it – all you needed to do is have a regulation that says you cannot fill it with water until you have a fence to the required standard constructed around that pool, and inspected and approved by the building inspector. We have building inspectors already in existence. I may not agree with the private building certification – that is another issue - but we have a system of building certifiers and inspectors.
We are only dealing with a fence; we do not require to have a whole new department start up looking after one sort of fence. It does not make any sense. So I am saying that the enforcing out of this legislation could have been carried out using existing structures at a much cheaper rate. Then you would develop your fee structure around all of that. So that is one side of the story.
The other side of the story - and this could have been included in the building regulations - is that we could apply the requirements in this act a lot simpler. We are going to have 10 inspectors going around checking everybody’s pool. Well, first of all it says that all pools on small premises, regardless of whether the council has had by-laws or not, will have to be registered in the first 18 months. I assume there is going to be a lot of registration of pools. It then says that new pools will have to be registered and the pool will have to be up to the required standard and that, where a house is rented and has a pool, or where it is being sold, you will also have to bring that pool up to the required standard.
Three councils which have swimming pool by-laws have lists of what swimming pools are registered in their municipalities - Darwin, Palmerston and Alice Springs. So, already you have a list. In the rear section of the legislation, the government can ask for a copy of those lists and the certification of those pools. Therefore, all you need to do is to automatically presume that all those pools are registered. You have it there. So, it saves a lot of money. You already got them registered, because you can only upgrade those pools at the point of sale and at the point of renting anyway, unless people want to use the incentive scheme. If you want to use the incentive scheme you take your certificate to the government or, if you have not been caught up in the loop or if the council has not caught you, you have to get it registered if you want some money. In the amendments I am trying to put forward, the onus will be on you: if you have not registered with your own council, you will have to get registered anyway. So, the amendment is not saying people should not be registered. There is a simple way of doing things.
We have to remember that the main objectives of this act is not to register pools, the main objective as written in this second-reading speech, is to ensure that the requirements of swimming pool fencing in the Northern Territory are brought up to the Australian Standards as soon as possible. Yes, you have the incentive scheme; registration is not going to make that any quicker, except for those who want an extra bit of money, because people will wait till they either rent or sell their houses. So, it is not going to …
Ms Martin: They’ll get no money!
Mr WOOD: I will come to the money. The money is not clear and I will come to the money later. Another, I suppose silly, thing about this is that the one hectare blocks of land in places where there are not by-laws, according to section 15, will have to be registered. But, because there are no by-laws, those pools do not have to have a fence and they only have to have a fence when they either sell or rent the property. Why would you register a place that did not have to be fenced in the first place? It sounds like you are just going around filling in time; I see it as nonsense. I am sure that the government really does not want inspectors doing things that do not serve any purpose.
It will be a classic case in which you will get some very angry people. I know in my electorate and anywhere else in Litchfield Shire that has blocks under two hectares, people will just shake their heads and say: ‘Why are you inspecting my block and registering my pool when I do not really need to have a fence?’ There are certain things here that lack what I call the practical touch. This legislation needs to go back and be refined; in fact, re-thought, because it will cost a lot of money.
I have a couple of other issues. The Chief Minister mentioned the incentive scheme. Whether it has been deliberate or intentional, people are being misled by the incentive scheme. The reason I say that is I was under the impression that, if you had a pool that was not fenced, you would be able to take advantage of the incentive scheme. However, this is not the way it actually reads. I will also check it out here in the little PowerPoint presentation, but the original water safety plan information sheet says,
Now, I thought upgrade meant new pool, new fence, but I do not believe it does. If you are asking people, for instance, in the one hectare subdivisions, who have never had to have a fence, to ‘Come on, be registered because you can get finance’, when you read this, they cannot. I would say they would quickly put three strands of barbed wire around and say: ‘Yes, we have a fence, we just need to upgrade it’. I do not want to tell them that – oh, I should tell them that actually.
On the front page of the five-point water safety plan - and this is where it is a little deceptive - it states:
You are telling people they can register early and get cash, but the trick is that if they do not have a fence already, they do not appear to get any money.
So, not only will you be asked to register your swimming pool in the rural area for no reason because you do not require a fence, but they will be telling you: ‘We are really doing it so that you can get some money’, which, in actual fact, you cannot. That needs to be re-thought, it is not helpful. The government should look at allowing people to use this incentive scheme for the provision of new pools, and pool fences as well. It needs to be thought through a little more thoroughly.
Mr Dunham: No 8. Solid, lockable cover.
Mr WOOD: Yes. No 8: ‘Owner prefers to use a solid lockable cover on top of a spa pool instead of swimming pool fencing’.
At the briefing they certainly supported that you could have a grille, although they were a bit concerned about an ARC mesh grille. I would say that if you have a grille that is suitable enough to hold up a child without the grille sinking, that is basically what you want.
Mr Elferink: As robust or solid as in …
Mr WOOD: That is really it, and the swimming pool inspector can make that decision. But it was to allow people not to have to cover their spa and then have to heat them up because they are so cold That is what happens with spas, especially those under verandahs - they get freezing.
I was a little disappointed after the briefing. I thought that was a good point. Perhaps the government might take on my amendment because I think it is a sensible amendment. There is no politics in it; I am just trying to be practical because that is how people use their spas.
I did have another concern, and it was raised in a letter in the paper yesterday from a bloke - he only used his first name so I will not mention his name. He had a concern that, when he rang up the information number, they did not know what the Australian Standard was. I would be interested to know what the minister has to say. This is not being frivolous; the act does deal in section 5 with the appropriate Australian Standard, and mentions the Australian Standard there.
I am not an expert on the Australian Standard, but the PowerPoint presentation you have handed out there, minister, deals with, from the second last page, swimming pool fencing heights, and there are two slides on that: gate and gate latches, where rails or horizontal supports are used. Then it goes on about the cost of swimming pool fencing. I presume this will available for the public. Does that match the Australian Standard? It does not appear to say that that is the Australian Standard. The sixth slide says:
What I am asking you is to make sure that, if that information is going to the public, it contains the Australian Standard and that there is no doubt about that because the gentleman that wrote to the NT News yesterday certainly had some doubts about whether the department knew exactly what standard was required.
My final query - and this was raised at a briefing where the member for Greatorex was present – may be through my lack of technical expertise. It deals with the application of the act under clause 3(1):
If I look at the Crown land issue - and this may not occur, but I will be hypothetical. In the Darwin municipality which takes in the Berrimah Research Farm, say there is a caretaker’s cottage there. He may have an upstairs house with a pool. Now, is he exempt under clause 3? That is, of course, within a by-law area …
Dr Lim: In a school.
Mr WOOD: At a school - if the caretaker of the school with, say, a one metre K-Mart special pool, would he have to have that fenced, or is that regarded as Crown Land? Or say, with the Police Station at Mataranka which may not have by-laws for pools. He is on a small premise, he has to be registered – well, he never has to be registered at all, because he cannot sell it, or rent it. But if the government installed the pool for him, would he be required to have a fence? Mataranka is made up of very small blocks, so that needs an explanation.
A statutory corporation, I am not sure of. I presume that would apply to …
Dr Lim: PowerWater.
Mr WOOD: Well, PowerWater - say they have some facilities. An example would be McMinns Lagoon pumping station. There is a caretaker’s cottage on that because a person lives there full-time. Perhaps they get away with it because they are on a large premises but, just in case it was cut up into small blocks, would they be exempt? But council-owned land for its staff; would they be required to fence their own pool? It would be silly for them to be telling every one else to fence pools and they were not; but are they exempt? The Jabiru Town Development Authority, I thought they had laws of their own. You might be able to explain to me why they are exempt, but I thought they did have their own by-laws under this.
I will make some more comments when it goes to committee stage. My comments are not to denigrate what the government is trying to do. I support the concept of swimming pool fences. Because swimming pool fences have not been in the Territory in all parts ever - this is the first time that many parts of the Territory will be required to come under this legislation - that the best way to do things in the Territory where people are pretty independent and not great fans of regulation, is to bring them in gradually and sensibly. The idea of introducing them with the installation of a new pool, a rented property pool and when a place is being sold, makes a lot of sense.
I believe some of the other things, like the manner in which things have to be registered and any exemptions, are going to cause problems and they are also going to cost the taxpayer a lot more money than was really needed. We could have got away with two inspectors. You might say it is not much, but if your regulation required a company which was putting pools in to not hand that pool over to the owner until there is a fence, you use the systems we have; the building inspector will make sure that there is no way a pool can get filled with water.
So there are methods that we could have used and achieved exactly what you are doing without starting up what I call a new mini-department of swimming pools. I do not know whether you would call that MOSP – yes. Anyway, I just put those comments that …
Mr Henderson: This is a job creating project.
Ms Martin: Yes, building our public sector.
Mr WOOD: Well, I would like to see job creation in projects that are wealth creating of their own. I am not sure this one is wealth creating of its own. But, anyway …
Mr Henderson: A gas pipe will do that, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: All right, thank you, minister. I do put those thoughts to you seriously. You might take them frivolously, but they do make some sense.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, before the luncheon adjournment, we had a contribution to this debate from the member for Greatorex which we certainly welcomed, but I have to say that at the end of that contribution, I am still uncertain about whether we have support for the bill from the opposition. There seemed to be more positions put by the member for Greatorex than we have seen in previous times. I really cannot understand whether we are actually supported by the opposition for this very important bill. I cannot tell whether we have in principle support.
The member for Greatorex asked a great number of questions about the bill, but what alarmed me was that I do not think he had actually opened the legislation. I know he attended a briefing, but maybe he did not ask those questions there. It was disappointing. He was handed the hard copy of a PowerPoint presentation and seemed to be making all of his references to that when he was asking his questions, rather than to the specifics of the legislation.
So on this side of the House, with this very important legislation, after one contribution from the opposition, we are no clearer about whether we and Territorians are going to have bipartisan support in this House. The member for Nelson made it very clear when he contributed to this debate. He said: ‘I am supporting this bill’. He had a number of points to raise …
Mr Dunham: No, he did not. He said it requires amendment and it is poorly drafted and you should take it away and do it again. Do not verbal him.
Ms MARTIN: He said: I have a number of points to address, and I am in support of this bill. From the opposition’s point of view, we do not understand …
Mr Dunham: That is not what he said!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, you will have your chance. Chief Minister, would you direct your speech through me and not directly across to the member for Drysdale who is retaliating.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, it is an important point to make. It would be appreciated by Territorians if we could know the opposition’s position on this bill. It has been interesting in the debate that we have had over the last six to eight months, that the opposition has never indicated a clear position. They seem not to have the courage to say: ‘This is something that needs to come into place - adequate pool fencing right across the Territory’. I hope further contributions to this debate might actually sort out what that position is. To me, it indicates a fence-sitting attitude. It indicates great prevarication and, I would say, a great deal of cowardice. That is very disappointing.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The label ‘cowardice’ should not be applied to members of this House because it is offensive. It should only be done by way of substantive motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, I do not think the Chief Minister was directing it at anyone individually. There is no point of order.
Ms MARTIN: At the heart of this legislation is the saving of human life, particularly the lives of our young children, the Territory’s most valuable asset. It is all about buying valuable time for parents and carers to protect wandering toddlers. For years, the Territory has lagged behind the rest of Australia in providing the safest possible environment for children around water.
It should be a matter of shame to the opposition that, in all their years in government, they never took steps to bring the Territory into line with every other state and territory by introducing swimming pool fencing legislation to Australian Standards. I know that the issue of pool fencing is highly contentious, but that is no reason to leave it in the too hard basket, as the previous government did for more than 20 years.
As I noted in a message to Territorians earlier this year, backyard swimming pools and spas are part of our great lifestyle, yet we have the weakest pool fencing laws in the country. The government is not proposing the introduction of stronger pool fencing laws to damage that lifestyle. Pools are at the heart of our suburban lives, they are part of our homes where we live our everyday lives: busy cooking dinner, watching television or having a cool drink at the end of a hard day. Sadly, this is when accidents can and do happen. As a parent, I know our children are always the number one priority; however, I do not believe any of us would argue it is possible to watch children every hour, every minute, every second of the day. All parents are well aware of the propensity of toddlers to wander and explore. We need to provide some safeguards for those vital first few minutes.
Children are especially vulnerable when it comes to drowning, and toddlers even more so because of poorly developed perceptional skills and poorly organised defences. They are most at risk because their increased mobility is not matched by an awareness of risk. In Australia, childhood drownings are second only to road trauma as a cause of injury or death in children under the age of 15. For those under five years of age, drowning is the most common cause of death. An issue not often considered is the fact that a significant number of survivors of near drowning suffer permanent and severe brain damage.
In 1996, Coroner John Lowndes conducted an inquest into the deaths by drowning of five young children, all two-years-old or younger, in Darwin between October 1994 and October 1995. Since that time, a further four children under the age of five have drowned in swimming pools, in addition to the two tragic drownings in Lake Leanyer last year which led to my government closing the lake to the public and carrying out extensive work to improve safety standards.
In the past 25 years, 31 children under the age of five have drowned in backyard swimming pools in the Territory; 28 of those in Darwin. These statistics, and the fact that the Territory has the highest incidence of infant drownings in Australia, are absolutely unacceptable to my government and, I suggest, to the Northern Territory population as a whole.
At the beginning of his submission to the Lowndes inquest, Dr Alan Ruben, of Kidsafe, the Child Accident Prevention Foundation of Australia made the point:
In its submission to the 1996 inquest Darwin City Council noted and again I quote:
This Northern Territory government will no longer brush aside this life and death issue.
Kidsafe’s position on pool and spa safety rests on four basic principles: appropriate pool fences - if a child cannot get into the water it cannot drown; children must be supervised in water at all times; supervisors should have a good working knowledge of first aid and resuscitation; and children should be taught water safety skills.
In relation to pool fencing, some interesting research into child drowning has been conducted in Queensland by Dr Robert Pitt of the Mater Children’s Hospital in Brisbane. Until a few years ago, Queensland had the highest rates of toddler drowning in Australia. This has now been surpassed by the Northern Territory - what a feat! Dr Pitt collected details of a large consecutive series of drowning incidents, possibly the largest series in the world. In the latest 100 immersion incidents in backyard pools and spas he studied, there were 10 fatalities and a further five children left with severe brain damage. In only two cases did children climb an Australian Standards swimming pool fence. These were the only two Queensland children to die since 1984, after climbing a fence built to Australian Standards.
In relation to supervision, certainly young children should never be in a pool unsupervised. Outside the pool, however, as I said earlier, all of us who are parents know that it is physically impossible to provide close supervision to our children 24-hours a day. Effective pool fencing and barriers can provide that possible lifesaver for those crucial few minutes before those little escapees are discovered.
A good working knowledge of first aid and resuscitation is a valuable skill for all of us, and I would encourage all Territorians to avail themselves of the excellent courses in first aid and resuscitation provided in the Territory by both St John Ambulance and the Royal Lifesaving Society. A dramatic example of the effectiveness of resuscitation was demonstrated on the Queensland Gold Coast in recent years. A child strapped in a stroller fell into a canal near the Gold Coast Hospital. During the full 10 minutes it took to find the child underwater, an emergency team was summoned from the hospital. Excellent resuscitation occurred and the child survived with no evidence of any residual damage.
In relation to child water safety, while it would seem obvious that if a child can swim it will not drown, this is, unfortunately, not always the case in practice. A four-year-old Darwin child drowned in 1994 in a neighbour’s unfenced pool, despite being able to swim the width of Nightcliff pool. There are numerous other examples interstate and overseas.
Public awareness campaigns can play a vital part in saving young lives. I am pleased to note that Darwin City Council has, over the years, conducted several campaigns highlighting supervision, fence and gate maintenance, and the need for constant supervision of young children around water. Kidsafe, the Royal Lifesaving Society, Channel 8 and others, have also been involved in these campaigns. I understand similar campaigns have been conducted in Alice Springs as well. Pool safety and awareness campaigns need to be kept up on a regular basis. As one of the witnesses to the Lowndes inquest noted: this needs to be kept up given Darwin has a somewhat more transitory population than other areas of Australia.
My government is developing an extensive electronic media campaign which will be launched next week by my colleague, the Minister for Community Development. The campaign will cover both television, radio and informational brochures in regard to the new requirements, that will be available for Territorians from January. An information line was set up in early October, and will continue for the next 18 months. Already, over 550 inquiries have been received. The information line number has been highlighted in a series of newspaper advertisements throughout the Territory.
A series of meetings with real estate agents, conveyancers, swimming pool providers, swimming pool fencing suppliers and contractors have been held in Darwin. Currently, meetings with these groups are taking place in Alice Springs to enable them to have an understanding of the new legislation.
A small pool fencing implementation unit has been established within the Department of Community Development to set up the pool fencing inspectorate that will implement the Swimming Pool Fencing Act. The issue of legal liability is one that all pool owners should carefully consider. The Australian Standards state:
Pool fencing built to Australian Standards and properly maintained will, I suggest, go a long way to providing legal protection to pool owners.
I know there will always be people in society who will oppose regulatory legislation such as this, and I respect their right to their views. Emotions have sometimes run high on both sides of the debate over this issue. Such legislation is never universally popular and, when it affects people financially, it is likely to be even less so. Nevertheless, I believe it is the responsibility of governments to make hard decisions for the benefit of the electorate as a whole. I would remind members that the introduction of the compulsory wearing of seat belts in cars was greeted with loud protests when first introduced in Australia. In the intervening years, however, countless lives have been saved by seat belts and the wearing of seat belts has long been accepted as normal practice.
My government’s five-point water safety plan includes measures to ease the financial burden on affected pool and spa owners, as well as an early registration scheme with a cash bonus. Interest-free five-year loans will be provided to help fund upgrades. The government will also provide financial assistance to parents through a water safety voucher system to help offset the cost of water safety or swimming lessons for that critical under five age group.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I strongly support this legislation, and I urge all members of this House to support it. Our five-point water safety plan is fair and equitable, and there can be no reason to oppose any measure aimed at saving young lives and buying valuable time for parents and carers. As I said earlier, while watching kids with an eagle eye, and teaching them to swim lowers risks around swimming pools, so will improvements to pool fencing. I believe we must employ every measure possible to save our children’s lives.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, it is important to say at the outset that the opposition, like the member for Nelson, supports fencing private pools. We support it; we believe it is an imperative, and that it is a fundamental issue for governments.
The threshold issue for us as legislators is to pose some questions to ourselves. The first question is: who is responsible? The CLP was quite clear that this was a matter for local government. Like the Territory government, local governments get offended by intrusions from other layers of government. I know that when the Commonwealth want us to do certain things for which we have a difference of opinion, or a different style of legislating, we are offended by their intrusion. It is the same for local government. The only difference is that here the Northern Territory government can intrude, statutorily and through its primacy in its legislative base. It can say to local government: ‘We do not think you are doing something right, you should do it differently’. So, that is the threshold question: whose job is it?
The second question is: having decided it is your job, and your responsibility, how are you going to fix the problem? That is the next question for legislators. We have to say: ‘Is it an educative program, a legislative program? Do we have inspectors and things of that ilk?’
The third question we must pose to ourselves is: ‘Have we chosen the best way?’ My colleague, the member for Nelson, was very eloquent on this. He said: ‘Do not try to have a division of opinion here that you support pool fencing and we do not, because that is a given’. All of us support pool fencing.
Those subsequent issues of criticality still have to be answered. You have already decided that it is your problem, and we can understand as a government you have that prerogative, and we support you in doing that. We do not agree with you necessarily, but we support that you can go to local government and say: ‘We believe that you are so inept, your competence is in such question that this is something we are going to un-devolve. We are going to take it back off you, and it is something we will do and, therefore, we are responsible’. So that is okay. We can understand that you would do that. You have taken on the mantle of responsibility and the next series of steps that fall to you is to fix the problem and to do it in an efficient way.
I do not believe this legislation fixes the problem. When the Chief Minister was asking what our position was and she ran a case of the tragedy of childhood drowning, none of us - none of us - are going to stand up in this parliament and say: ‘We believe that the issue of childhood drowning is an issue of little consequence.’ Of course, we are not. But it is incumbent on us, particularly in the circumstance where the Chief Minister has said: ‘This is now my job; I am now responsible. Childhood drownings from here on are on my conscience’. That is essentially what she said. That is okay. It is a brave decision within her competence.
Having sorted out our relevant positions; that is, that we believe that local government as an elected, accountable level of government, with differentiation available for the variations in geography and demographics that occur across the Territory, is best placed for this issue. We think that the Chief Minister agrees with us on this. Because, if this was universal uniform legislation across the Territory, it would apply everywhere. Already, she has arrived at that threshold issue with us. She said: ‘Things are different in Litchfield and Darwin - Gapuwiyak, Lake Evella, Ti Tree, all a bit different - so we will have different stages of regime across it’.
That is pretty much where we were. We said that it is a matter for those local authorities to competently decide what is best for their community, to face their constituents at the ballot box and to be lobbied by those constituents on matters such as this. That is where we differ.
However, the opposition fully respects the Chief Minister’s right, and her bravery, in saying that this is a matter that is her responsibility - totally. There are issues relating to consultation where she asserted that it is a matter that the opposition was all over the place with. I can tell you it was very difficult to elicit detail from the government. My colleague from Greatorex read out various statements where the Chief Minister said: ‘Look, this is not rocket science’ and within three lines in Hansard was saying: ‘This is a very complex issue’.
She received a tick for her first year of government from the NT News for bringing in pool fencing, and we were still keen to get the details. As late as this morning, we were still receiving details on this. So do not give us this thing that we are all over the place. We are responding to what you have decided to do, which is to take the full responsibility, onus and rectification steps upon yourself.
What we want to do, as concerned people who critically analyse legislation in this parliament, is to see whether it is going to work. One of the things you have to ask yourself is: if the Darwin City Council had a certain level of legislation, and the bill before this House has a lesser level of legislation, is that likely to make it better? In my head, I would say: ‘Nup.’ If the Darwin City Council has a regulatory regime that is stricter than this - and I was quite interested at some of the comments from across the way. When the member for Nelson was pointing out that it was quite an intensive bureaucratic process and there were other ways of doing it, the member for Wanguri said: ‘It is a job creating project’. While that is cynical, it would appear that it is certainly top heavy and extravagant with human resources. That is something that we have to look at.
The Chief Minister said: ‘We are not proposing stronger pool fencing laws’. You have to say: well, if it is the same or, I would suggest, weaker than Darwin, why are you doing it?. Why have you taken away the responsibility from the Darwin City Council to look at pool fencing across the municipality and make it weaker? I cannot understand this. I can understand them upping the ante and various little strategies to make it stronger, but to have a lesser regime just flies in the face of reason.
I will use my own case. I currently live in Leanyer and I have a fully compliant pool fence. It complies with all the diagrams there. It is 1.2 m high, it has 100 mm gaps in the bars 100 mm above the ground, self-locking gate, all of that stuff. Under this legislation, I can actually take it down tomorrow; I do not need that fence. I can have a totally unfenced pool.
I have probably a dozen neighbours living within 100 m, and I can have an unfenced pool in the municipality of Darwin, and it fully accords with this legislation. That is dumb! Of course, I shall not remove my fence because, like many commentators out there, many people believe the first issue is an issue of responsibility for not just the parent, but for the landholder. As a parent and a landholder, I believe I carry that dual responsibility. That pool fence is there because I am a parent, first and foremost. Indeed, before there were pool fencing regulations here in Darwin and we had a pool, we fully complied with those standards that existed. As a parent, I am quite happy to say: ‘No matter what you say legislatively, I will have my fencing to a standard that I think provides a secure environment for young children’.
The other thing is this business of who benefits from it in terms of this little fund of pool fencing upgrades. If I, with my extensive pool fence, go to the government, they will say: ‘No, you’re right, mate. You’re tickety-boo’. What we want to do is subsidise those people who have not done the right thing, who have not brought it up to standard, which seems a rather strange thing. I can understand that you would want to bring those pool fences up to standard but, essentially, the people who have done the most work receive the least reward, and the people who have done the least work receive the most. While that is a sort of Communist Manifesto thing, it is a very strange way of providing this sort of incentive.
There is no doubt that, while the word ‘tax’ does offend those opposite, this is a tax. It is a fee that will be payable; it is something that will cost money. It is something that, because of its high levels of inefficiency, will mean that we are paying for this. We are paying for something that is born inefficient. There are other models and other ways of doing it as the member for Nelson has pointed out.
The Chief Minister has within her repertoire of inspectorial capacity, quite a large capacity already on the streets, with uniforms, able to be deployed for this stuff. So, setting it aside is a unique thing has some logistical problems and, certainly, some efficiency problems.
The whole law enforcement issue I will leave to other speakers, but issues of compliance are not issues of a once-only inspection. I have been to a couple of barbecues recently where people, in anticipation of this, have already fully fenced their pool and taken down the panels for the barbecue because, obviously, it intrudes on their backyard area. Now that is going to be a fairly frequent phenomena and I would say that if you were going to get into this law enforcement type regime, it is not just a once-off inspection. This is big brother keeping his eye out all the time for these naughty people who might remove a couple of panels now and then.
The logistics of registration are difficult also because each of the councils has done it a different way. I understand in Palmerston City Council it is actually recorded against the property, whereas in other places it might be recorded against the applicant. So the merging of these data bases is a matter that is going to take some time. Perhaps in the early stages, you say: ‘Look, if you are adequately registered with your local municipality, we will leave it there. We do not need to look at it’, and look at others. Because there will be some urgent tasks. The most urgent task will involve people who are trying to sell their property. What we are going to have in a mere few weeks is, if you sell your property, an inspector will go around and say: ‘Look, come settlement day you are not going to be able to settle this, mate, because your pool is not up to standard’. One would assume then that, having been served that notice – and one would assume you activate it by ringing somebody, who may to be out in a matter of days - you then have to do the remedial works. Following this, one would assume that the inspector comes back and assesses the works and says they are okay.
Most real estate agents will tell you that settlement up here is 30 days. So I hope these blokes have roller skates on, because there is great potential for this to intrude on the orderly conveyancing in this town. The trading of property in this town could be slowed remarkably, especially if we find that these inspectors are a bit slow getting out and that the people who are selling have to call the inspector, get the remediation works done, call in the contractor, call the bloke back to check it - all within 30 days. While on the one hand I am saying that you are awash with staff, I would hope your staff treats this as an issue of great concern to make certain that people who are selling property at some hundreds of thousands of dollars and seeking to move elsewhere - or to even move to the Territory - are not somehow put behind the eight ball because the inspectorial regime takes so long.
If the Chief Minister is genuine in her attempt to save human life, I applaud that - I put that firmly on the record – but we have to analyse all of the drowning statistics. We have to look at the causes for it. While I will be the first to admit pool fencing is an ameliorator of those statistics, potentially, I would say that there are other sites that are also hazardous. The Chief Minister herself has mentioned Lake Leanyer. Lake Leanyer had some design difficulties that are being changed, but there are places with much more radically hazardous design difficulties than that.
For instance, there is the wharf. I would say that the biggest drowning hazard in Darwin is the wharf. Not only do you have a trip hazard that is a mere 30 cm of the ground, and not only is it unfenced, but the water underneath is not still. Sometimes it is going through under that wharf at some knots. So while we are on identifying drowning hazards, there are many of them. There are also many of them in Aboriginal communities that are not called swimming pools. They are places where children frequent that, unfortunately and tragically, emerge on our statistics from time to time. So let us do a little back track; let us see all of those circumstances where the potential for drowning exists and whether there is the necessity to take this further. Because it is not right to talk, on one hand, about the tragedy of childhood drowning and then, on the other hand, about how the masked crusader here with her cape is going to come in and stop all that. Because, the tragic reality is there could well be more. I would suggest that, having taken on the great mantle of responsibility that the Chief Minister has, and then conveniently flicked it past to the unfortunate Minister for Community Development, she has more work to do and she has to start looking at things.
People in my electorate who live in Bayview and Fairway Waters are most concerned about the government’s steps with regard to those bodies of water there. I know you can say it is exempt in the act and all the rest of it but, the fact is, if Lake Leanyer and pools that most people in Darwin believe are adequately fenced are a drowning hazard, so too are these public bodies of water. I would like the Chief Minister to explain, if her fundamental ingoing position is that she wants to prevent drownings, why there are other bodies of water other than swimming pools exempted. Many of our Aboriginal communities along the coast have access to water, and there are young kids who swim in pretty much all of them - every place I have ever been, anyway. This probably has to go further in annunciating how this policy - this one shot in the locker policy of the Chief Minister taking over the fencing - is going to fix all of that.
I was also a little disappointed with the Chief Minister talking about seat belts and how people were a bit agin it, but it came in – I am not sure that is directly relevant. I do agree that governments can introduce something sometimes where there is an absolute cause and effect exit. The seat belt issue, yes, okay, it was pretty brave of governments of the day and all the rest of it. Prior to seat belts, there were no seat belts. Prior to the Clare Martin Swimming Pool Fencing Bill, there were pool by-laws. Some of these statistics she quoted, they were in municipalities where such legislation exists, albeit by-laws. So you are not going to an environment here where there has been an absolute absence of any legislation.
You may run the case then that, okay, what about those recalcitrants in Katherine where there were no by-laws? It could well be that Katherine has to be looked at. But I will tell you, I lived in Katherine. I lived there for most of my young life and I swam in the river pretty much every day. The drownings in Katherine occur in the Katherine River. They are still tragic and they include people I knew. But let us not assume that, if every pool is fenced in Katherine, that drownings will disappear, because they will not. The most commonly used body of water in Katherine is the beautiful Katherine River. It is also a potentially hazardous environment, particularly for young children, and drownings will continue to occur.
Therefore, the Chief Minister cannot just take this on and say: ‘CLP left problem’. Chief Minister swans in, puts bill on the table, gives it to her faithful travelling companion over here and it is all done …
Mr Ah Kit: The good looking fellow.
Mr DUNHAM: The good looking fellow, and a damn fine and competent swimmer, if I might add and whose pool is fenced. I know that for a fact because I have actually swum in the minister’s pool - once when he was not there. No, that is not true. I swam there when it was owned by a previous person. But it is fully compliant and fenced and I applaud him for that. I hope he has done a little stocktake through his ministry and advisors, because they might be surprised when they do that stocktake about levels of compliance within the pack. But that is obviously for another day.
As legislators, it would not be a productive debate if we talked about the great tragedy of young drowned kids and just left it there. If that is our ingoing position - if our ingoing position is to eradicate that - we have to pose those questions: whose problem is it; will this fix it; and is it the best way of fixing it? I am quite happy to sign off on it being the Chief Minister’s problem. So threshold issue one, I would disagree with her and believe it is a matter for local government, but I understand it is within her competence and is something that she and her government want to do. So I am happy to tick off on that.
Issue two: does it fix it? I would say no. Issue three: is it the best way? I would say no. So I hope that is clear to the Chief Minister because we, as an opposition, have no problem with the government entering this field. We have no problem with them enacting an act of this type. We are merely being concerned, critical commentators. If she wants to portray that as ‘Therefore you are happy to sign off on childhood drownings’, that is not the case. That is not the case; everybody on this side would support any measure to reduce that.
But what we will say is that this is a flawed piece of legislation. It is certainly late. The consultation was definitely flawed. I talked to people in a policy area who were involved with this who were saying to the Chief Minister: ‘For God’s sake, talk to the councils’. She was out there doing all this chest beating about how she was going to fix it up; did not describe to councils the regime she wanted to put in place, had very conflicting points of view going out about the complexity or otherwise of this legislation and how it would be achieved; and that was the biggest problem at the start. So, the biggest problem at the start when she described going in - a bit like a President Bush-type approach - and did not describe the how and when. Now bang! it is on her desk. In fact, we have a layman’s guide with these little overhead presentations only this morning.
So, the debate is a matter of her making. She kicked it off; she was instrumental in starting the debate. This is her bill; this is her assumption that it is entirely her responsibility. We, as an opposition, do not have any problem with that. What we are, though, is people who have our ear to our constituencies. Many of us have small children and swimming pools and we think we can give her some enlightened advice. So that is how she should take it. We are merely trying to help her with this flawed piece of legislation, to make it better. We are saying at the outset it is your call: if you want to go into this policy arena with this legislation, we are not stopping you. We believe it is entirely your call.
That is our position and I do not think it should ever be translated or parlayed into some sign-off on the high levels of childhood drowning that occur, because one is high - one childhood death in this area is high. As health minister I spoke to Alan Ruben on many occasions and I was aware of Kidsafe, of the Child Accident Prevention Foundation, and the good work they do. I have also spoken to the Royal Lifesaving Society on a recent occasion where my colleague, the member for Sanderson, was present. We had little kids in the pool teaching them to swim. I have a grand-daughter who is three and she has relations and others of about her age who come to my place very frequently - sometimes it is too frequent – and they use the pool. I believe I have a great responsibility on my shoulders notwithstanding anything in any statute books, because that responsibility first and foremost is with the parent; that is me. I have no problem about the high levels of fencing around my pool, and I do not care whether there is an act or not; that will be the case. I would suggest to you that 80% of the people out there are like that. You could probably test this in Katherine where there are no by-laws. If you went to Katherine and had a look you would probably find that there are high levels of adherence to a code, notwithstanding there is no by-law on it.
That is my contribution. I applaud the Chief Minister’s venturing into this area in the brave and cavalier way she has. I hope that it does bear results for her. I would hope that there are no drownings from 1 January. I would hope that this act is able to prevent children from drowning anywhere in the Territory. Given that the act does not apply across the Territory, it differentiates and lowers the bar - at least in my case - and that it seems to be legislation on the run, sadly, I believe that might not be the case.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, today I support of the Swimming Pool Fencing Bill 2002 and Swimming Pool Fencing (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2002. I am very pleased to be afforded the opportunity to speak in support of these bills because it is an area that I have had a keen interest in for quite a number of years.
As a matter of fact, I have at home a story from the NT News dated 19 December 1998 which is about Kidsafe imploring people to be careful around water features in the yard. There is a picture accompanying this article which shows my daughter, then aged three, standing at the self-closing gate of our family backyard swimming pool, with her reaching for the pool gate latch.
My position on the need for uniform pool fencing legislation was first made known to my constituents some six years ago when I campaigned for a position on the Darwin City Council. I remember one of the most often-asked questions when doorknocking was what was my stance in regard to pool fencing. My stance then was the same as it is now; it has not changed over that time. My position has always been supportive of pool fencing. Then, as now, the vast majority of people who raised this issue with me were likewise supportive of pool fencing legislation.
I acknowledge there were some who were against pool fencing for various reasons. However, they, too, were appalled at the tragic loss of young life in our backyard pools and spas. I balanced their views with mine, and I found that there was no conflict in the desired outcome we all sought for the community. How we got there was where the conflict resided. As a result, my strength of conviction did not diminish in regard to what I considered was my greater responsibility to the overall health and safety of the community, but it was tempered with the understanding that a lot of ratepayers had installed their pools as per the existing code, and some accommodation had to be found so they did not face a penalty of one form or another.
In 1994, some members may remember, the member for Katherine gave a statement in this House on the matter of community and family importance, and that was safety of children in our community. The member noted early in his statement that, at that time, 1994, a child in the Northern Territory was four times more likely to die as the result of an accident than a child interstate. Compassionately, he noted no price could be put on the pain and anxiety suffered by many of these children and their families, and acknowledged that some children would be left incapacitated and scarred for life.
I sincerely believe all members of our Assembly share the member for Katherine’s compassion. He also referred to a campaign by Kidsafe at that time to demonstrate that drowning in backyard pools is the greatest cause of death of toddlers in Australia. He went on to say that, tragically, the Northern Territory has Australia’s highest reported death rate of toddler-aged children in backyard pools. In the previous two years - this was from 1994 - seven Territory children had lost their lives in backyard swimming pools. A number of others had required hospitalisation, including full life support in intensive care. The incidence of pool accidents, the member for Katherine stated, was an issue of major concern to the Northern Territory government.
As I said, those comments were made in 1994, and I restate those comments not for any political gain, but to indicate to the Assembly that the tragedy of children drowning in our urban backyards was a recognised concern last decade and it has remained a significant concern, with even more of our loved ones perishing because we, as a community, have failed to enact suitable and effective strategies.
The member for Katherine, in 1994, finalised his ministerial statement with these closing observations:
I would contend that the member for Katherine’s speech on water safety and pool fencing struck a resonant tone in the community. I base this observation on the petition placed before the Assembly by the member for Port Darwin in May 1995. Signed by 3039 citizens of the Northern Territory, the petition requested the Assembly to legislate to ensure that all new and existing domestic swimming pools and spas were adequately fenced to prevent children from drowning. The petitioners were concerned that, over the three years before the tabling of the petition, nine children lost their lives as a result of drowning in domestic swimming pools and spa baths in the Northern Territory. You can see it on the rise since 1994 in those figures alone.
In May 1994, people by the name of Carey, Chapman and Gaffy published a paper in the Australian Journal of Public Health entitled ‘Children’s Lives or Garden Aesthetics: A case study in public health advocacy’. The paper dealt with how the public debates around the 1990 Swimming Pools Act in New South Wales was conducted, including the calling in of emotive points of argument in order to sway the debate one way or the other. The authors of this paper identified five main areas of argument in the pool fencing debate. They were: why pool drownings occur; the facts of fencing and non-fencing; expert views, community support; the role of state in prevention; and who are we/they? The ‘we’ being a defender of the innocent and voiceless, unashamedly emotional about the preventable tragedy of child drownings; and ‘they’ were identified as being against ‘big brother’ government. ‘They’ regard the other party as emotional, illogical and hysterical. We have seen here in our public debate on water safety and pool fencing in the Northern Territory the same areas of argument over the years.
On 21 October 1999, the then member for Port Darwin stood here and complained vigorously about the Darwin City Council and the stand it took over the midnight demolition of that grand old Darwin landmark, the Darwin Hotel. He maintained that, as the council could not even provide a footpath for him in Larrakeyah, they had little credibility to have a position in regards to town planning. The member for Port Darwin went on to say that the Darwin City Council had vandalised what he considered a magnificent landmark building, the Sentinel, in which he purchased a retirement unit. The member based the assessment that the Darwin City Council were vandals because of their pool fencing requirements, which he stated were beyond the pale. The member said that the architect designed structures, both external and internal within the grounds, have been overtaken by ill-conceived, unreasonable fencing requirements. The pool area had effectively been debased, he claimed.
The member for Port Darwin went on to claim this act of so-called vandalism was not an isolated example. He claimed a local constituent in Cullen Bay had a beautiful home with lawn running down to the waters edge, unfenced. But with the laws as set down by the city council, the same constituent wanted to put a plunge pool on the front lawn and he could, provided he fenced it. The member for Port Darwin appeared to consider that this was unreasonable, as no fencing was required for the marina, but fencing was required for the plunge pool under the same law. The member for Port Darwin finished off his broadside against the Darwin City Council with a blast at the council’s desire to be in charge of town planning by saying:
The member for Port Darwin’s argument can clearly be seen to fall into the classification of the role of the state in prevention - an argument that supports the view that our homes are our castles, and a sanctuary from big brother government; that a universal fencing requirement will needlessly hurt those with no children, especially pensioners; and that the fencing of pools is a capricious folly when other waterways remain accessible. We have heard another case of that argument put before us by the previous speaker.
The inconsistency of this argument is that every facet of our modern lives is governed by loss of individual liberty in the interests of society’s wellbeing. Speed is restricted on our city and town streets, and unqualified amateurs are not allowed to make electrical repairs in their homes. The importation of dangerous toys is controlled and, in many other areas, a sophisticated and altruistic society imposes restrictions on itself when innocent lives might otherwise be lost by everyone doing their own thing. In the swimming pool safety debate, there would be no problem if the adult pool owners were the only ones whose lives were at stake. But they never are.
In 1995, a rural MLA commenced an adjournment debate with this introduction:
This MLA made the point that, with the proliferation of pools in our environment, we also saw an increase in child drownings. The MLA maintained that fencing was only half the problem, that the other half was one of parental supervision. Children drown because of parental negligence - bad parenting. Put simply, the parents of young children were to blame for their children’s deaths. However, I find it hard to sustain this type of argument. No parent or carer can watch a child every minute of the day; this is just not possible. I find it inconceivable that any rational thinking person believes that a parent at home looking after a child does not have to go to the toilet, prepare a meal, answer the phone or the door. The times when a person is occupied on the mundane interruptions at home, is long enough for a child to drown.
We have seen in the NT News some bitter Letters to the Editor highlighting a theme which is inherent in all civil legislation as it applies to children’s welfare: that a child’s life is solely the responsibility of its parents. Such a view holds that, if the child drowns it is, indeed, a sad and tragic event, but it is the fault of the child’s parents. Most enlightened society, however, provide guarantees for the safety of innocent children, irrespective of the attitude, activities, inattention or any other role of the adult themselves.
Since the member for Katherine’s speech in 1994 on children drowning, we have witnessed incidence of drowning and near-drowning in children in the NT remain the highest in Australia, and our rates have been among the highest world-wide. Young children in the NT appear to be at greatest risk, with rates of drowning and near-drowning nearly three times higher than the rest of Australia.
I see the Kidsafe report of 1994, to which the member for Katherine referred, as defining commentary on how the Northern Territory could address the awful tragedy of accidental drownings, not only in our backyard pools but also in the waterways throughout the Territory. Clearly, the Martin government is of a similar view. Our approach to improving the survivability of children when they are in and around the bodies of water is: the introduction of swimming pool fencing legislation to Australian Standards, which is the subject of the bill we are debating; an early registration incentive scheme with the cash bonus; interest-free five-year loans to help fund upgrades; a government subsidised water awareness program for children under five; and the establishment of a Water Safety Advisory Council to advise government on broader water safety issues.
With the five-point plan that I have just focussed on, I find it incredible that some members of the opposition are calling for even stronger and more restrictive fencing requirements - only the fencing requirements, not addressing the other areas of this plan. Some members of the opposition are calling for two hectare properties to be fenced, for all pools in the Territory to be fenced. I am keen to hear what the member for Goyder has to say on that one. I believe that the plan, as it stands, to build this Territory legislation is well balanced to suit the needs of the broader community. However, members of the opposition are calling for the legislation to be extended to cover all swimming pools …
Mr Maley: No, they are not.
Mr KIELY: Well, they are. You will hear that the member for Drysdale called just on that. I believe that, as a unified party on this position, you need to address that. You need to all come out and support the member for Drysdale in his lambasting of our laws not going far enough, and him saying that all pools, regardless of the size of the block, should be fenced. Then the member for Greatorex said the same - that this is watering it down. I would like to see the member for Goyder stand up here and say whether he does agree and support the position of all members of his party, or is it another case of one rule inside, one rule outside. I will leave that to the member for Goyder to address.
This is a good community law. This law is not steeped in any political ideology. I firmly believe that, under this legislation, we will have a better educated society that will realise the dangers of swimming pools and the need for close parental supervision. I would also like to thank those many members of the community who have contacted me and given support for our government’s actions in addressing the tragic situation of children drowning. I would particularly like to acknowledge the role of Sue Parry from Royal Life Saving and Felicity Creed and Rosemary Paice from Kidsafe. I would also like to acknowledge the hard work of all of our departmental officers in the researching and drafting of this comprehensive law. I would particularly like to single out our ministerial advisors. As a team, they have provided our community with a mature, objective approach to the issue that contains measures that are perceivably acceptable to the people who are required to comply with them.
Nothing we can do in the Assembly, under any conceivable circumstances, will prevent future childhood drownings in pools. They will happen, just as children are killed in safety seats in cars. No one can stop it, but we can do our best to provide a system of barriers that will cause delay when children try to get into swimming pools. Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I will make a few comments with regard to this legislation, so that the government has a clear understanding of where the opposition stands on this issue.
The first thing I would say, in case I forget, is to commend the effort that has obviously been made by officers to bring forward legislation in some form that addresses the issues it seeks to. There has obviously been an enormous amount of work done at the officer level. The fact that a briefing paper was circulated this morning - which obviously is a PowerPoint presentation in easy to understand language - as to what is involved in this legislation is helpful on the one hand, but it also points out one of the difficulties with this legislation; that is, it is extremely difficult to read. Maybe others are more aware than me - and the member for Sanderson obviously puts himself forward as an expert on this, and he may be. But certainly, if one tries to address the issues of existing pools in various jurisdictions in the Northern Territory, and then consider new pools, it is extremely difficult. The PowerPoint presentation is helpful to the average person who, undoubtedly, will eventually have to grapple with this issue.
But it does point out one of the reasons the opposition is uncomfortable with this legislation; that is, the education program for the general public has not happened. You can say that you feel the pulse of Territorians, that Territorians all want this. That is your view as a government. My view is entirely different to that. My view is that the vast majority of Territorians are, firstly, tragically upset and affected when a child is drowned, particularly in a neighbourhood environment. But the average Territorian also does not only need those occasions to search their own consciences to whether or not they themselves are doing enough for, not only their own children, but for their neighbour’s children on a day-by-day basis. I have great faith in Territorians’ basic and intuitive want to protect our children. I do not believe that overriding legislation is going to solve that particular issue at all.
The other thing that is interesting about this legislation is that it is indicative of a new government and how it would react to a child drowning, for example, or some other similar issue. That is this: it is very easy to say, ‘because we are the government at a Territory level, we will take the problem, and we will fix the problem’. The real test of experience in government is when to hold and when to stop, and when to say: ‘There are limits in our powers’. Whilst we may not be entirely satisfied with what another level of government is doing, the right approach is to work with, to educate, to help resource that level of government to achieve the end that you both desire. The easy and inexperienced approach, I believe, is to just come in with overriding legislation that takes that level of government out of the game. That is what has happened in this case.
That is also what points to a big difference between a Labor and a CLP philosophy. You will, of course, criticise the CLP philosophy that has been one of saying that we believe, as far as possible, that the Territory should be a low regulatory regime. We believe that one of the things that people enjoy about the Northern Territory is the fact that it is unencumbered from the burden of government legislation and, as far as possible, we will be cautious in how we achieve that end.
Also, there are some issues that rightly belong at various levels of government. The Commonwealth government takes a strong approach on issues that it believes rightly belongs at their level, and equally, rightly belongs at state level. It is the responsibility of a state government to decide what rightly belongs at their level, and what should belong at local government level. To do otherwise is to erode those three levels of government, and I believe this is one instance where the bill fails on two counts. One, it fails because the Chief Minister said that she would introduce uniform legislation right across the Northern Territory - it fails absolutely on that issue. Second, it fails in terms of recognising the responsibilities of local and Territory government because, if it is right to override local government on this issue, I look forward to the Territory government taking dog control away from local governments because people are killed in dog attacks. That is a problem that will be with us for some time, and maybe the government can come up with overriding legislation on that front.
I come from a jurisdiction in Palmerston that has the strongest fencing by-laws in the Northern Territory. Do you know why? Because that council has introduced those by-laws itself. That council is accountable to the electorate. The aldermen of that council are elected by the people and they stand for those by-laws.
This legislation, as I understand it, will mean that for new pool owners in Palmerston, under this new regime, will have their by-laws weakened because they can now have fencing which does not meet the standard. I see the minister’s advisors are shaking their heads. That is why we need to go into committee, because I am looking to be educated on that and any number of other points. However, in the case of Palmerston, the by-laws that will apply to people in Palmerston are stronger than those that apply in other areas in the Northern Territory. The rules that are applied now for all new pool owners in places such as Palmerston, as I understand this legislation, is weaker. We also have the clear example of, as we read the legislation, in the case of the member for Drysdale and residents of Darwin, their by-laws have been weakened.
We have a situation where the Chief Minister has decided - and that is why she keeps calling for the opposition’s point of view on this issue - that this is a polarising issue for Territorians, that she can win points politically on this issue. That is why she has been calling for the opposition’s view.
The opposition’s view is this: everyone looks to the safety of our children. Everyone wants good fencing laws in the Northern Territory. Certainly, in the case of some councils, those fencing laws are excellent. It is the duty of the Northern Territory government where it feels that more support and better by-laws are required, to work with those councils to achieve the changes it wants. It is not the right or responsibility of the Northern Territory government to introduce legislation which is inconsistent, does not meet the objectives that it sets itself, and also interferes with the authority of the councils. That is the position of the CLP.
No doubt this legislation will be passed, but the CLP does not believe it will be workable. I believe you are going to have enormous problems with this legislation. There are a number of questions that we need to ask in the committee stages to have clarification of the minister’s understanding. I do not believe that the legislation itself addresses the major issues, although I am pleased to see the government has come forward with subsidised water awareness programs. That is a good initiative and I look forward to seeing that.
It is unfortunate that this whole debate has centred, essentially, on a fight with Darwin City Council. Again, having been Chief Minister, I understand how compelling it is to pick those fights but, in this instance, I believe the right approach would have been to work with Darwin City Council and other councils to see where they needed support to meet the parameters that the Northern Territory government has set.
What has happened at the end of the day, is that the Chief Minister and the government has not met the parameters it set itself; the legislation is faulty in its interpretation and it is flawed in its application. The member for Nelson and others have pointed out that, if you wanted to go about some change, this would have been probably the most cumbersome method you could have picked. You could have done it through the building code, the Development Consent Authority or some other simple mechanism which could have still kept the integrity of the council involvement there.
What we will find with this legislation is that many of the councils will very quickly step away from a role which, I believe, they have played admirably. Others such as Litchfield Shire, the member for Sanderson may feel, are negligent. I believe that Litchfield Shire Council is accountable to its own electorate. It is close to its constituents and, if those constituents feel that change is needed, that will soon resonate within those council chambers, and change will eventually occur.
The real issue at the heart of my opposition is this: we believe that Territorians themselves do not need the Northern Territory government to tell them to feel for the safety of children. We believe Territorians are strong spirited and independent people. We believe that the government has responsibility, not only for bringing forward legislation where it is needed, but when it does, to bring it forward in a way that is workable and structured properly. We also believe it requires a government that knows when to hold its hand and realise its limitations.
With those few comments, Madam Speaker, I look forward to having some other issues cleared up in the committee stages.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I place on the record my comments and observations in relation to the proposed introduction of the Swimming Pool Fences Bill (Serial 106). By way of a general comment, in a previous life as a legal practitioner, I was involved in several Coronial inquiries. One was in relation to the unfortunate death of a young person in a pool. There is absolutely no doubt it was a complete tragedy. Anybody who listened to the evidence as it unfolded was affected, and anyone who read the transcript would have been affected and quite moved by what was said. I have also been involved in Coronials involving Aboriginal people who have died in custody, as well as in car accidents. In each and every Coronial involving the death of a human being, particularly young people, is a tragedy which evokes the same expressions of empathy and sympathy for the family for the enormous loss they must suffer.
It is difficult to talk objectively about legislation of this sort, when so much has been couched in emotional terms, and having regard to what I have seen and witnessed. What I am trying to do - and during the committee stage I have a number of questions I am going to put to the minister – is deal with the mechanics of the legislation from a practical perspective. But any civilised community, as I said, must feel an enormous amount of empathy for a family who has lost a child in any circumstances; in particular, a drowning. There is absolutely no doubt that anything the community can do to minimise the inherent risk of a child drowning, particularly in today’s society, should be looked at closely and seriously considered. Where appropriate, the government has the onus to step in and put in place parameters to make that environment safer.
I have my suspicions about the real motivation behind this particular legislation. There is certainly some suspicion about why the Labour government sees this as a significant step in the right direction. There has been a real attempt to politicise the issue a little: that is getting the message out to the community, getting the headlines, sending the media releases to the press, having the secret briefings - massage, massage - getting the Chief Minister to put her mug in the paper, and trying to get the right message out. I am worried that if you are really serious about dealing with the issue, there are a number of other options which should, could and must be considered before we talk about blanket legislation for the Northern Territory.
The demographics of the Territory are such that it is impossible to say that one size fits all. It is impossible to say that one law, which can affect the people living in those various demographics such as metropolitan Darwin, the rural area, stations, remote communities – it is impossible to really have one solution that satisfies all the concerns and problems which are encountered in those small micro-communities.
To the government’s and the minister’s credit, there are a number of exemptions contained in the legislation. It is a two-edged sword in a sense. Having exemptions, of course, complicates to a degree the legislation, but it also goes some way in adjusting the provisions and has a regard to the kaleidoscope of different communities. The example is the fairly significant exemption for people living in my electorate. I can say that that is welcomed. I do oppose the implementation of strict swimming pool legislation, from a Northern Territory government perspective, on the people who live in the Litchfield Shire on their five, 10, 20 and larger acre properties. It really is a matter which falls to be dealt with in that particular area by, of course, the Litchfield Shire Council.
However, credit where credit is due, having regard to the exemptions which have been incorporated into the legislation. There is, effectively, no doubt in my mind that there will be some anomalies and injustices. It is simply too big a task for a centralised government to put into place a piece of legislation which will satisfy all the desires, needs and concerns of the various communities in the Northern Territory. Community government is, of course, closer to the people. Those people in those towns and communities, elect members to council. Those members, before their electorate, of course, articulate the concerns which they say are paramount and they will address. Of course, that is precisely what they do.
You will see that, in some areas in the Northern Territory, there are not any by-laws that govern a number of subject matters and, in other areas it is a little more regulated. In the Litchfield Shire, the shire has a motto of ‘community effort being essential’ and the Litchfield Shire Council rates are significantly less than those of honourable members who live in town and in other parts of the Territory. The Litchfield Shire Council had the vision when it was initially started, to stick to the basics: roads, rubbish and recreation. There are fantastic reserves, good roads always being done up and, of course, the rubbish dumps are being properly dealt with. There are no garbage collection systems. All of this is because this is what the people wanted; this is what they voted their councils into power to enact on their behalf, because council is close to the people, it really has its finger on the pulse. The member for Nelson, in his nearly a decade as the shire President would, I expect, amplify some of the things I just touched upon and confirm those.
Traditionally, the role of local government includes swimming pool registration and licensing. That becomes a two form tradition – it is either the local council that deals with it or it is contained in the building code equivalents across Australia. So legislation for legislation’s sake from a centralised authority does not seem to be the vehicle which many other jurisdictions have used. There are a number of issues which I intend to raise at the committee stage and perhaps the minister who, I could just put on the transcript has left the Chamber during the course of this important piece of legislation …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker. The member is referring to the presence of a member in the Chamber. He has a habit of doing that; he did it yesterday …
Madam SPEAKER: We do not refer to anyone who is not in the Chamber. We should all know that by now.
Mr MALEY: I withdraw that comment that the minister had left the Chamber during the course …
Mr KIELY: Oh Madam Speaker, point of order.
Madam SPEAKER: He withdrew the comment.
Mr MALEY: I withdraw it.
On another slightly different note, the second-reading speech which was delivered in this parliament on 8 October by the Minister for Community Development, contained the inevitable - well, it seems, the two regular method of issue of any Labor party decision: there is the inevitable five- or six-point plan followed by ‘Let us have a committee or a steering committee to decide whether we should have a committee’. In any event, one of the things which is contained in the plan, and is an excellent initiative, is a water awareness program for children under five. It is one of the matters they talked about in the Coronial that I was involved in. It is about education, ultimately. You have to really sheet it home, not only to the children, but also the parents of the children who are at risk, by sending the message that having a child involves remaining ever vigilant and taking responsibility.
From a philosophical perspective it seems that this current generation of Territorians is quickly becoming the most regulated. This current generation of Territorians seems to not enjoy the trust which their parents and grandparents enjoyed. The government is intent on regulating, more and more, every aspect of their lives. If you add up the type of licenses which an average person is required to keep and maintain we have …
Mr Kiely: Fishing licenses - AFANT wants them.
Mr MALEY: I beg your pardon?
Mr Kiely: Fishing licenses. Doesn’t the committee you belong to want that?
Mr MALEY: Well, that is an interesting interjection. If the Labor government intends to introduce fishing licences to the Northern Territory, I will tell you that will be the end of you guys.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order. This is not relevant to the debate.
Mr MALEY: Anyway, I just picked up on that interjection about the plan to introduced fishing licences.
Madam SPEAKER: I know you did. We can do without that.
Mr MALEY: What I am saying is that it is really a matter for local government who are close to the issue. It is about trusting people, local people, to vote in the people into their local government councils who then articulate the issues that are of concern to them. So with that, I can wind up my general comments and look forward to moving into the committee stage where there are some points of clarification I will be taking to the minister and asking him some very specific questions about the legislation.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, as all of the members in the opposition have already said, we support the need for good pool fencing here in the Northern Territory. Nobody says otherwise. It is just the method about which you are doing this.
My personal belief is that Darwin City Council has been doing a reasonably good job of it over the years. I believe they do need more resources and perhaps it was an option for government to resource Darwin City Council adequately so that they could go ahead with better enforcement of the legislation that they have in their by-laws. My personal experience in the last two years is that I have had a house built and put a pool in and had to go through the Darwin City Council process to have my pool registered; and that was not an easy process. Darwin City Council staff had to come around on a number of occasions. They are very vigilant when they know there is a pool being installed in a residence. They were particularly vigilant. I am well aware - I have the Australian Standards here - that the fencing around the pool that I have complies with the current Australian Standards. That was the standard that Darwin City Council was imposing upon me.
There are many, many properties here in Darwin that do comply to the Australian Standard, and I believe Darwin City Council has been doing a good job with that. There are properties more in the older suburbs which may not have adequate pool fencing, and it has been difficult for the council with the resources available to them, to get on top of that issue and have the staff to get out there in the community to enforce their by-laws. However, I believe that the council is the body that is quite capable of doing that difficult task and that the government should be resourcing council to do that. What I believe the government is now introducing with your own unit within the minister’s department, is going to be an extremely expensive process. Looking at the logistics - for example, I understand there are about 17 000 pools here in the Northern Territory - of the minister’s department over the next few years to get out and register those pools is going to be very, very difficult and very expensive for Territory taxpayers.
I would like to thank the minister and his staff for the briefing that I received; it was very beneficial. It has raised some issues that I will explore more in the committee stage, but I certainly learnt a great deal from it and I thank the minister and his staff for that.
Initially, I thought it would be a good thing if the government were able to take on board the registration data from, for example, Darwin City Council, Palmerston City Council, Alice Springs, and use that as a base line from where they kick off. However, I do understand that with the Darwin City Council, for example, that data is not in electronic format. It is in handwritten hard copy format which would make it very difficult for the government to be able to access, which is a shame as it will add to the workload required.
One of the questions I have for the minister is: does registration last forever for the property and does it transfer from one owner to the other without necessarily having to be rechecked? They are the questions that we need to establish. Once you have registered a pool at No 10 Brown Street, is that it? It just goes on ad infinitum for the next 50 years, or is there a regular checking mechanism behind the system?
I would like to thank the minister and his staff for taking on and providing us with an amendment to include the word ‘marina’ in clause 20. As you know, in the electorates of Port Darwin and Drysdale we have marinas and, with the addition of that word ‘marina’ it will put at ease some of the concerns of residents in the marina environments.
With regard to the sale of properties - and this comes back on to the amount of resources the minister’s department is going to need to run this program - as we know here in the Northern Territory, many people change their properties fairly frequently. It would not surprise me if there is an average of five years ownership or something similar on a property here in Darwin as it turns over. People come and go pretty quickly. As has already been mentioned, 30 days is a fairly standard settlement period.
I am concerned about the next six months as - now that we have established what the requirements are as we pass this legislation, as I am sure we will tonight - people over the next few months are going to need to make adjustments to their pool fencing. Some people are going to have major adjustments to make – very expensive costs to them – and, at the same time, because it is Christmas and the end of the year, many people are moving towards selling their property for one reason or another.
How is the minister’s department going to cope with bringing this legislation in on 1 January, enacting it, at the peak time of property changeover here in Darwin? We are going to have some very upset constituents out there as property sales, I suspect, are going to be held up.
In closing with these comments before we go into committee, I do believe that Darwin City Council has been doing a reasonable job, the standard that they require has been more than adequate. They needed a bit more money to provide them with the resources to do that. They had a system that was well set up and it just needed a bit more resourcing.
The new system that is coming in is going to be much more expensive per pool to enforce which will affect Territory taxpayers. Given that the government’s budget is very tight because of the expenses it is facing in many areas, this is an added burden that could have been done more cheaply; if, for example, councils had been given some resources to enable them to do a good job with their work. I applaud the work that I understand the government is going to do with regard to the education of the community on the issue of teaching children to swim, as well as resuscitation skills for parents and carers.
This brings me to the point that many have raised with me. Surprisingly, many of them have been parents of young children. I have had comments over the last 12 months that this has been an issue, from constituents who are very upset at the government move to bring in this legislation. They prefer the status quo and, surprisingly, many people with young children, believe that parents are very much involved in this; the need to be responsible. For example, if I had young children I would certainly make sure that my pool was well and truly fenced and I would probably - in fact I am quite sure - want my whole yard to be well and truly fenced. The way life is now, with traffic and strange people wandering the streets, I would want to know, for my own wellbeing and peace of mind, that my child was well and truly locked in on my premises, without the opportunity to wander down the street to somebody’s swimming pool where the gate of the fence may have inadvertently been left open. I have heard many comments from parents who feel strongly that the onus is on them to be vigilant and responsible in this regard. I would recommend that they fence their yards, as well.
With regard to the standards of pool fencing, if you had perimeter fencing that was well and truly functional with self-closing gates for cars and pedestrians, this would be a good choice for some people. If, for example, you do not have children, you do not need to have such a high level of security for your pool, but you must have a good perimeter fence which works and provide adequate closure. There are places where gates are left open, and that should not be occurring. Things should be based on need, rather than be overly prescriptive.
One of the things I will be interested in pursuing or raising in committee is the difference in the size of blocks. If you are on a block of two hectares or more, you do not have to have a pool fence. Personally, I do not understand why there is this difference. I look forward to hearing that reason. Then again, I quite like the concept of perimeter fencing on normal urban blocks as well, so it will be interesting to hear why two hectares makes that difference. I look forward to hearing from the minister during the committee process.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I support the Swimming Pool Fencing Bill 2002 and …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: I could say something, but I will not. Okay.
I am going to take a public health approach to this. I heard the member for Greatorex begin his speech and his remarks saying that swimming pool fencing is, more or less, one measure that can be taken to reduce swimming pool deaths of young children, but there are others. Then he launched into what he had to say, and a lot of it was technical, detail, raising questions, and trying to pull apart the technical parts.
However, I would just like to start with the big picture. The big picture - the one that you cannot see. This is based on reliable evidence, and I would like to quote from an article in the Medical Journal of Australia published in December 2001 by Dr Karen Edmond, who is probably known to the member for Greatorex as a paediatrician who was, at that time, with Territory Health Services; Dr John Condon from Menzies School of Health Research who is an epidemiologist; as well as researchers from the Centre of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of Newcastle. I will quote:
In this same article, according to these authors, the average annual incidence of drowning and near-drowning between 1994 and 1997 for children aged 0 to 4 years in the Northern Territory, was 67.82 per 100 000. This was significantly higher than for Australia as a whole, which was 24.45 per 100 000. So, if the member for Greatorex wants to do his sum, it is a difference of about two-and-a-half times. That is very, very significant. Why is that? I guess you could put forward a whole range of reasons, but I would like to move through the public health argument. In this article, the authors further state in their discussion that:
I will say it again: ‘Rates in the Northern Territory …’, this is of drowning in this age group, ‘… are amongst the highest recorded world-wide’. They also state that:
So, there are some fairly clear statements about the level of drownings in the Northern Territory and also, specifically, about drownings associated with swimming pools.
In the same edition of the Medical Journal of Australia, an editorial piece written by Dr Robert Pitt, Queensland paediatrician, and Dr Danny Cass, who is director of trauma at Westmead, states:
That is a very positive measure. I will say it again: ‘Queensland and New South Wales introduced uniformed pool fencing legislation in the early 1990s and the current pool drowning rate, although still high, is less than half the pre-fencing rate’.
So, we have a major and tragic problem relating to childhood drowning that stands out over double the Australian average - indeed, amongst the highest in the world. We also have compelling and reliable evidence that pool fencing can effectively and significantly reduce childhood drowning, although it is not the only one, as a member for Greatorex pointed out. This is why this government is taking action in relation to pool fencing and water safety.
I notice the Leader of the Opposition and others have talked about the role of councils and, yes, I commend the Palmerston City Council and the Alice Springs Town Council for taking action. But it appeared to me, and to a lot of others and most people, that the Darwin City Council - I guess which is for the major population centre in the Territory - was paralysed on this issue; they could not move forward. They were asked to move forward, and yet they could not move forward.
Also, it interests me that, as has probably been said earlier in this debate, when the member for Greatorex was an alderman on the Alice Springs Town Council it appears to me that he was a champion for pool fencing. Yet, now we have all this equivocation. It is hard to really know where he stands. I would ask the member for Greatorex to reflect, sometime when he has a few moments by himself out of the public limelight and not on the floor of parliament: what has actually happened to your views between 23 September 1991 and 2002? What has happened in that intervening decade that you were such a positive advocate for pool fencing, and now you are just equivocating? It is really hard to know where you are right now, and I am a little disappointed in that. Maybe you should be applying the mirror test to yourself.
This legislation is supported by a number of measures to improve water safety for children in the Northern Territory, namely: firstly, introduction of uniform swimming pool fencing legislation throughout the Northern Territory, which is what we are considering here; an early registration scheme with a cash bonus; interest-free five-year loan to help upgrades; a government-funded water awareness program for children under five; and the establishment of a Water Safety Advisory Council to advise government on broader water safety issues.
This legislation and the issue of childhood drowning has sparked a great deal of debate in our community. Indeed, as I have doorknocked my electorate, a number of constituents have raised the issue with me, in a variety of ways. I would just like to outline the four main areas that people have raised. Firstly, mostly in relation to the safety of their own pool. Often, people say: ‘I have tight security on my pool. I have perimeter fencing. I no longer have children. Why should it be a problem?’ Well, I guess if it was not a problem, there would not be the incidence, if you like, of childhood drowning in the Northern Territory. Others have raised issues related to a perceived loss of amenity of their pool or spa areas through fencing. I appreciate that argument. Still others have raised the issue of parental discipline and responsibility. That is a very important issue, but we, as a community and a parliament, have a responsibility even to those children whose parents might be to some extent, negligent and not properly looking after their interests. We have to look after the interests of those children too. And others raised the issue of cost.
All of these are important issues and, as the legislation has developed, I have made a special point of making sure these concerns – the concerns of my constituents, the voters of Johnston - were a major part of the deliberation, so that they were fed into the decision-making process and addressed. I believe that these concerns have been addressed in the legislation before us today. It is a fact of life; we are not going to make everyone happy by this legislation. There are going to be some people who are going to be unhappy with it for whatever reason. The thing I am picking up from the community is that, mostly, people are happy with the way things have happened. Even people who may have been diametrically opposed to it at one stage, because of the way that this government has approached the issue, are now quite satisfied with the process, and they have given our government a lot of plaudits along the way.
Barring some exceptions in large rural size blocks and for some above ground pools, swimming pools in the Territory will need to be registered. This will be at no cost to owners of existing pools and spas. In the case of investment properties, the landlord will need to bring the fencing up to the Australian Standard with a change of tenants. In the case of other pool owners, the requirement to bring the fencing up to the Australian Standard only occurs when the property is sold. I believe that the support package developed by the government through the early registration incentive scheme, or ERIS, is generous and it will encourage pool owners to bring their pool up to the Australian Standards. There will be information offered to the public in the media and through the pool fencing information line. The formation of the Water Safety Advisory Council is another important step, particularly support for swimming lessons for children under five.
This whole issue of pool safety and swimming pool fencing is an important issue. I believe the government has effectively addressed a serious public health issue. Before closing, I compliment the minister because, I believe, in overseeing the process he has tried to address a lot of those concerns. He is bringing forward, I believe, very sensible legislation. Let us face it, members opposite have also said: ‘We have a big Territory, it is not all the same, it varies from place to place’. We have tried to accommodate those differences. We have tried to accommodate the concerns that are being put forward to us by the community and, at the end of the day, the minister, in future, in retirement, or in his future life - I am not saying he is retiring in the near future - will be able to look back on his political career and look at this legislation and know that this legislation saved lives. Let us not beat about the bush here. When the member for Greatorex started off with: ‘What is the definition of this and what is the definition of that?’, I interjected. I said: ‘Well, what is the definition of death?’ What is the cost of a child’s life? I believe the minister, if he looked back on his political career, and even now, he can be proud, he can be assured that this legislation will save toddlers’ lives.
Just to finish off, I would like to give a quote. It is from a favourite book of mine by Don Watson. It is actually a favourite book of a lot of people at present. It is Book of the Year, and is a portrait of Paul Keating, and it is called Recollections of a Bleeding Heart. We should bear this in mind when we move into the committee stage, when we start getting into the technicalities and the arguments about the technicality; He says on page 476:
Madam Speaker, I am proud that our government is doing something because, if our government was not here, and the other side was there, nothing would be done. We are doing it. This is a government of energy, imagination and enlightenment. It is up to the opposition in this committee stage to show that they are constructive, and not just a mob of people for whom life is a tragic negative and an endless repetition of cynical laughs and groans.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Speaker, I will briefly speak on the matter of pool fencing in the Northern Territory. I have made some notes while I listened to everyone debate this issue and I keep coming back to the fact that the member for Johnston eloquently summarised. What is the issue that we are talking about? It seems to me that the main drift coming from the opposition is that it is about lifestyle. The issue of lifestyle, in this instance, I have no problem with but the lifestyle issues surrounding pool fencing has many different meanings. I would argue that the issue of lifestyle in this case is the value of one person’s life being saved.
That is what we are talking about; that is what we are discussing here today. The semantics about the legislation and the mechanics of it - that is fine; I have no problems with people addressing the mechanics of the legislation, how it is going to be performed, and the particular points raised today by different members. What I do have, though, is difficulty with politicising what this issue is. The issue is very simple. For a very long period of time in the Northern Territory people have drowned unnecessarily due to safety issues surrounding swimming pools.
The Martin Labor government has come in and has taken on an issue that has not been addressed properly in the past by CLP governments. We have said we are going to attempt to satisfy the needs of the community, and incorporate people’s lifestyles, where they know they can still enjoy the use of their swimming pools but, at the same time, minimise the damage of deaths - and not necessarily deaths, but certainly other injuries occurring in swimming pools.
I am proud to support this bill today. I listened to some of the issues raised by different members of the opposition. It came across again and again, a major theme coming out - after 26 years of being in power, on a variety of issues that we have heard this year: that the CLP government in the last days of their reign were tired, lazy and they lacked vision, and they did not want to accept the hard issues. It was all about: ‘Well, we have identified the difficult things, the areas that are going to be controversial in the Northern Territory, and we do not want to address those because we want to get elected again’.
This issue has been attacked in a very sensitive way, but also in a very imaginative way. This document here that we have seen today called Water Safety and Swimming Pools - I have had the opportunity to read this in the last couple of days and it is brilliant. I will be mailing this out to every swimming pool owner in my area. When I say I will be mailing this to every swimming pool owner in my area, I will be also visiting them and giving them this document. I will be saying to them: this perfectly illustrates what pool fencing is all about, and in particular, the five-point water safety plan.
I will run through the five points: the introduction of the uniform swimming pool fencing legislation throughout the Northern Territory; early registration incentive scheme with a cash bonus; interest-free five-year loans to help fund upgrades; a government subsidised water awareness program of children under five; and the establishment of a Water Safety Advisory Council to advise government on broader water safety issues.
Now, I will run through some of those points. The introduction of a uniform swimming pool fencing legislation throughout the Northern, yes, this is a first attempt. We believe in the regime that we are introducing. If concerns are raised by the opposition or Independent members, or other community members, we will address those. However, at the moment we believe in this legislation, and we are supporting it 100%.
The early registration incentive scheme with cash bonus is to address the issues people in financial difficulty, and this is a fantastic idea. I have been sitting in members’ meetings when we have discussed this issue of how we are going to address this for people who are in difficult financial circumstances. This was overwhelmingly supported by every member and I am proud to say that it has been incorporated in the legislation.
Interest-free five-year loans to help fund upgrades is another initiative designed to support people in hardship, remembering, of course, that people in financial difficulty are the exception. The majority of people who own pools and spas are in a financially strong position - not everyone, but certainly many of them. We have identified that there are those who are in a difficult financial existence, and we will give them support.
What I do not understand is the arguments of the members for Greatorex, Port Darwin and Goyder. They drag in issues that say: ‘You are attacking people’s lifestyles and their rights to enjoy the way they live’. But we are not. What we are saying is we all respect pool owners and their opportunity to enjoy the amenities that they have in their homes. However, we are not making a political issue out of it. We understand that certain members of the opposition want to drag it out and make it a big issue and possibly drag this on and on and on and, hopefully, get some votes out of it. We do not want to deal with that. The reality is we are introducing pool legislation to help minimise injuries to people through accidents involving pools.
The other important initiative that have undertaken is, of course - and it has been identified in this House - is that this is not the only way to address drownings or other serious injuries caused by swimming pools. What we have identified is a government subsidy for a water awareness program for children under five. This is a fantastic initiative, and there will be many, many parents who will take advantage of this opportunity. We have seen the ads with the famous - is it Johnny Lawrence, the swimming pool …
Dr Burns: Laurie Lawrence.
Mr BONSON: Laurie Lawrence. I have seen him on TV many different times talking about the idea of training people to swim from an early age. This was an important initiative to ensure that people do not suffer through drowning or serious injuries caused by swimming pool and spa accidents. I am very proud that the government subsidised a water awareness program for children under five, and I look forward to it working.
The establishment of a Water Safety Advisory Council to advise government on broader water safety issues. Again, this shows that the Northern Territory Labor government under Clare Martin, is willing to listen to other bodies, and set up other bodies that will advise the minister and this government on directions to take in the future. I look forward to finding out what their advice will be over a period of time.
In regard to registration - and I will not keep members in this House for much longer - of swimming pools and spas, we know it is estimated there is approximately 17 000 to 18 000 swimming pools and spas in the Northern Territory. However, from the 1 January 2002, all new swimming pools will be required to register and be fenced to comply with the relevant Australian Standards. All existing swimming pool owners will be required to register their swimming pools with the inspectorate within 18 months from the 1 January 2003. So, we are giving people a period of time, which is 18 months, to ensure that their pools are properly registered. The application process will be straightforward and there will be no cost to register for existing swimming pools and spas. The word that we want to get out there is ‘straightforward’. A lot of time and effort has been put in by many public servants and, certainly the government, to come up with the plan that was understandable and quite easily accessed. I consider we have made a fantastic effort.
Finally, I want to put on record the information line. A pool fencing information line has been established. The number is 1300 301 059. The information line operates from 8.30 am to 4.30 pm, Monday to Friday, the cost of a local call from anywhere in the Northern Territory, normal charges apply if using a mobile phone. Over 500 calls have been received since this line was establish.
When this issue was first raised, we heard a deafening silence from the opposition. This was at the time when emotions were obviously running quite high because of a number of sad events. However, we took action.
I remember sitting down at the markets and people coming up to me who were swimming pool owners. They were in fear of what was coming. When we explained to them that no decisions had been made, but we were looking a broad range of possible ways of dealing with this matter, people calmed down and they were willing to wait and see. Now, we have produced a document …
Dr Burns: I calmed a few down myself.
Mr BONSON: Yes, you have calmed a few down yourself. Certainly, Chris Burns had one guy who was actually going to move into his electorate and vote for him.
Dr Burns: That is right.
Mr BONSON: Well, that is a personal joke between me and the member for Johnston.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I will wrap this up because I know it has been a long and drawn-out debate. I want to put on record that I am disgusted at the way that some people have handled this issue by making it a political issue. This should be an issue about lifestyles, yes, but it is about minimising the number of deaths. Deal with the mechanics of the legislation. If you have anything that is relevant, I am sure the minister will pick this up and address it in the proper manner.
Mr AH KIT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for their contributions. In the main, the comments have been quite positive and very supportive. There were some very sobering moments.
The member for Drysdale mentioned in his comments that the opposition had a right to be concerned, critical commentators. I accept that, and I certainly hope that that is the spirit in which we will go to the committee stages. It will be a challenge, shortly, to try and paint the bigger picture for members of the opposition and the member for Nelson, in that this legislation has uniformity, it is about common sense, it has flexibility, and it is conforming to the Australian Standards.
All members, no doubt, acknowledge the terrible tragedy of pool drownings. There is tragic loss of life, very frequently this is the death of a toddler. There is terrible trauma for other family members. There is also the incidence of permanent injury among survivors through oxygen deprivation. The incidence of drowning in the Northern Territory is the worst in Australia and we just heard my colleague, Dr Burns, the Minister for Tourism, quote from the Medical Journal of Australia that it is the worst in the world. That type of reputation is not something that we can be proud of.
At the same time, we also have the weakest regime in regard to pool fencing. This unacceptable and tragic situation has continued well after other states have moved to adopt the established Australian Standards in this area. This bill is designed to provide time for parents and other carers. As the member for Sanderson commented in his contribution to this debate, the legislative requirement for childhood restraints in cars cannot totally eliminate the incidence of child deaths in car accidents. The legislation alone cannot totally eliminate the tragedy of child drownings, but it is a step that this Assembly must take.
I would like to pick up on some of the points raised by members during their contributions to the second-reading debate. All of these points have been covered by my colleagues; I will just reiterate on a couple of the points that seem to crop up. Some members indicated that they wanted fencing to apply to all pools regardless of the size of the block. This was certainly a strong point raised by the member for Greatorex in his contribution to the debate. The member for Nelson supported this position. I do not think it is a position that the member for Goyder supports. The fact is that, at some point, a decision needs to be made concerning the relative risk. The government has considered these issues and been convinced by the argument that two hectare and above should not be covered. Many of our rural blocks have dams, flooding creeks and other hazards. The two hectare block was taken as the most practical demarcation.
The member for Greatorex claimed that this legislation would weaken current council regimes. This is clearly not the case. I would have expected a better analysis from the member who purports to be the shadow minister in this important area. The member for Greatorex has also claimed that he could not find where the legislation required registration prior to construction of a new pool. He should read clause 10. This is yet another demonstration of his inadequate analysis and lack of understanding of this vital legislation. The member for Greatorex also started to talk about splasher pools and similar. Under the Australian Standards, a pool that is left in place with 300 mm of water is a drowning hazard. We want people to be responsible with these pools. If they are supervised while in use, emptied after use and stored appropriately, there should not be any problem. The same standard applies in other states.
The members for Greatorex and Nelson both claimed that local government should carry this legislation.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I did not state that local government should have carriage of this.
Madam SPEAKER: If I can just say that it is very hard for me to, in fact, determine what you said and what you did not. But you can explain that later if you wish to through an explanation speech.
Mr AH KIT: The government disagrees, and so did the most vigorous analysis of this issue. carried out by a working group of LGANT, Kidsafe and NT government agencies following the five tragic drownings in 1996. That working group recommended uniform, Territory-wide legislation administered by the Northern Territory government. I want to come back to LGANT, because all members of this House should understand what LGANT is - it is the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory - and its membership. All councils are represented on LGANT.
The member for Nelson raised an issue in regard to mesh covers on spas. He has also raised this in briefings on this legislation. I understand the point the honourable member is making. We have looked at this carefully, and our advice is that the attempt to define in this way will cause more problems than it will solve. However, I assure the member that mesh covers can be solid.
The member for Nelson also raised the matter of exemptions to Crown land in the matter of various caretakers and other officers who might live on that land. The exemption of the Crown is a normal provision in such legislation, intended to ensure that the legislation does not have any unintended consequences; for example, a requirement to fence boundaries of Manton Dam and Darwin River Dam. Obviously, in every case the member for Nelson raised, the permission of the land owner is required before any structure is put in place. The competent authority in each case will be aware of this legislation and its intent, and I have no doubt they will ensure that all pools will be fenced.
The legislation will introduce uniform standards throughout the Northern Territory for the first time. The legislation does this in a very measured way that will facilitate the community adopting the standards. The legislation provides a generous cash rebate to assist current pool owners upgrade to the Australian Standards. The legislation also provides for interest-free loans to assist owner occupiers to upgrade to the Australian Standards.
The legislation also provides a generous extended period for current pool owners to register their pool. At the choice of the pool owner, the legislation permits an owner occupier to only upgrade the pool at the time of sale of the property. Investment properties will be required to upgrade the pool at change of tenancy. Given the comparatively high rate of property transactions in the Territory, these provisions, combined with a generous cash rebate, are expected to result in the full adoption of Australian Standards over time. The legislation provides a greater amount of flexibility in regard to the registration of pools located in non-standard situations. The legislation provides for two levels of appeal against decisions that are made. It must be said that the legislation provides a great amount of flexibility, generous assistance for current pool owners, and is a long overdue move to adopt the Australian Standards in this area. I believe all members support the objectives of this legislation.
Despite this general level of support, some members have made comments in regard to specific provisions of the bill. In general, these comments amount to quibbling about the detail of the legislation, not its overall thrust. Some of these comments are simply based on poor information. The member for Nelson has commented on what he claims is unnecessary complication in the bill in regard to the registration process.
Three councils have advised my department that they are unable to readily provide a certain listing of swimming pools that are currently registered in their council areas. It is essential that the number of swimming pools currently installed at small premises and the standard of any swimming pool barrier surrounding the pool, is known with precision. There would be potential for legal action if a property transfer was prevented with an inappropriate statutory restriction placed on the title as a result of a mistake arising from a council record. The gaps and uncertainty in some council records is a major issue that needs to be addressed by this legislation.
The member for Nelson’s proposed amendments would seriously diminish the good outcomes that this legislation will deliver, and the government will not support them. Government has considered these issues in great detail. We recognised that this legislation requires adequate resourcing to be effective. It is estimated that there are about 18 000 pools in the Northern Territory. There is an average of about 450 property transactions per month. The government appreciates the workload that is involved, and that property transactions should not be slowed down by this important piece of legislation. In addition, the member for Nelson should consider the additional administrative and legal burden that his proposals will place on the real estate industry. I can assure the member for Nelson that, in our consultation with the industry, this additional administrative burden is not one that the real estate industry wants to inherit.
Madam Speaker, I will conclude by saying that this is good legislation. It addresses a very serious issue and it does it in a well-balanced manner. The balance that has been achieved in this bill has been reflected in the public commentary since the announcement of the government’s five-point water safety package. I thank honourable members for their comments in support of the bill.
Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.
In committee:
Swimming Pool Fencing Bill (Serial 106):
Clauses 1 and 2, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 3:
Dr LIM: In regard to clause 3, minister, you heard the member for Nelson ask earlier what happens to properties that are under the ownership of the Crown, statutory corporation, council, or the Jabiru Town Development Authority. I recalled that the Alice Springs Town Council did own a house that was occupied by the then Town Clerk. I know that house is sold now; but in the event that that occurs again, and that house has a swimming pool, where does that come into it? Does it apply that, because the council owns that house, it is on council-owned property, therefore the swimming pool is exempted?
Mr AH KIT: It is a property of the council and, therefore, it is exempt.
Dr LIM: Well, minister, if that is the case, then really it is inconsistent. It is a standard house, in a residential area, on a normal block that is 800 m2 to 1400 m2. It is a small premises, therefore, everybody else has to have their pool fenced with an appropriate fence, according to your legislation. From your answer, the town council does not have to put an appropriate, complying fence, around the pool where the Town Clerk resides.
Mr AH KIT: What I said in my second-reading reply was that this is about common sense and responsibility.
Dr Lim: Precisely.
Mr AH KIT: Precisely. What I will also say is that, if you are genuine about these concerns you raise as we go through the committee stages, that is fine. But if you want to nitpick and play funny buggers, then we do not know where you are standing. We have a situation, in this case, where we say under clause 3 that if it is exempt, then that is what is applicable. As I said earlier, the member for Nelson also raised the matter of exemptions to Crown land, and the matter of various caretakers and other officers who might live on that land. The exemption of the Crown is a normal provision in such legislation, intended to ensure that the legislation does not have any unintended consequences; for example, a requirement to fence boundaries of Manton Dam and Darwin River Dam.
Now, one would think, with the example that you just gave with the Alice Springs Town Council, that they would have a fair amount of responsibility about themselves in respect to what they have done with regard to their by-laws, and that they would be responsible enough to ensure that pool has a fence around it, conforming to the requirements of the bill that we are introducing here this afternoon.
Dr LIM: Obviously, the minister does not appreciate the necessity to be uniform with this legislation. A house in the suburbs is a house, no matter how you define it. A swimming pool in a backyard is a swimming pool, whether the house belongs to the council, me, or to you. Now, under your legislation you have to fence it, I have to fence it, but the council is exempt.
I live next door to the town council house; my child and your child is at risk in that pool. But you say to the council: ‘Don’t worry about it, you are exempt’. Now, can you see the inconsistency that you are creating, minister: whereas I have to fence my pool so that the Town Clerk’s child does not drown in my pool; and you have to fence your pool so that the Town Clerk’s child does not drown in your pool. Now, where is the consistency there?
Mr AH KIT: The question of public liability issues - and you raised this the other day in the briefing - would be a consideration that the government or a council would have to take into account if it gave permission to allow swimming pools in these situations. Therefore, liability for these matters rests with the government or the council, as the case may be.
In the example you are using: are you telling me that the Alice Springs Town Council is going to be irresponsible in respect of the public liability commitments that they would have in regards to an employee who is living in one of their houses that has a pool in the backyard? I think not.
Dr LIM: Minister, I am not asking whether the council is responsible or not responsible. I am saying you are establishing a set of laws where all parties should be equal under the law. You are saying now: ‘We will let the council, a trustworthy organisation who is responsible, to fence a pool according to its desires. However, you, Mr Citizen, you are irresponsible, we have to make you do it under this law’. I cannot see the equity in that - hang on, let me finish. You are talking about swimming pools and the need to provide protection for our children. This is about saving lives, not about public liability; not about how much money I can get for the child that I have lost. That is not the issue; the issue is about saving lives. Yet, here you are saying to me that the town council does not have to fence its pool. You have not convinced me so far, minister, that this legislation is appropriate.
Ms MARTIN: The issue here, member for Greatorex, is the fact that you have to have that uniformity. If it was going to apply to the Crown or, equally to local government, then we would have to fence Lake Alexander, and potentially, Manton Dam. That is why that clause 3 is there. The issue of public liability very clearly, if in that circumstance a council house had a pool, would be addressed. But this is to do with uniformity.
Mr WOOD: Look, that was the bit that confused me. I have a difficulty with that, when you stated that you would have to fence off Manton Dam. One is, it is a large premises, and two, I thought there was an exemption for creeks and dams anyway. So, really we are talking about pools, because that has always been the argument. I can give you an example. Say, the caretakers house at Manton Dam - it is a separate piece of land that is only a quarter of an acre, and he has a pool there. I know what you are saying about the government would be up for public liability, but I wonder whether anyone else would be up for public liability, in theory, if I was careless with my pool at home and did not fence it.
Someone could argue that I have left a pool at my place not adequately protected and the ordinary person may be up for public liability. I thought that for uniformity, it shows the government is in step with its own concepts and philosophy. That would be important, because you could send out the wrong message. You might not do it in practice but to show it in the act, it appears as though we are telling everybody else out there, but we are not including ourselves in that legislation. That is probably my concern.
Mr AH KIT: I want to come back to the point that was raised by the member for Greatorex. If he is addressing the fact that if we are bringing in one law, it is for everyone. So do I take that, and understand that to be what you echoed earlier, in that swimming pool fencing legislation should be applicable to all blocks that are more than two hectares in size, and this applies to cattle stations etcetera?
Mr DUNHAM: Only if you want to use the word ‘uniformity’. Only if you want to say ‘uniform’, which is what ...
Mr WOOD: Minister, it can be uniform under the small premises part of your act. That is what I am saying. We could argue the exemptions are not the exemptions. But the area that swimming pools are not exempt is under the small premises section. So if the government owns a house that fits that criteria, isn’t it saying here that they are exempt from what everyone else in small premises is required to do? That is the non-uniformity, you might say, of what you have done.
Dr LIM: The point I am making is just reinforcing what the member for Nelson just said. The minister has written in clause 3 about the council and other statutory bodies, including the Crown. I am asking them to stay specific with this; explain how you can deal with single residences, in small premises, with a swimming pool, that does not have to be fenced. How can you say that to a council and statutory body, yet you say a different thing to you and I?
Mr AH KIT: Member for Greatorex, can I inform you and the member for Nelson, that this is a provision to cater for situations where an inconsistency arises. It is a standard provision.
Mr Dunham: Oh, Manton Dam?
Mr AH KIT: It is a standard provision in respect of the exemptions; in this case, the Crown land.
Mr BALDWIN: Just to clarify that, does the exemption apply to all government employee housing throughout the Northern Territory?
Mr AH KIT: I am advised only if it is on Crown land.
Mr BALDWIN: Just following that point, all government employee housing that is owned by the government, therefore it is Crown land, is then exempt. Is that correct?
Mr AH KIT: It is, but there would be an expectation of government and by myself as minister that, as I said just a while ago, those departments, government employees, CEOs, ministers, would all understand the intent of this legislation and will need to comply. It is not in their interest to have pools on government housing blocks wherever in the Northern Territory that do not comply with our own legislation. It stands to reason; it is common sense.
Mr BALDWIN: So, in finishing my point on this matter, you have clarified that government owned employee housing is exempt by law under this proposal, and you also said that this is uniform legislation. So I ask you, minister: do you believe that the uniformity exists if you are asking the public to fence their pool under two hectares, but the government does not have to?
Mr AH KIT: Uniformity in this regard, which is really important …
Mr Baldwin: By law?
Mr AH KIT: Hang on. Uniformity is about bringing in this bill to create a law that will apply to those 18 000 swimming pools in the Northern Territory. Now, what you are looking for is uniformity in how the details apply, and that is not what you are going to receive. What you have to understand is you blokes did nothing, nothing at all. We said we were going to do this. The Chief Minister made her announcement and we are moving forward. We are now in a situation where we have heard speakers opposite talk about the intent on this legislation. They do not have any problems with that.
So, we are moving down that path, but the uniformity is there, and is, I thought, explicit in that there is no common uniform legislation that is applicable throughout the Northern Territory. You understand that Palmerston has a different regime, Alice Springs Town Council has a different regime, that Darwin has a different regime, that Katherine and Tennant Creek do not have any regimes. So uniformity, fellas, if you can get educated, is in the sense of doing something and bringing in legislation that everyone has to comply with.
Dr LIM: I want to stick to the issue. You are also the Minister for Housing. There is a swimming pool on Territory Housing premises in the suburbs. The same pool is on Crown land. Can you explain whether that swimming pool has to be fenced? Can you please explain whether the swimming pool in the Territory Housing block has to be fenced?
Mr AH KIT: In response to your question, member for Greatorex, under clause 3(1):
I ask the member for Greatorex: if you wish this to apply to council property, where is your amendment?
Mr Dunham: He is merely clarifying what the story is.
Dr LIM: Where is my amendment? No, no, no, no …
Mr AH KIT: Where is your amendment? Do you want this? Do you want this to apply to council?
Dr LIM: I will answer your question second if you like.
Mr AH KIT: Because if you do, I put it to you, put an amendment. Because you can go down in history as the member for Greatorex, wanting to have this made applicable to the Alice Springs Town Council. And they will love you forever.
Mr Dunham: We just assumed uniform meant everybody, mate. We are now finding out that half the people do not have to do it.
Mr WOOD: Minister, I understand what you said. What harm would it do if it was not there? I would qualify also, what you previously said. This was raised at the briefing and, I suppose, we got an answer that basically said it should be there. I thought maybe it is there because of some uniform requirement in every act for it to be there. Obviously, from listening today, I do not know whether that is the case, and that is why it is being questioned now. So I simply ask: if it was not in the act, what difference would it make?
Mr AH KIT: I explained it before …
Mr WOOD: Uh, uh.
Mr AH KIT: … and I pointed out that under clause 3(2) in regards to the application of the act, is the usual provision to cater for situations where an inconsistency arises. That is my explanation to you. Right? It is a standard provision.
Mr DUNHAM: Plenty of acts bind the Crown. Lots of acts bind the Crown.
Mr AH KIT: I beg your pardon?
Mr DUNHAM: Plenty of acts bind the Crown, and this should too.
Mr AH KIT: You are a bit hard to understand.
Mr MALEY: Minister, it is disgraceful that you can pass legislation binding every other corporate entity and human being in the Northern Territory but, for some reason, you have exempted yourself being the Crown. It is disgraceful that you impose obligations upon the ordinary citizens and yet provide a specific exemption for you. Then, in the same breath you say: ‘Oh, no need to include the Crown because, within the spirit of the legislation, they will comply’. Well, that is simply not good enough. It goes against the trend, and it really is the hallmark of some sort of tyranny.
This act should bind the Crown and, if you are quite genuinely of the belief that the Crown is going to comply in those limited situations, then why isn’t the Crown bound by the very specific terms of this legislation? What you are doing here is really saying: ‘Do what I say, not do what I do’.
Ms MARTIN: This clause 3 of the act is a general section in all acts that we have dealt with. What I can say is that any occupant who was in such a house - take Housing Commission; there are very few pools, as we understand, in Housing Commission houses. But …
Mr DUNHAM: No, not under your definition there aren’t. There are lots.
Ms MARTIN: Just listen. An occupant would need to seek permission from the Crown or council, to be able to install a pool. That permission would not be given unless that pool fence was up to Australian Standards. It would not be given. So that is an absolute assurance from this government, and that is what will happen.
Dr LIM: Well, Chief Minister, let me say to you that I can be in a Territory Housing home in the suburbs, and I can go down to the supermarket and buy myself a blow-up, you-beaut vinyl wading pool that is 400 mm deep and 5 m2 in area for my backyard. I do not have to have permission from Territory Housing - I do not. Do I have to put a fence around that, because it is deeper that 300 mm of water? The minister has not been able to answer that question at all before, and I ask him to respond to that now. Do we have to do it?
Mr AH KIT: You did not ask me that question before.
Dr LIM: I asked: Territory Housing!
Mr AH KIT: .You did not give an explanation of the pool that you bought at K-Mart or Woolworths or wherever you got the best price.
Mr Dunham: It is your act!
Dr Lim: It does not matter what type of pool it is; whatever pool you get. Whatever pool it is, it does not matter.
Mr AH KIT: Well, I would have answered the question if you had asked me, but you did not ask me. So you have a pool. You went down to K-Mart, Big W or Woolworths – I have been able to get at some of these and have a look at them.
Dr Lim: Yes, I have read those brochures too, and I know what you are talking about.
Mr AH KIT: Hang on, and you will get your answer. I thought we would discuss this when we got to it through the committee stages, but we might as well deal with it now.
Dr Lim: We are in the committee stages now.
Mr AH KIT: Yes. As we work through the bill. Still stuck on clause 3.
Dr Lim: We are working through the bill. I am referring to the third one.
Mr AH KIT: Anyway, if you purchased a pool from either of those places - and I have to point out to you we recommend that you contact your local council for swimming pool safety fencing regulations. On the next one, it has …
Dr Lim: Same thing.
Mr Dunham: How deep is it, mate?
Mr AH KIT: Hang on, we will come to that. They all refer to getting in touch with your local council for rules and regulations on all large pools before filling. ‘Check with your local water authority’. So it is written there.
What you have is a situation, if the pool is above 300 mm and it is holding 300 mm of water - right? - then that is a pool. That is classified as a pool if it holds more than 300 mm of water. So, if you were in a Housing Commission house and you use that for yourself or your children, then one would expect, to take away the potential dangers of drowning, that you would empty that out, store it away, put it in a safe place and use it whenever your kids want to have a bit of a wade in the pool again.
If it is bigger than that, then you have complications. I would expect that - and we would expect - responsibility comes to the fore and the same thing would happen. If, however, your pool was starting to get up a bit higher and it had a pump and filter and all the rest of the equipment of the bigger pools and inground pools, then you would have to have that fenced. That is what we are proposing here in the law. I would think that anyone who is leaving their small wading pool out, which has 300 mm in it or more depth, would be highly irresponsible …
Mr Dunham: But it is not against the law. They may be irresponsible, but it is not against the law. It does not offend your act.
Mr AH KIT: It is! It says here it is against the law if it is holding water - more than 300 mm of water - it is classified as a pool.
Mr DUNHAM: But it is on an exempt property, you goose. Of course, it is a pool; we know it is a pool. It is on an exempt property. We know it is a pool; we are just asking you why it is allowed to be there.
Mr AH KIT: Well, I am getting confused. One is talking about Housing Commission houses and another one is talking about Crown land. Maybe if we can get some direct communication and questions and answers, it will allay the confusion. The exemption only applies to those premises occupied by the Crown.
Dr LIM: Minister, let me just give an example of the by-laws that have a higher standard than your legislation has. The Alice Springs Town Council by-laws on private swimming pools, clause 2, Crown to be bound: ‘These by-laws bind the Crown in the right of the Territory’. A similar thing applies in the Darwin City Council by-laws.
Notwithstanding all that, minister, will you take this amendment, if I put it to you, for clause 3? I will read the whole amendment to you:
Dr LIM: Yes, I can give you a copy of that.
Mr AH KIT: If that copy can be made available, then I will give it due consideration.
Dr LIM: Well, can we defer this until we make a decision? Or would you like to wait until …
Mr AH KIT: Yes, can we come back to it?
Consideration of clause 3 postponed.
Clause 4:
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 29.1 which amends the definition of ‘residential building’ in clause 4. The amendment is necessary to make it quite clear for the purposes of this act, the building referred to is a building that is solely or principally used for residential purposes; that is, the building is the principal place of residence of the person or persons. It is not intended that the proposed legislation would apply to swimming pools situated at commercial properties such as hotels, motels or backpacker accommodation.
The amendment now makes it quite clear that the legislation does not apply to hotels and motels, but could apply to backpacker accommodation or bed and breakfast accommodation where the owner of the premises lives on the premises; that is, where the premises are their principal place of residence. The amendment became necessary when it was found that the Macquarie Dictionary defines ‘residential’ as including ‘(of a hotel etc) catering for guests who stay permanently or for extended periods’. It was considered, therefore, that the original definition of ‘residential buildings’ would not exclude hotels and motels from the application of the proposed act. Therefore, we are required to amend the definition to definitely exclude hotels and motels from the application of the act.
Dr LIM: I know of a block of 15 units owned by one owner, who rents it out on short-term, one week to one month occupancy, that has a swimming pool for the use of the occupants. It is not a house; it is a block of units, of 15 separate apartments. It is rented out on a commercial basis from one week, to one month, to three months duration. It has a swimming pool. It occupies a cul-de-sac in one of the suburbs. Is that block of units exempted?
Mr AH KIT: Member for Greatorex, the words say what they mean. If you have a different interpretation, and you want to go fishing for that, then you are quite entitled to do that. I will, if you wish, endeavour to get back to you shortly, once I seek a little more advice. But I have to be open and honest, I suppose, in saying that the drafting, the words of this bill, and the intent, I do not think is an exercise to go through now, seeking …
Mr Dunham: What, in committee? That is what we do.
Mr AH KIT: Hang on, hang on, let me finish. Seeking out and dredging through and coming up with all these examples of what if, what if, what if. We could be here for the next two days if that exercise was to continue. However, as I said, I will seek some advice and get back to you on that one.
Dr LIM: I am not being facetious or difficult, minister. When this was read out just now, I thought of a block of units behind the Jape complex in Millner, which is three storeys high, with six or nine units per level, and on ground level there is a swimming pool. Now, they are not holiday accommodation, but people go there for a month to three months. Must that pool be fenced? That is the first question.
Second question: right throughout your second-reading speech and your response, you talked about swimming pool fencing to protect children, to prevent children drowning. Here you are giving, essentially a residential complex for short-term residences, an exemption. Again, I see inconsistency in what you are trying to do and I am asking for some consistency.
Mr AH KIT: I have been advised that a block of units is a block of units is a block of units. Let us research our minds a little in terms of the motel and hotel accommodation around the Northern Territory. In almost every place I have been, especially in the capital cities, they are all fenced, they all have safety latches on them.
Mr Dunham: Why not prescribe it?
Mr AH KIT: I cannot see what you are trying to get at. Are you trying to create something that is not there?
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Deputy Chair, my question is why the minister has presented these exemptions? I am asking why these premises are exempt.
Mr AH KIT: Well, I thought I explained that they are residential. Sorry, they are commercial premises at which accommodation is provided for a fee or under a short-term lease for the purpose of holiday accommodation, and which the owner occupier has a responsibility to maintain.
Mr DUNHAM: I thought the basic purpose of the act was to prevent childhood drowning. I would have thought that holiday accommodation would have provided a reasonable risk. As you have said, minister, I do not think I have ever seen a place like that that does not have the fencing. The Daly Waters Pub has put in a pool and they have a fence. All I am saying is most of these places do it. Why would you exempt them when one would think that, if you are after ameliorating risk for small children, surely holiday accommodation would be in among the high risk groups?
Mr AH KIT: I am advised the purpose of the legislation is to deal with risk in residential premises.
Ms MARTIN: Can I just add to that? This is about residential premises and it is about finding the balance. This is why we have also said we will exempt above two hectare properties. It is finding that balance. I do not pretend that it is necessarily an easy decision for government where that balance is found, but I believe that the balance we found is an adequate and fair one. Under this legislation, the focus is very clearly on residential.
The onus for a commercial operator is there within the way they run their premises and they will deal with that appropriately because of their liability issues. Our focus in this legislation is about residential, and if you are going to make major complaints about this commercial, I hope you are going to make the same ones about exempting two hectares. I expect that to come from you, member for Goyder.
Mr DUNHAM: I am not sure who I should address this to, but the point I am trying to make is that, almost universally these premises fence their pools, which the minister has admitted to. I would suspect that they would be reasonably high risk. So, the pool at Mandorah and places like that where there is the potential for children to go unattended, or not be supervised for short periods of time, would be fairly high risk. While the Chief Minister is trying to say that the focus is on residential, I would have thought the focus is on the prevention of drowning. I would have thought that there is a risk of drowning at these particular premises and, given that most of them are this way anyway and most of them have taken steps, why would you exempt them? Why would you not include them?
Mr AH KIT: The decision is a decision on residential and that is what this government saw fit to decide on. So, I say to you once again: the decision is based on residential, as explained just a moment ago by the Chief Minister.
Dr LIM: All I can say to the minister is that you are not being consistent with your decision.
Mr MALEY: Minister, in relation to some of the definitions contained in clause 4, you talk about the definition of swimming pool at page 4 of the draft bill, just under the amendment which you just introduced to residential buildings. Why did you use the word ‘means,’ that exhaustive term, as opposed to ‘include’. You have ‘swimming pool means …’ blah, blah, blah, blah. That is the first part of my question: why exhaustive?
Secondly, why do you have …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Goyder, can we deal with the amendment and then move on to other sections? We are still on the amendment. Sorry, member for Goyder; you will have the opportunity to ask all of that but if we could deal with, so that this legislation is dealt with appropriately …
Mr MALEY: No problem. I thought we had dealt with it.
Mr WOOD: Just on what was being discussed before. The Chief Minister said that the main objective was to fence residential, but in the second reading it says:
What we should be trying to do, Minister, is regardless of where it is, if it is in a block of units or the Holiday Inn, you are trying to bring that particular swimming pool up to the Australian Standards. I would agree with what your objective is. This is the second reading, and if there is some way that can occur for that block of flats, I would actually ask you to include those in. I am not trying to be a nuisance, I am just saying it makes sense to bring those pools into line with what your second-reading objective said.
Otherwise, if you are going to say it is only for residential, then I would argue those one hectare blocks of land should not be included.
Mr AH KIT: As I said, member for Nelson, the decision was based on residential. Whilst I understand the point you are making in regards to the zoning of those two hectare and below blocks, it is not what I believe the intent of this legislation is. That is, I believe that this legislation actually encompasses the residential aspects of those rural blocks from two hectares down.
In regards to the hotel/motel areas, we have included those to ensure that they conform. I have said that we will come back and have a look at it, and I will seek some further advice on that. But I can report in respect of the amendments to clause 3.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Can I just say then that we are deferring the amendment, 29.1, is that what you are saying?
Ms Martin: No.
Dr LIM: Madam Deputy Chair, if I may, may I?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: You may, but the will not hear you while they are talking.
Dr LIM: It appears to me that the minister is asking that we suspend clause 4 as well, for the time being, and go back to clause 3.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, we have had enough debate. If they have a differing position, well we have heard what that position is. However, as I said, the decision was based on residential. We are quite happy to stay with that. If it needs to be put to the vote, then so be it. But in regards to the amendment to clause 3, I am quite happy to accommodate that.
Dr LIM: May I speak to clause 4 now. Let us deal with clause 4 first, minister, okay? What you said earlier was that you were not certain and you were going to seek some advice on clause 4. Now, you have turned around and said: ‘No, that is it’, you are going to stick by these words and not consider anything further. Are you seeking advice or are you not?
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I just said, no, we have had enough debate about it. I have said that if agree to disagree then let us take the vote on it. I am quite happy to accommodate your amendment to clause 3, and then move forward.
Mr WOOD: You also said that you would review it. Would you be happy to review this in the February sittings? If that is what you said earlier. I am happy to support the motion if there is a guarantee you could review it in the next sittings, because there is a concern there. It would be just nice to …
Mr AH KIT: I do not know whether I quite said that we would be reviewing it in February, but common sense is applicable, in that we will be monitoring the implementation of this legislation as of 1 January. We will be keeping an eye on how things are moving forward and we will be moving to correct some of the situations that could occur. We will need to iron out the bugs, as normal with any new legislation. So, I will be able to come back and provide a report in February at our sittings.
Dr LIM: Well, I am glad to hear that the minister has admitted there are bugs within his legislation, even at this early stage of our discussion. I look forward to looking at this in February, as you just promised.
Ms MARTIN: Look, the point is clearly made that, as with any legislation, of course, you will be reviewing it. The whole focus of this is to clear up a situation that has not been tackled by a previous administration, year after year after year. Certainly the focus …
Mr Reed: Do not try to fob off it at this stage, Clare.
Ms MARTIN: I beg your pardon?
Mr Reed: Don’t try to fob it off to someone else at this stage. It is your legislation.
Ms MARTIN: You can call me Chief Minister or member for Fannie Bay, thank you. I am making the point very clearly that this legislation is about tackling the situation we find in our suburban areas. That is where the drownings have occurred and that is what we are tackling with a very comprehensive range of measures. Did we ever hear any initiative like this from the previous government? Not a word. All we get now is simply nitpicking. I recognise a point was made by the member for Greatorex about clause 3, and we certainly accept your amendment because, very clearly this has to apply to all suburban houses, in terms of public housing and private. This is about residential housing in our suburbs, and that is where the focus for this bill is.
Dr LIM: I find it curious that the Chief Minister gets up and says: ‘This is about looking after people who are living in the suburbs’. Well, the block of 15 units owned by a single owner, rented out on short-term basis …
Ms Martin: Is it registered as a hotel or a motel? No.
Dr LIM: … are all in a residential area. What is the inconsistency there? I see a block of units owned by a person for short-term lease, for hotel or holiday accommodation; I see another block of units strata titled, and I see a single house. They are side by side. You have inconsistency in your legislation.
Ms MARTIN: Oh, rubbish!
Mr MALEY: Minister, just a point of clarification. When you said that you would accommodate the proposed amendment to clause 3, did you mean accommodate as in take it on board and consider it, or accommodate and acquiesce to it and the government will support it?
Ms MARTIN: I just said that; I just said it.
Mr MALEY: I try to switch off to you. I am talking to the minister.
Mr AH KIT: No, it is supported. Accommodate in terms of accommodating the proposal put forward. When I say accommodate, I am accepting it. It will be accommodated and included.
Ms CARTER: Minister, on this issue of commercial properties, what about a B & B? We have a number of bed and breakfasts now within the Darwin suburban area.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, as I read out in the third paragraph in my notes, it is not intended that the proposed legislation would apply to swimming pools situated at commercial properties such as hotels, motels or backpacker accommodation.
Ms CARTER: But would that include what we know as a bed and breakfast, as well?
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, if I can just finish off, thanks. The amendment now makes it quite clear that the legislation does not apply to hotels and motels but could apply to backpacker accommodation or bed and breakfast accommodation where the owner of the premises lives on the premises; that is, where the premises is the principal place of residence.
Consideration of clause 4 and amendment postponed.
Reconsideration of clause 3:
Mr AH KIT: As I said, I had accepted the amendment …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Minister, if will resume your seat, I will get the member for Greatorex to move that amendment.
Dr LIM: Madam Deputy Chair, I move the following amendment to clause 3:
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Reconsideration of clause 4:
Dr LIM: Madam Deputy Chair, we are still on clause 4, aren’t we?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Yes.
Dr LIM: Good. That is what I wanted clarification on.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: I was just going to indicate that to the member for Goyder who had flagged a question previously.
Mr MALEY: Madam Acting Chair, my question to the minister is a fairly simple question. In the definition of ‘swimming pool’ at page 4 of the bill, you used the word ‘means’ as opposed to ‘includes’, and exhaustive - meaning that definition is exhaustive. First of all, why did you decide to have a exhaustive definition as opposed to leaving it a little broader than that?
Second, you go on to say that the first paragraph of that definition ‘is capable of …’ blah, blah, blah ‘… of the swimming pool’. So, you have a word, like defining ‘dog’ means ‘an animal which is a dog’. You have used the word you are trying to define to help explain what you mean by the word you are trying to define. So I am wondering why you have done that, and do you agree that it creates some confusion?
Mr AH KIT: When you pick up on the interpretation you, of all people, would understand the process this goes through before it comes to this stage. I have to tell you the words that are used are designed to achieve the purpose of this bill which we seek for this legislation. So it might not be words that fit with your understanding, interpretation, or vocabulary - legal or otherwise.
Dr LIM: Perhaps we can make a suggestion, minister, in an amicable way that somehow we can agree to delete the words ‘of the swimming pool’ and it will still make perfectly good sense and retain the intent of your legislation.
Mr AH KIT: No. It makes perfectly good sense now as it stands. You have not argued why it does not, so I am not going to accept that.
Dr LIM: Earlier, I raised the issue about the supermarket vinyl specials and the minister read out about the ads that he saw - from K-Mart and Target ads - where there is a little clause at the bottom of the picture of the swimming pool that, before installing or erecting the pool, you have to seek advice from your local council. The minister knows full well, if he had read the whole legislation, that the council will no longer have any rights because their by-laws are going to be repealed by this legislation. So that does not apply.
Minister, I ask again: how do you define the supermarket vinyl special that is pretty small, about 300 mm in depth, that can be filled in a backyard of your Territory Housing residence, can be taken indoors even because it is small enough to fit in the bathroom or on a tiled lounge floor. Do you define that as a swimming pool also?
Mr AH KIT: The definition of a pool is based on the Australian Standard, which has been in place for many years and subject to rigorous research, discussion and testing by industry. Splasher pools are included in the Australian Standards, but are defined as a structure that is filled to a depth of less than 300 mm and intended to be used by young children.
Whilst it may be unrealistic to expect users to erect permanent fencing around such pools, these pools should be filled with water only when they are to be used, and should always be emptied after use and left in such a way that water cannot accumulate in them. In addition to the danger that an unattended and unprotected pool presents, the water needs to be changed frequently, to prevent contamination with organic matter. Most packaging and advertising for paddling pools and the new range of portable or above-ground swimming pools, contain a warning to ‘contact your council for information on pool fencing laws’. As indicated, with these three brochures that I showed you earlier, from K-Mart, Big W, and Target.
With regard to what they say on those pamphlets, I have explained that we are moving with uniform legislation across the Territory. I have explained that LGANT has been represented ...
Mr Dunham: It is not uniform. It is residential.
Mr AH KIT: Hang on. You understand that they have representation on LGANT, they have worked through this. We have heard what the member for Sanderson said when, in 1994, the member for Katherine stood up in this Chamber and talked about the responsibilities that we have for swimming pool fencing requirements and legislation. We heard about the former member for Port Darwin standing up here, almost in the same position, talking about 3500 petitioners, and that the town or city councils were not big enough, mature enough, to handle the swimming pool fencing responsibilities. We have a situation now where we have decided that we will bring in Australian Standard swimming pool fencing legislation, that will bring us in line with the rest of the other states and territories, so that does not leave us being frowned upon, and it does not continue to leave us with a horrible record of child drownings, which is the worst, not only in Australia, but internationally.
Mr MALEY: Minister, in relation to clause 4, it is interesting you should talk about blindly adopting legislation from other jurisdictions. In your definition of owner, if you look at page 3, and once again, you have an exhaustive definition so you cannot go outside the scope of what is contained in the definition. You talk about land registered under the Land Titles Act; then go and talk about fee simple interest; then put in ‘or …’ – there is a disjunctive ‘or’ there – ‘… Crown Lands Act, Pastoral Lands Act, Special Purposes Leases Act …’etcetera.
Why, minister, have you excluded people who live on inalienable land or people who have an exclusive right to live on land pursuant to native title rights? You will notice that it is a type of interest in property, which is not predominant interstate, so the question is: why have you excluded those two types of ownership from your definition of ‘owner’? Of course, if you recall, 55% of the Territory is actually held under either native title or pursuant to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, which are not definitions of ‘ownership’ under this particular definition. So, this legislation then, will only apply to 45% of the Territory.
Mr AH KIT: ‘Owner,’ in relation to the premises, means the person recorded in the land register. It is there; it is self-explanatory. If you believe that that is not sufficient to satisfy you, then you are quite welcome to put up an amendment to include whatever you like, and then we can debate it to see whether that gets up or not. However, you raise it here and, as I said, these words are designed to achieve the intent and the purpose of the bill as we move through the committee stages to legislation.
We could spend a month of Sundays wanting to add to the interpretations lists, if that is what you want to do. But it is defined, it is concise and it is achieving the aims that we want to achieve.
Mr MALEY: Minister, it is your legislation. You have brought it to this parliament and you have considered it. You said it has taken an enormous amount of time to go over it. It is a simple question. On this interpretation of ‘owner’ - and I will just remind you of it - it means the person recorded in the land register under the Land Title Act as the person entitled to fee simple interest or under the Crown Lands Act, Pastoral Lands Act or Special Purposes Leases Act.
That means you have specifically excluded all of that land which is subject to - well, people live on it or occupy it by virtue of - the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act or the Native Title Act. In other words, just by the very definition of ‘owner’, this legislation only applies to about 45% of the Territory. Why did you do that?
Mr AH KIT: The definition of ‘owner’ is there to purport the legislation, the bill. There is nothing wrong. If you think there is something sinister in: ‘Oh, let us exclude all Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory because he is an indigenous minister and he is looking after the land councils’, and all that sort of stuff …
Mr MALEY: Do not play the race card; it is a genuine question. I was born here too and do not do it because I am whatever – I have asked you a quite genuine question. You have excluded most of the Territory …
Mr AH KIT: Listen here, my friend; you came into the briefing and you spent how long - 10 minutes. You have an amendment there? Put the amendment up and let us debate it. Let us debate it. You came in for 10 minutes, you found out that it was not going to cost your mob anything so you walked out – lazy!. But you come in here and you use your legal expertise - and that is fine - we can walk our way through …
Mr Maley: You are the minister.
Mr AH KIT: Of course I am, and I am very proud to be …
Mr Maley: Well, what is your intention?
Mr AH KIT: I am very proud to be. But if you want to - as I said earlier - nitpick and play games, then that is an indication to the Territory community that you are really not supportive of the intent of this legislation, and that you have adopted opposition to this because you never ever got around to - in your government days - doing anything about this because you had your head in the sand. I am reminded and advised that under what you are pointing out there and seeking, the fee simple interest in the premises, it is all encompassing – it is a catch-all, and that should …
Ms Martin: Yes, and that is the best legal advice.
Dr LIM: May I ask a question? Dwelling on the issue that the member for Goyder raised, the owner, I look at it from say Hermannsburg, Ntaria. The community of Ntaria is divided into small housing blocks. I assume that those housing blocks with a swimming pool will have to have the swimming pool fenced?
Mr Dunham: This is your fee simple answer, you just cannot …
Ms MARTIN: I did not hear what you said, sorry.
Dr LIM: Okay. Talking about the fee simple issue you just raised a little while ago. Take the community of Ntaria, or anywhere you like - Finke, wherever you like to use. There are houses there on small premises; they are all small blocks. Assume there is a house, with a family, and a swimming pool. It will apply?
Ms MARTIN: It will apply. That is a catch-all phrase: it would apply.
Dr LIM: But how? But there is nothing in there, within the definition of the ‘owner’, that brings that in.
Ms MARTIN: That is a catch-all phrase. The best legal advice is that it covers all those circumstances and applies in ownership across the Territory. Okay? This is not intended to exclude; this is intended to include.
Mr WOOD: I have heard statements made before that we might be nitpicking, but it is important that this bit of legislation is worked through correctly. I do support the principle of the bill but we have to look at some things, and some things have been raised today that I would not have raised in the briefing because I did not think of them. So, this is another opportunity to raise questions. Some important issues have just been raised. Take the town of Nguiu. The title of the land would be one big block, which would be ‘large premises’ under this act. I do not believe any Aboriginal person owns a small block of land on an individual title. It is a piece of land that is separated out for the sake of, that is the boundary. But I do not believe they have a separate title. I see a problem there that the big block of land is the whole of Bathurst Island, therefore, it is a large premise. How do you work out whether your law would apply to a swimming pool on a block of land in Nguiu? What would enforce that?
Mr Dunham: Your legal advice was wrong, Chief Minister.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Nelson, have you finished your question?
Mr WOOD: Sorry, I was just interrupted.
Mr AH KIT: The definition of premises, member for Nelson: (a) a parcel of land, or (b) if there is a swimming pool at common property, a unit or building block, each within the meaning of the Unit Titles Act. In respect of the Tiwis, as I said earlier, the fee simple interest in the premises is the catch-all. The best legal advice has given us that.
Mr Dunham: No, no, no, bad advice.
Dr Lim: It is not fee simple in Nguiu.
Mr AH KIT: Legal advice has given us that. Do you wish to dispute that?
Members interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: The premises, the parcel of land; this is defining the situation that you are talking about.
Mr WOOD: But isn’t the parcel of land, say, on Bathurst Island and other places, one big portion, and therefore a large premise? Therefore, this is not applicable. I see the advisor shaking of his head. Maybe I have it wrong, but it is an important thing to be explained.
Mr AH KIT: I have just had some advice from the Solicitor General and he has confirmed that the Aboriginal land under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act is fee simple. Right? And is registered under the Land Titles Act, thus the bill does apply to Aboriginal land. Okay?
Mr MALEY: Okay, I accept that.
Mr WOOD: The town of Nguiu; does it have separate titles of that land, for each house; or is it totally included in one big portion of Aboriginal land? In other words, are there small pieces of land that are little bits of Aboriginal land in it held under fee simple? Or is it one big piece of land held in fee simple?
Mr AH KIT: As I understand it, there is one title that is held in trust by the Tiwi Land Council for both Melville and Bathurst Islands.
Mr DUNHAM: So it is exempt?
Mr AH KIT: No, I just said: the bill does apply to Aboriginal land. Tom Pauling just confirmed that the Aboriginal land under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act is fee simple and is registered under the Land Titles Act, so it applies.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but the exemption for a registration and the requirement to fence a pool is for large premises, which are defined as over two hectares. Now, the whole of Bathurst Island is over two hectares. I am not trying to be smart. I will tell you why I am raising the issue: Nguiu has 1000 people and there is a fair …
Dr Burns: How many swimming pools?
Mr WOOD: Well, it may, or may not, that does not matter. We are not working on hypotheticals …
Dr Burns: We are working on risk.
Mr WOOD: We are working on risk, that is right. Now, what law would make sure that a swimming pool on a premises at Bathurst Island had to have a fence?
Ms Scrymgour: The council’s by-law.
Mr WOOD: No. The council does not have anything under this act. The council by-laws ...
Ms Scrymgour: TILG.
Mr WOOD: No, it does not. This takes over from councils now. The government has the law on fencing, not the council any more. So I want to make sure that the government’s law will do what you might have said the council will take over.
Ms Scrymgour: The one pool has fences. It has a fence.
Mr WOOD: That is right. But what in that act will make sure that occurs? I want it to occur.
Mr AH KIT: As I said, ‘premises’ defines premises as any parcel of land, not necessarily applying to the title concerns that you have - any parcel of land.
Dr LIM: Let me put this to you, minister, and I am trying to picture what the member for Nelson has raised. Assuming I have a 10 hectare block, it is a large parcel. On that I have three families living in three separate houses, and each house has a swimming pool.
Ms MARTIN: That is dealt with further into the act. Specifically.
Dr LIM: Now, the same situation applies to Nguiu. A large parcel of land, large premise with one, two, three or four swimming pools. One could be at the church, one could be in somebody’s house and one could be the council swimming pool. What are the requirements there?
Ms Stirling: They are in the act.
Ms MARTIN: The intention here is to adequately and accurately cover what we are dealing with. Whatever questions you are asking, we have given the answers clearly. We have given those answers clearly, and if what this is about is opposing the act, then simply say you want to oppose it. This is not …
Mr Dunham: Just trying to clarify it.
Ms MARTIN: No, this is not. This is a blocking attempt at the act. This is not about the intent of the act, this is about nitpicking, and that is truly what it is. We have the legal advice here. We have said that these definitions meet what we are intending to do. Let us move on and talk about the intent of this act and the detail of it that actually are the important parts of the act. This is nitpicking. If you want to oppose the act, be honest, stand here and say you oppose it.
This is not achieving anything. This is shooting in the breeze, by the member for Goyder, particularly, who thinks that lawyers have to come in here and nitpick. We have given you the answers …
Mr Maley: It is not that. It is about parliament and democracy and a bit of respect.
Ms MARTIN: We have given you the answers and we want to get to the detail of this bill, which are the important details. It is about protecting children’s lives. It is not nitpicking, it is about protecting children’s lives and something that a Country Liberal Party did not do after 27 years in power. So let us stop the nitpicking. Let us be honest. If the truth is that you want to oppose it, have some intestinal fortitude and stand up and oppose it.
Dr LIM: Madam Deputy Chair, I resent the remarks made by the Chief Minister. I want to try to deal with the issue. I can stand here proudly today and say that I was the alderman who brought the swimming pool by-laws into Alice Springs. I moved heaven and hell to get there, so do not accuse me of trying …
Ms Martin: You were the minister for local government - you could have done it then.
Dr Burns: Where are you now? That is the question I ask.
Dr LIM: Do not accuse me of trying to grandstand or whatever. I am trying to get it clear. I want to get it clear in my head, and if the explanations are not adequate, do not blame me. I am here to listen. It is your legislation, for goodness sake, so let us stay away from personalities and stay with the issue, okay?
If the intention is to protect our children, to prevent children from drowning, then surely the concerns - whether it be in Nguiu, Hermannsburg or wherever - if there are several pools on a large parcel of land, or a large premises as you define it in your interpretation, what are the mechanisms or what are the processes that are in place to ensure that our children are protected?
Let us talk about the issues, and stop talking about personalities. I want to know how you are going to implement your legislation, so that those pools are somehow secured, so that our children are not put at risk.
Mr AH KIT: Both the Chief Minister and I have given the opposition an answer, and especially the member for Greatorex.
Mr WOOD: I have said before I have nothing to do with the opposition and, if the opposition has some history or some legacies about it that the government did not like, well, that is well and good. However, it is important to raise the questions. There are a number of Aboriginal towns in the Northern Territory, large ones - Nguiu, Port Keats, Yirrkala, and other towns - which have, or do not have pools at the moment. They may or may not, I cannot tell you that. But if we are looking at legislation to protect children, especially in residential areas, all I am asking for is someone to tell me that this legislation will apply to those pools in those townships. Will they come under the same legislation? Show me where it says so in the act. I will be satisfied.
I will continue, but I think it is my job and I am not trying to nitpick. I am not trying to pick on Aboriginal communities or any other community, but I say it is important that someone who puts up a pool at Yirrkala, Port Keats, Nguiu, is required to put a fence up because they have a body of water more than 300 mm deep. As a politician in this House, I want to make sure those children’s lives are protected; it is not about anything else.
Mr STIRLING: The advice that (a) the fee simple interest in the premises covers all of the situations that both yourself and the member for Greatorex are raising comes from the Solicitor General himself. His name is Tom Pauling. Now, he is a bit of an authority on the law in the Northern Territory. We rely on his advice. That is the advice, that this covers those areas. If that is not good enough for you, we are very sorry, but he is the guy, the authority behind that advice.
Mr MALEY: In response to the Chief Minister’s comments; this is a parliament. Its primary role is to ensure that only good legislation passes through and is considered. I am very grateful for that CPA trip that you sent me on, because one of the fairly obvious comparisons which I drew when comparing us and other parliaments, is that they spend an enormous amount of time going through legislation. Certainly in the UK, it is the primary role, and they go through each and every paragraph, paragraph by paragraph, and it takes days, and they do it properly. For you to get angry and carry on and be rude and snide and pass notes, is inappropriate, appalling, and it shows a contempt for the people of the Territory and good law …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: A point of clarification there, member for Goyder. When you say ‘you,’ are you referring to me as the Chair? You should talk to me as the Chair.
Mr MALEY: I am talking through you, Madam Deputy Chair.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Right, so you are not referring to the Chair in that.
Ms Carter: Representative of the Speaker.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: You used the words, ‘when you get snide and nasty’.
Mr MALEY: No, no, regarding the comments from the member for Fannie Bay. It does not assist the whole process and it shows contempt for the people of the Territory, and for people who listen. You can jump up and make another political statement if you wish, but these are quite logical questions. The question which the member for Nelson …
Ms Martin: You are never much of a lawyer; you are not much of a politician.
Mr MALEY: … made and put to you are more than reasonable. If the very minister who is bringing this legislation into parliament does not have a good grasp on and cannot answer these fairly straightforward questions, how do you expect the average person living in the Northern Territory to pick up this legislation and, after trawling through it, draw those conclusions? These are reasonable questions which we in the opposition - and an Independent - are not only entitled to ask but, indeed, are duty bound to ask on behalf of Territory people.
Mr STIRLING: The member is quite right. However, when the opposition is given the answer that the advice on a particular clause in the act comes from the Solicitor General of the Northern Territory - where else do you go, guys? What do we need, a High Court to test this before it is even …
Ms Martin: Get three QCs or more?
Mr STIRLING: … legislation? It is the advice of the Solicitor General, a person - and a position rather than the person - that government relies on a lot of days of every week.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Deputy Chair, there are two issues here. The first issue we wanted to know was whether it applied on Aboriginal land?
Ms Martin: And I told you 15 minutes ago.
Mr DUNHAM: We understand it is definitely your intent that it does, and that Tom Pauling has given an opinion that fee simple includes inalienable freehold title under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act held in perpetuity.
The next question is: did the Solicitor General give the advice that this act applies in the circumstances described by the member for Nelson?
Ms Martin: Yes.
Mr DUNHAM: Not whether it is fee simple. We want to know whether this act is applicable at Nguiu?
Mr STIRLING: Exactly.
Mr DUNHAM: So Tom Pauling said it is?
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, the former minister of the CLP government should be aware that in this particular case that is being referred to by the member for Nelson, parcels of land on communities are divided into individual lots and are, therefore, covered by the act.
Mr Dunham: No, they are not.
Mr AH KIT: They are serviced land availability plans. Did you ever hear of those in Cabinet?
Mr Dunham: Yes, I know about them. I know exactly about them.
Mr AH KIT: Well, you know what I am talking about then.
Mr WOOD: What actually is the definition of a parcel of land then? Is it something that is registered?
Mr Dunham: Is it surveyed? Is it registered at the Land Titles Office? Does it have an identifiable lot number?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Nelson, if you have finished your question, resume your seat so it can be answered.
Mr AH KIT: Under the interpretation, ‘owner premises’ means ‘a parcel of land’ which, as I just said, the serviced land availability plans allows us to take those into consideration and fit those into that category as parcels of land.
Mr WOOD: Thank you minister, but in the legal definition of a parcel of land is that part of the legal definition? We are dealing with an act which is dealing with legality, and you are saying that land on those communities does …
Mr Dunham: It is a long shot, mate, if you think SLAP plans override the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. If Tom Pauling told you that, I am surprised.
Mr AH KIT: No.
Mr MALEY: Minister, the question is this: does the government intend to establish an office of the Swimming Pool Fencing Authority? You have the definition ‘authority’ here and you refer to it meaning a person appointed under clause 41. If you go to clause 41, it talks about a person being appointed to the Swimming Pool Fencing Authority. If you read that, a person appointed under clause 41 - sorry, I take that back. Clause 41 says:
Why did you go down that path as opposed to establishing a separate statutory authority than ‘the authority’, as opposed to …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Goyder, your question is now based on clause 41, can we deal with it in clause 41?
Mr MALEY: Madam Deputy Chair, to understand the question, which relates to the definition of ‘authority’ contained in clause 4; if you read that it says: ‘means that person appointed under section 41’. So, it is probably appropriate that you have a look at clause 41, if you are following the debate. So my question is, why, when clause 41 reads words to the effect of it is appointing a person to be the authority, did the government go down the track of having a person as the authority, as opposed to a statutory entity …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Yes, but that goes to the question of clause 41, not clause 4, the description of authority.
Mr MALEY: With respect, it is directly related to the definition of authority contained in clause 4, which is what we are addressing. So it is not a smarty-ism. It is actually a genuine question.
Mr AH KIT: It is a statutory authority. Do you want to go through that now, and the administration of it?
Mr MALEY: You can give me a summary; that is all right. You do not have to go through in detail, but a summary of how it is structured.
Mr AH KIT: The Swimming Pool Fencing Authority allows the minister to appoint a person to be the Swimming Pool Fencing Authority by notice in the Gazette. The minister may also appoint, by notice in the Gazette, another person nominated by a council to be the Swimming Pool Fencing Authority for the council area - so that obviously addresses delegation - or another person to be the Swimming Pool Fencing Authority for an area specified in the notice.
This allows me to appoint more than one authority if required at some future date. I also may delegate the exercise of power or the performance of a function under this act to a council or a person appointed under subsection (2) for the area specified in the instrument of delegation. It also allows the person appointed as the authority under subsection (1) to help or assist if requested, or in an emergency, to provide an inspector to assist another authority appointed under subsection (2).
So what you are asking is why haven’t we established a separate authority, independent of government, standing on its own as a statutory authority? We have the point that was raised earlier, that we are going to be having 10 swimming pool fencing inspectors. We have allocated over $0.5m to this project in terms of the work that they have to do. We know that there is 18 000 swimming pools out there. We know, and it was explained, about the problems with trying to get hard copies of all that information from those councils, so we need to start with a clean slate. We also want to ensure that we do not provide a humbug situation for the real estate industry in the sales that need to be done after 1 January.
So, taking all of those into consideration, this was drafted in a way to ensure that we have the best inspectorate authority put in place to deal with this heavy workload that is going to place upon them, when the Swimming Pool Fencing Act takes place as of 1 January.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 7:
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 33.3. The clause that I would like inserted is proposed exactly to reduce what the minister just said: there is going to be a big workload, we are going to have 10 inspectors, we are going to spend over $0.5m - it would be getting up towards the $1m by the time we have finished - to register pools. When you consider that the object of this act is, according to the second reading:
How are we doing that? The theory is we do it by registration. But, no, registration only relates to bringing a pool up to this standard if you would like to avail yourself of the money because you do not have to bring your pool up to that standard until you sell it or rent it or, in fact, you build a new pool. What an ideal time to register it: at that point. Registration is not the main emphasis on this. Bringing it up to a standard is - and I applaud the way the government has done it. By creating this path of renting or selling or having a new pool, you are introducing what could be seen by many people as unpopular; you are doing it in a sensible manner.
What does registration mean? The incentive scheme - although I have some points about that later - within the first 18 months is great. The way you get that incentive scheme payment is to ring up and say: ‘I own a pool’ and you are automatically registered because they come around and look at your pool and say: ‘Yes, you can apply for some funds’.
On top of that, the councils do have a database. Now, it may not be the most perfect database, but they do have one. This clause does put the onus on the owner of a small premise because those people have to show they have a certificate, a permit, are registered or have provisional registration. If they do not have that, they are still caught by clause 7(1). So if they do not have this, they cannot prove they are not registered. If they think the council’s database is a bit wonky, the onus is still on people to be registered. If they are picked up in the random inspections, they will be. But at the same time, if they happen to leave town it will have to be checked; it will be picked up then. If they want to rent their property, it will be picked up then.
So registration is not a big deal, but it is made a big deal because we are going to have 10 registration inspectors that I do not believe you need, simply because you will have a database. I know the member for Port Darwin said it is written. I would say it would be a lot cheaper to have someone type that into a database than sending a lot of people round in motor cars. Palmerston has – I rang them - a pretty reasonable database, and so does Alice Springs. If you presume that all those pools that those councils have on their databases are automatically registered, you will save yourself a lot of hard work. It does not exclude people from having their pool registered because, if you have not been registered under that section, you have to; it says so there. That will be picked up by random checks.
This way saves you having to go around and knock on every door to check, and that will cause a lot of angst. I do raise this later, especially with clause 15 - that is why I have invited its defeat. You are just wasting your time. I believe my amendment is a sensible change. You will save the government and the taxpayer money, and you will still get what you want, because the pools do not have to come up to the Australian Standard until you put a new one in, sell it or rent it. That is the point at which it will happen; registration does not make any difference.
Registration is just creating a great big database which is handy, but you will get that when the person comes in, when the real estate people say: ‘Well, this person is now renting their house’. You check to see that the pool is up to standard and register it then. When you sell your house, register it then if it has not been registered already. You can register it and say: ‘Well, it is now up to the standard’. We have gone a convoluted way round of getting what is a great objective; and that is the objective to bring up swimming pool fences to the Australian Standard.
I am not putting this here as trying to put a blocker on this bill, I am just trying to make it simple, save a lot of money and still come up with the same objective. Registration has been given far too much emphasis. I do believe that you did come up with a sensible process. Again, the selling of a house, the renting of a house, the new pool, gets what you want, and at that point you register them. If you want to use registration for the cash incentive, terrific, I do not mind that. But that runs out after 18 months. So that is why I am putting it forward, and for no other reason.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, we need to draw a line in the sand. It was explained earlier that the databases that the councils have are not up to scratch. They are not as good as they are explained to you, from what we heard. You did not mention Darwin City Council, which has a lot of pools in their area of jurisdiction. Their member does not support it. Three councils have advised my department that they are unable to readily provide a certain list of swimming pools currently registered in their council area. If government is to effectively enforce the proposed legislation, it needs to know with precision and certainty, the number of swimming pools currently installed at small premises in the Northern Territory, and the standard of any swimming pool barrier surrounding the swimming pool. There would be potential for legal action against the government if a property transfer was prevented with an inappropriate statutory restriction placed on the title, as a result of a mistake arising from a council record. Therefore, it is essential that all existing swimming pools at small premises be registered under this legislation.
We have provided the scheme there to encourage people to come forward and to be responsible, and to be responsible citizens like those who have taken that responsibility to ensure that they have good swimming pool fencing around the pool on their property - whether it be in the rural area, or residential in the northern suburbs or whatever. For 18 months we are encouraging people to come forward to take the opportunity of that, so that they can at least, for their conscience and for the valuation in respect of their block, whether they want to sell it if they so desire or if they wish to keep it and retain it forever. That is a choice they need to make; whether they are above the two hectare properties.
However, we have to draw the line in the sand; we have to start from scratch. The only way we are going to get it organised properly is to have that one registration system. It is not a desire for our government to be running the responsibilities of swimming pools for the next 10 years. I am keen, in the next three to five years, if councils wish to accept that responsibility. As you know, I am working with councils to discuss the partnership agreements that we need to put into place. So it is not a matter of coming in with a big stick over the councils and taking over their responsibilities; it is about showing leadership as a responsible government, to ensure that we bring in a bill that we want to enact into legislation that starts from scratch, draws the line in the sand. That was the old days; let us not worry about the politics of how that got to that situation. Let us move forward and let us do it properly.
Mr WOOD: Minister, yes, while I can accept that, it is an expensive way to get where you wanted to get; and that is to bring pools up to that standard. You can forget the way I have put this clause through; you can do exactly what you are trying to do on clause 15 - well, partly on clause 15. You could just say: ‘We are not going to register pools until they are sold or until they are rented’. Eventually you will catch up with them all. To some extent, that is exactly what you are trying to do with clause 15, because people do not have to fence their pool at all under those by-laws, because there are no by-laws there at all.
All I am saying is that I would be very surprised if a municipality like Palmerston does not have a pretty reasonable database on pools at that council. It may not be perfect, but I would say it would be substantially perfect because they have not been running it for very long. They certainly have the most stringent swimming pool legislation of any council – I am not sure how it compares with Alice Springs. I would have thought that, although they will not be perfect, it would get a fairly good number of those pools into your database. As I said before, the clause that requires people to register is still there, so if you are doing spot checks, you would pick those people up because there is a requirement on the owner to have been registered.
I understand where you are coming from, but it is a very expensive way to achieve what you are trying to achieve.
Mr AH KIT: Member for Nelson, I note your comments and your concerns, and the reason why you put this amendment forward, but I made my position and the reasons why clear.
Ms CARTER: Madam Deputy Chair, just a comment on that point. I was speaking to a Darwin city alderman today who has a keen interest in this area, and I was advised that the vast majority of their records is a paper copy, and that it will be quite difficult to transcribe into a computer. But, of course, it could be done and I am sure it will be done at some point.
Minister, that is fine on that. With regard to clause 7 and registration, how long does registration last, and is it transferable from owner to owner once you have a pool registered?
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Deputy Chair! Sorry. We are only actually talking to this amendment at this stage, aren’t we? The member for Port Darwin is actually …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: That is right, we are talking to the amendment. When we have done with that amendment, you can then ask the question, if you do not mind.
Ms CARTER: Sorry, yes.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: A point of clarification to avoid any confusion. I am about to put the question in terms of the amendment which is …
Dr LIM: If I may intervene here? I do not know whether my comments are going to relate specifically to the amendment or not, but I would like to speak about clause 7. I felt inclined, as the Deputy Chief Minister, that we are talking about clause 7. We can incorporate the amendment and my comments to it and go from there. Are you happy with that?
Mr WOOD: You have to get a ruling from the Chair on that. That is not for me.
Dr LIM: My issue is quite simple …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Greatorex, do you want to talk to the amendment or do you want to talk to the clause, because if you want to talk to the clause only, we can deal with your question after the amendment. But if it is both, then talk now. Sorry?
Dr LIM: It is about registration.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: But is it about the words in the amendment, or is it a broader question on registration?
Dr LIM: It is. The word ‘registration’ is in the amendment as well, and I want to talk about the registration.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Greatorex, my ruling is that you are not talking specifically to the words in the amendment, so you will have your chance on registration once we deal with the amendment.
We are dealing with the amendment which is Schedule No 33 from Mr Wood.
Amendment negatived.
Ms CARTER: Minister, with regard to section 7, how long does registration last? If it lasts for some considerable time, can it be transferred from owner to owner of a premises?
Mr AH KIT: Once the pool is registered, it is registered forever. Okay? Only on transfer, it continues. If you sell your house, you have your compliance certificate, everything is above board. Just that first registration applies to the new swimming pools’ registration where that would be $100.
Ms CARTER: So therefore, minister, the registration relates to the property as opposed to the name of the owner?
Mr AH KIT: That is right. That is correct.
Dr LIM: A bit further on that, a swimming pool is currently registered with the Darwin City Council or Palmerston City Council and is complying under their by-laws. When the pool owner applies to the government for registration of a swimming pool because it has a compliance certificate, it can stay there as it is until there is a change of ownership of the property or the residence with the swimming pool becomes a tenanted property. In other words, as long as it belongs to that one particular owner, that non-compliant pool can be non-compliant, according to this legislation, for all time.
Minister, what is the point of having a legislation that that does nothing. Here you have a swimming pool that has a non-compliant fence according to your legislation, it is registered with you in your database, remains in the database for all time. Because the pool belongs to the same family for the next three generations, you have a pool with a non-compliant fence for the next 100 years.
Mr Dunham: Why register it?
Dr LIM: Is it registered – yes? I am waiting for a response to my question.
Mr AH KIT: The bill taken in its entirety is based on ensuring, member for Greatorex, that we reach the standards. That is what we are after here; to ensure that the Australian Standards apply.
The member for Nelson put the case that Palmerston has great records and that is good. I believe him. But if we are to go to a situation of excluding them from what I am attempting to do here tonight in this bill and this legislation, then it is not starting from scratch; drawing that line in the sand and showing that it is uniform and moving forward together so that we do get ourselves away from this terrible record of child drownings in the Northern Territory. I suppose I making the analogy this is applicable to the situation. You are putting to me now, in terms of them wishing to stay on the records of the Palmerston Town Council rather than to come across and register with our …
Dr Lim: Authority.
Mr AH KIT: Authority, yes.
Dr LIM: Well if I may re-explain myself, minister? On 1 January 2003, this legislation comes into force. On 31 December 2002, living in Darwin, I have a swimming pool that is compliant with the Darwin City Council by-laws. Your legislation is built on premise that perhaps the Darwin City Council by-laws are not adequate, are deficient, and you want to raise the standard of pool fencing. However, as I am registered as having a compliant pool fence with the Darwin City Council within the Darwin City Council by-laws, on 1 January 2003 when I apply for registration with the Northern Territory Swimming Pools Authority or whatever you call it, theoretically my pool is a registered, compliant pool under this act, and it will need to be upgraded to your standards at a time I sell or rent my property. If I choose not to sell, if I choose to live in this property until my untimely death or whatever, my pool fence does not have to be compliant with your legislation because it is already compliant to the existing Darwin City Council by-laws until 31 December. Am I correct?
Mr AH KIT: Registration will be encouraged, as the Chief Minister mentioned earlier.
Dr Lim: I will be registered by 1 January with you.
Mr AH KIT: It will be begin next week in earnest, and the government will also have an extensive education program and a cash bonus system, as I explained, to encourage people to come in and register and take advantage of that early registration incentive scheme.
The registration process also acknowledges that the pool owner satisfies the current council by-laws. So I cannot see what point you are tying to make here.
Dr LIM: If I may explain that, minister? My point is that you are suggesting that your legislation is going to fix the deficiencies that are in the Darwin City Council by-laws. That is why you have this legislation, otherwise you would not be fixing Darwin at all. If you think Darwin City Council by-laws are sufficient, are adequate, then you would not be passing this legislation to fix it. So you do not find the Darwin City Council by-laws efficient.
You also said if I am registered with a compliant pool, according to Darwin City Council by-laws then, on 1 January 2003 when I apply to your authority for registration, I will automatically be registered as having a compliant pool fence. Yet, it may not be, because it might not be the ASA that you are talking about because the Darwin City Council by-laws might not be up to the ASA standard. That is what you are suggesting.
Now I have a swimming pool that does not comply with your ASA standard but, because I have chosen not to rent or sell my property, I am not compelled to upgrade my fence.
Mr AH KIT: I wish you could give me a better example. I am sorry, I just find it hard trying to follow you. Let us go through this. You are saying if you are on the Darwin City Council records …
Dr LIM: Let me try again, minister. I have a property in Darwin, a three-bedroom house on a suburban block and a swimming pool in my backyard. I went to the city council and said: ‘I have a pool in my backyard, I have a pool fence of these dimensions’, and Darwin City Council signs off. It might be only 1 m high, or whatever …
Mr AH KIT: But they registered you.
Dr LIM: But they registered me, okay? It complies with the Darwin City Council by-laws.
Next year, when your legislation is in force, I apply to the authority for registration and the process, according to this legislation, is yes, I will be ticked off as compliant ….
Mr Wood: No, non-compliant.
Dr LIM: Legal, non-compliant. You ticked me off because you are saying I have been registered with the Darwin City Council as having a compliant swimming pool fence. Next year, under your authority, when I apply for registration, you say: ‘Yes, you have already had a compliant pool with the Darwin City Council’.
Ms MARTIN: I am understanding what the member is saying. You are registered, you have a pool that comes up to the existing Darwin City Council by-laws which means that it might be up to Australian Standard, or it might not be. You might have a perimeter fencing situation. You will then accept that you close those gates, but if you are a renter and you continue rent, then you cannot be forced to change. If you own and do not sell, you cannot be forced to change, but you lose out in the incentive bonus to put that pool fencing up to standard, and that then becomes your responsibility. We are not going after you.
Dr LIM: No, that’s right, okay, so what the Chief Minister said, agrees with my point, that yes, I do not have to spend any more money on my fence if I plan to live in the house for the next 30 years. I do not have to, and it is fine.
So, now, throughout the suburbs of Darwin, potentially you could have a hotchpotch of swimming pool fences, those that comply with the legislation and those that do not . Am I right in that?
Mr WOOD: It is exactly my point. Then why have registration? Why have it, except for the incentive scheme?
Ms MARTIN: The whole point of registration is to understand what is out there in the marketplace, so that we are able to monitor, because even though the member for Greatorex says he is renting his house and he will rent it forever, that is probably not the case. Once that change of tenant happens, then the pool has to come up to Australian Standard and, if the member for Greatorex decides to sell the house, then that will again have to come up to Australian Standards.
So, registration is that line in the sand. We will understand what is there, and we then know where there are pools. The person who is the owner of the pool then has the comfort of knowing their pool is up to Australian Standard. The registration is key, particularly when government is talking about a cash bonus, and an interest-free loan scheme, we have to understand what we are dealing with. But we are not going to take a big stick and tell somebody that they must do that if they are going to keep renting the same premises, or if they are not going to sell those premises. However, you do miss out on the bonus.
Let me say one of the things I made very clear, and one that, as I have walked the streets of Darwin has distressed me most - and it is distressful - is that many people have pools with perimeter fences where those perimeter fences are not closed. One thing this government is very committed to: we will check that your fence, if it is a perimeter fence, member for Greatorex, in your theoretical case, that front gate will be closed and it will meet the current standards.
But we are trying to say, as a community, we recognise the importance of having that barrier. It is not 100% barrier against little children drowning in pools, but it is effective and research and experience around Australia has found that it is effective. So what we are saying, as a community, is: ‘Let us embrace this’. We are saying that you do not have to, but we are offering you a cash bonus and a loans incentive to do that. So, there is an element of goodwill in here, but if, like the member for Greatorex, and his theoretical circumstance then you can do that. But I will say in the theoretical circumstance, if we come round as the authority, as an inspector, and find that your front gate is not closed, then you will be fined. Unequivocally, you will be fined.
Dr LIM: Well, that is good. I hear what the Chief Minister is saying, that if a person decides not to upgrade their fence once they are already compliant under the registration system, then they can do so for as long as they choose, or until they have to change a tenant or sell the property. They can hang on to it, especially if they live there for the next 30 years. The pool fence will be non-compliant in the sense that it is not up to ASA standards, but it is still registered. So the question then comes back. Really, the database is for no other purpose at all except that you have got a database there. Are you going to then send inspectors around the Territory checking out on all those fences that are not up to your legislative standards?
Mr AH KIT: We have answered all of your questions, so ...
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Nelson, are you going to move your amendment.
Mr WOOD: No, just on the same area, a question of clarification. You are saying, minister, that the council’s databases are not really up to the standard you require. However, you tend to give that opinion because, in your last section which is clause 62(3) and (4), you have basically given yourself the power to take the records from a council that came into existence before the commencement day, or held on that day. They have to be made available to the authority for inspection, for the purposes of administration and enforcement of the act. Those two clauses have come in because, I would have presumed, that you believed that those municipalities had good records. If you did not want those records and you were going to start from scratch, why bother to put those in the act in the first place?
Mr AH KIT: Well, we are starting from scratch and, as I said, we are drawing that line in the sand. But the councils have been included and we have had consultations with them. They do not have a problem with that. But we will be starting from scratch. If there are any bits of information on their registration systems that they would like to pass over to us, given that we are taking on this big responsibility, then there is a spirit of cooperation and they are quite happy to pass that stuff on to us.
Dr LIM: Another question, if I may?
Ms Martin: Is it related to this clause?
Dr LIM: Yes, it is about registration. Another hypothetical: I own a house in the centre of town. It is a very big block, but still less than two hectares. I have a swimming pool that currently is registered with the Darwin City Council. I propose to sell the block on 10 January next year, and I know that the purchaser is going to knock the whole lot down and build a new you-beaut hotel on that block of land. But my conveyancer tells me that I cannot sell that block with a swimming pool on 10 January
Ms MARTIN: Empty the swimming pool and then sell it - empty the swimming pool!
Dr LIM: Hang on, if I empty the swimming pool ... The Chief Minister interjects with: ‘Empty the swimming pool’. Okay. All right, let me develop this a bit more for you, Chief Minister, before you end up in too many interjections.
I propose to sell the block with a swimming pool with a non-compliant fence, to somebody who wants to buy it to build a hotel. The Chief Minister now says on 9 January I can empty the swimming pool and it would be compliant, because there is no water, it is not a risk. There is still no fence, or a non-compliant fence around the swimming pool. On 10 January the deal is signed, I get my $10m, I run. The new purchaser comes along and he fills the pool.
Mr Ah Kit: No, you said he was going to knock it over, bulldoze it and build another block.
Dr LIM: Hang on, let me finish. He has bought the block of land, the conveyancing has already occurred. He has decided that he will not build a hotel, but live in that house, and he fills up the pool. Now, what do you do, minister? Do you go back and say: ‘Hang on, mate, you cannot fill that pool up?’ He bought it, clearly ...
Mr Ah Kit: If he paid you $10m for it he should not be too worried about the penalties, the fine.
Dr LIM: It is not a swimming pool …
Mr Kiely: The lease changed hands as a house.
Dr LIM: No, seriously, maybe the $10m might be a stupid figures to raise. What I am saying is that there is a person who has owned a house with a swimming pool. He has filled it up, he is using it. What do you say to that man?
Mr KIELY: Yes, I would like to respond to that. If the house has been sold, then it has been sold. Regardless of the intent to knock it down or do what else; the person buying the house would have to change it to comply with the legislation. Just because his intention might be stated as building a hotel or doing anything else on it, the whole intention, once he buys it, he has to comply, and that is all there is to it.
Dr LIM: Thank you, the minister for Sanderson.
Mr AH KIT: Let me respond to your question, if I could, Madam Chair.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Greatorex, do you want to hear from the minister?
Dr LIM: Okay, good. So you are responding now, not the member for Sanderson.
Mr Kiely: Well maybe if you asked realistic questions instead of wasting everyone’s time …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Sanderson, can we have some order, please?
Mr AH KIT: The Chief Minister did not advise that you could empty the swimming pool.
Dr Lim: She did, by interjection.
Mr AH KIT: Yes, that is realistic. If it is below 300 mm then it is not classified as a pool. But don’t leave the water in there too long, getting a bit murky, because then the environmental health people would be onto you, knocking on your door.
But we have, as you notice in the bill, a Swimming Pool Fencing Authority that you could put a special case to. I am quite sure that they, with the flexibility I mentioned earlier, will consider your case on its merit and make a decision one way or another to clear up your particular case in respect to the circumstances in the situation. So, that is one of the roles of the Swimming Pool Fencing Authority - to apply that flexibility, as in the briefing with the member for Nelson explaining about some properties may just be a bit less than 2 hectares. They are more than welcome to make an application on a special case situation to the Swimming Pool Fencing Authority, and that case will be considered on its merits.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 33. 2 without any comment.
Motion negatived.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Dr LIM: Minister, I ask for an explanation. It appears when I read clause 8 that it is similar to clause 7 and I do not understand the need for that. Can you explain that for me, please? Clause 8 appears to say the same things as clause 7 and I wonder why it is there.
Mr AH KIT: In regards to clause 8, this amendment also relies on proposed amendment 33.1 being supported. As amendment 33.1 was not supported, then it is not necessary to insert …
Dr LIM: No, just looking at clause 8 per se as printed in your bill …
Mr AH KIT: Clause 7, sorry.
Dr LIM: No, clause 8. The intention of clause 8 appears to be the same as the intention of clause 7 except clause 7 is more detailed. I just do not understand the rationale …
Mr AH KIT: Yes, and this was raised at the briefing by the member for Nelson, about clause 7 and 8 being very similar. The question was put: can they be amalgamated into one? What I am saying to you is, clause 7 states that all existing swimming pools at small premises must be registered. Section 8 states that the owners of all existing swimming pools at small premises must apply to register before 18 months after the day the act commences.
Because the penalty in section 7(1)(2) duplicates the reference to the 18 month period - but this is a drafting style for an act which is the province of Parliamentary Counsel, and the time they were given to draft the bill. That is the explanation there; they are similar. But from the Parliamentary Counsel, this is their drafting style and they are the experts in this area, I am so advised by them and so is my department. So, that is the explanation I give.
Dr LIM: I am happy with that; I just needed an explanation because I could not understand it.
Mr WOOD: I am not sure how to handle this because we wiped out section 1(a), it was defeated. I would still like to argue the case for the amendment 2(b).
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: So you are referring to clause 8 on your Schedule No. 33; it is amendment 33.3 referring to section 2(b).
Mr WOOD: Yes, because by virtue of the fate of 1(a) …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: The others are irrelevant.
Mr WOOD: That is right. The reason I put that in was the argument that where a council does not come under Schedule 2, I see no reason why the pool should be registered. You also have clause 15 which says you can have a pool registered which does not even have an enclosure, so you would have to ask: what is the point?
All I have tried to do with that is have a section of the act which comes under where a council has no existing by-laws, try to make it sensible enough that you would not bother to go around and register them. I do not see any point in registering a pool in a council area that had no existing by-laws unless those people want to avail themselves of the incentive program. That is why I would like to retain that amendment.
Ms MARTIN: The purpose is that we want all pools registered. Where there are existing by-laws, they can meet those standards, but where there are no by-laws, they have to come up to Australian Standards. There is an incentive scheme in place to help them do that. The point is to understand what pools are there and what standard of fencing they have. That is a very clear intention of the act.
Mr WOOD: I understand that, Chief Minister, but part of this is not the reality of the situation which I mentioned before, where we now have a division between one hectare and two hectares. In my electorate, we will now have people who have to register their blocks for no reason because there is no requirement to do anything with that pool. If they wish to receive the incentive, for sure, they can …
Ms Martin: Register.
Mr WOOD: Register, that is right. However, you are now going to have people on one side of the road who will have an inspector coming around saying: ‘We would like to look at your pool’, and on the other side, they are going to say: ‘We are not going to look at your pool’. Yet, in practical terms, it makes no difference except a piece a paper. All you will do is make people pretty cranky, wanting to know why you are coming around to look at their pool in Howard Springs. If you had to explain to them that you just want to put them on the database, I do not think they are going to be really happy.
I was just trying to introduce what I thought was a sensible amendment specifically for areas where councils had no by-laws before.
Mr AH KIT: I understand what the member for Nelson’s point is, but do you want this applied to two hectares and beyond? We are drawing the line, I explained earlier, at two hectares and above - dams, flooded creeks in the Wet Season, whatever. We had to put that demarcation line somewhere, and that is what we have done. Do we go the other way and bring it back to one hectare, half hectare quarter hectare – where do we stop if we go that way?
Government has taken the decision to say that for two hectares and below, we are going to apply this; two hectares and above, they have a choice if they wish to register and take advantage of the incentive scheme. The purpose of the legislation, as the Chief Minister said, is to capture all swimming pools at small premises in the Northern Territory. Therefore, it is important that the intent of the proposed legislation be applied consistently throughout the Territory. The amendment is not supported.
Mr WOOD: Minister, you asked me a question about whether I agree that it should be in two hectare subdivisions. The letter I wrote to you with a copy of all the surveys said that I felt the best way was to apply the rule – not the registration, the rule – to all blocks that you have to come up to the standard at point of sale and renting or when you bought a new pool. Because that would bring, slowly, all the pools in two and one hectare blocks up to the requirements. But we are not talking about that; we are talking about the registering of pools.
If you wanted to go out and register all the pools in the whole of the Litchfield Shire, you would have a war on your hands. That is what I was trying to say: you do not have to go around and inspect every pool. You will pick up exactly what the objective of this act is - to bring pool fencing up to the Australian Standard - without the registration. They have to come to that point. It seems to me a waste of space to be trying to register pools in an area that had no by-laws in the first place. You will pick them up. With or without registration you will still get there. The registration makes absolutely no difference in the Nelson electorate. If you applied it to the two hectares, it would be the same - you would have gradually got people’s swimming pools up to the standard.
I did not advocate the split, the government has decided that will be the split. I am saying now that you have a problem with the split because in Howard River Park and in Whitewood Park, on one side of the road, you will have people required to register - and they have 100 m frontages. On the other side of the road, with the same 100 m frontages that do not have the same depth, they do not have to be registered. You have created a problem. You either exempt all of Litchfield Shire totally or you bring all of Litchfield Shire into the one rule. I would not have included registration, that is for sure. So I have a problem that I think this act has highlighted. I am not going to be going round telling people that they have to register their pools, I will just be ducking.
Ms MARTIN: I can assure the member for Nelson that he does not have to do that. That is what we will have an incentive scheme in for. If you live in a block that is two hectares or more, you can register your pool, you can take advantage of the cash bonus and the interest-free scheme. This is then an individual decision to be made. There are always differences, and government had to draw the line somewhere. We did with the two hectare, and those differences exist in ordinary blocks. If you walk down any street, some people rent, some people own, some people are in Housing Commission houses. In every street in Darwin there is differences. Those differences, I would have thought, were celebrated in the rural area. I believe that we should put this amendment.
Mr WOOD: I am not whingeing about that. I am just saying it has created a problem, and the registration to me is just irrelevant to get what you want in those smaller blocks. It does not make any sense.
Ms MARTIN: Well, government disagrees for very good reasons.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9:
Dr LIM: Addressing clause 10 …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Greatorex, do I take it that you are okay with clause 9? If you are, we will move that and then go to clause 10.
Dr LIM: No problems.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Dr LIM: Addressing clause 10, minister, and looking at 10(a), when I read through the context of it I do not quite follow and I wonder if you could explain that.
You addressed that earlier during your reply closing debate, that in fact somebody has to apply for construction. But clause 10(a) tells me that you do not have to apply before construction. In fact, if I read it correctly - and I believe the syntax is quite in error - you have to apply within the four weeks of commencement. In others, you can apply on the 28th day after you have constructed the pool, or after you have commenced construction of the pool.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Deputy Chair! I do not understand what the question was; he has just made a statement. So I …
Dr LIM: No, the question is: the minister in his reply closing debate, when I said that the legislation was weaker than the by-laws that are in existence in at least Darwin and Palmerston City Councils, because those two councils insist that you have to apply for a construction permit prior to construction, said: ‘Well, you are wrong, because you have to do this too under clause 10’.
Now, coming to clause 10, it does not say that. What it says is:
I take that to mean that, as long as you apply within 28 days of the date of the commencement of the construction of a swimming pool. I am asking the minister: am I right or I wrong? If I am right, then what he said about having to apply for a construction permit is incorrect.
Mr AH KIT: Member for Greatorex, if you look at the bill before us, I am advised that there is a comma missing, which makes it read, under 10(a):
So that reads differently if you include the comma. That is what I am advised, the comma was a typo error from the drafting.
Dr LIM: Well minister, just give me a second to read the syntax of the English. Well, minister if I may address this to you then? That confirms my suspicion that one does not have to apply for a construction permit. One has to apply within 28 days of the commencement of construction, and that is precisely my point. I see your advisor shaking his head vigorously over there, but let me read this for you again. I will leave the preamble out and go to clause (a):
So the later you are, the more okay you are. In order words, what I am saying again, it confirms you do not have to apply for a construction permit. Right or wrong?
Mr AH KIT: Wrong.
Dr LIM: Why? Tell me why.
Mr AH KIT: Where did you get the construction permit from? South Australia. It is not done here, it is not in this bill. Let me explain: ‘… before, four weeks after commencement day …’ of the bill, ‘… or the commencement of the construction of installation …’. You have four weeks either way to go and register your pool and take advantage of the early registration incentive scheme. It is simple. What sort of pool is going to take three months to build? We are talking about residential, we are talking about a pool in somebody’s yard. These blokes knock them up in a couple of weeks - a week in some cases. So we are trying to be fair. If you think I am too prescriptive in having four weeks and you would like to put it to six, well put up an amendment. But that is the intent of it, and its intention is meaningful.
Dr LIM: If I may, I will explain myself a bit clearer if I can, minister. Two days ago, I decided to build a pool, and I have a block up here in Darwin. I start digging a hole in the backyard …
Mr Kiely: Did you buy it on TA?
Dr LIM: Well, we are in committee, we can have some fun and hilarity, but the member for Sanderson is really just a bit of a - I will not say any swear words, it would be a waste of time anyway …
Mr Kiely: Get on with it!
Dr LIM: I will get on with it if I have sensible interjections. If I am going to have inane ludicrous, stupid interjections, then I have the right to respond.
Mr Stirling: Get on with it!
Dr LIM: You, Deputy Chief Minister, are probably giving a very, very bad example.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Deputy Chair! Can the member for Greatorex get on with his question, rather than his hypotheses? If he does not have a direct question, I am going to put the clause.
Mr MALEY: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Deputy Chair. That is not a point of order. The committee stage process enables members to ask questions about the interpretation, the application of legislation, quite generally, and that is reasonable question and he is wrong.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: There is no point of order.
Dr LIM: I have put hypotheses because that is a way of giving the minister a practical example to which he can respond. That is the question; the question is a hypothetical case.
Clause 10(a) says that I have to apply for registration within 28 days of my having a pool or the commencement of construction of a pool. All right? Four weeks from commencement of the legislation, or the commencement of the pool. So I do not have four weeks leeway from the time of construction to the time of applying for registration? Is that what you are saying?
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Deputy Chair. This is repetitive questioning and I would ask that the clause be put. I move that clause 10 be put.
Motion agreed to.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Is it the wish of the committee …
Mr Stirling: If you cannot understand English, you can …
Dr Lim: Well then, teach me! You are that good a teacher, are you?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Order! I am speaking. Please respect the Chair.
Dr Lim: Well, he interjected first.
Mr Stirling: Throw him out.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Please respect the Chair.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Mr MALEY: Madam Deputy Chair, my question is to the minister in relation to clause 11. Just one simple question. Clause 11(2) talks about a fee:
Why have you decided to use the mechanism of a gazette to set this fee, as opposed to a regulation? Keeping in mind that if it was set in the regulations, it is something which would fall to be considered by the Subordinate Legislation and Publications Committee and at least, in one way, it would be caught under the umbrella of parliamentary process. This particular …
Ms Martin: This is the parliamentary process.
Mr MALEY: I will pick up the interjection. That is actually quite true, what you said; this is the parliamentary process. But to set the fee, when the next government, or in 20 years time the government would technically, according to this, just issue another Gazette, and that would increase the fee or decrease it.
Ms Martin: If you put it in the regulations you could just change it like that.
Mr MALEY: But the regulations come before a committee called the Subordinate Legislation and Publications Committee and that is made up of members of parliament including Madam Deputy Chair …
Mr AH KIT: Gazetted, it allows us the flexibility.
Mr MALEY: That is true. But you realise you are circumventing the safeguards of parliament by using the gazettal process as opposed to regulation?
Mr AH KIT: Mm.
Mr MALEY: Yes, okay.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 14, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 15:
Mr WOOD: I seek a point of clarification here, Madam Deputy Chair. Just to speed things along, because those previous clauses were defeated clause 15 would be irrelevant; clause 21 would be irrelevant; clause 23 would be irrelevant; clause 49 would be irrelevant; clause 55 would be irrelevant; and I think clause 57 would be irrelevant; because they all relate to clause 15 being defeated. Clause 15 relied on clause 8 and clause 7 existing.
On a point of clarification, may I combine those clauses – I am not sure whether this is the correct way, but should I invite defeat of all those amendments? Is that what I should do, or should we go through them one by one?
Mr STIRLING: No, you may invite defeat.
Mr WOOD: Do I need to repeat those to make it clear? Madam Deputy Chair, I suppose …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: The advice is yes, it is probably to invite defeat on all those clauses.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I invite defeat on clauses 15, 21, 23, 49, 55 and 57.
Ms MARTIN: May I make a point? We are talking about inviting defeat on clauses; they are actually amendments to existing clauses. The most appropriate thing to do is simply withdraw your amendments because they have not been put, so they can just be withdrawn.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I withdraw amendments to clauses 21, 23, 49, 55 and 57. I am not sure what you do with clause 15.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: The member is inviting defeat on clause 15?
Mr WOOD: I do not have anything to say expect that it is now irrelevant from my point of view. I am not sure whether the member for Greatorex would like to speak on it.
Dr LIM: I am not going to speak to the amendment that is proposed by the member for Nelson which is to invite defeat of clause 15. I am asking for an explanation. People think that I am being deliberately obtuse or difficult, but it might be just the way I read English, that being my second language. However, let me ask this question: having read clauses 13 and 14 which we have passed, about the registration of enclosure in accordance with Australian Standards and the registration of non-standard enclosures, clause 15 does not come across to me clearly enough.
The way I read clause 15, it says that:
Which is in the back and applies to Darwin, Palmerston, Jabiru and Alice Springs:
In other words, any community that does not have any by-laws at the moment – of course, Darwin, Palmerston, Alice Springs and Jabiru have – if the pool does not have an ASA standard fencing or if the pool does not have any non-standard enclosure, under clause 15 it can be authorised without an enclosure. That means every swimming pool that is outside of Darwin, Palmerston, Alice Springs and Jabiru does not need to have a fence under clause 15. Am I right?
Mr AH KIT: Yes, your interpretation is right.
Dr LIM: Well, minister, if I am right, I really have a major problem with this whole legislation again. Let me explain to you why I have a difficulty.
Members interjecting.
Dr LIM: Please, let me explain to you why I have a difficulty. I do not know the size of housing blocks in Batchelor. Does Batchelor have by-laws for swimming pools?
Let us take Tennant Creek. Tennant Creek has no by-laws on swimming pool fencing. It has small premises. Does Tennant Creek, Katherine and Nhulunbuy come under clause 15? If they do, we are saying that in those communities, if not other communities, you do not have to fence a pool. Am I right?
Mr Stirling: You have to come up to Australian Standards.
Dr LIM: Hang on, let me ask the question. I am asking a legitimate question …
Ms MARTIN: No. As I have said before, clearly, that the registering is establishing what is there. If it is in Tennant Creek, then the pool is registered. Once they are registered, they can then apply for the bonus, the interest-free loan. When they are going to sell that house, that property, or if there is a change of rental, it will have to be up to standard. So that is where the incentive is. That is what we have explained before, and that is clearly what is there in this clause 15. So I think we should put clause 15.
Dr LIM: I beg your pardon, Chief Minister, I appreciate your explanation and I thank you for that.
Ms MARTIN: But we have said it before. I have said it a number of times before.
Dr LIM: Yes, and no. I was surprised. I am truly genuinely surprised that you would say to Territorians, people who live in Katherine, Tennant Creek and Nhulunbuy, that they do not have to have their pool fenced under clause 15.
Ms Martin: They will.
Dr LIM: They do not have to unless they sell, rent, or unless they choose to access the incentive scheme. If they choose not to do any of those, and they are significant communities in the Territory - Tennant Creek and Katherine - having thousands of people. So you are saying those pools do not have to be enclosed at all. Am I right?
Mr AH KIT: Let me make it quite clear. The legislation is not retrospective. No change is, therefore, required until change of ownership or tenancy - for about the 10th time!
Dr LIM: So I am right then, Tennant Creek, Katherine, Nhulunbuy …
Ms Martin: He said you were right.
Mr AH KIT: I told you you were right.
Ms MARTIN: We did it for your Darwin example, we will do it for the Tennant Creek example.
Mr HENDERON: I move clause 15.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that we move clause 15.
Mr WOOD: I was inviting defeat.
Ms MARTIN: No, you withdrew your amendment, so we are looking at the clause as printed.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, just clarifying; I thought you might have supported my amendment there for a minute.
Clauses 16 to 19, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 20:
Mr WOOD: As I said before, we did have a briefing on this. We have had two briefings, and the second briefing showed us some committee notes which basically said that a solid lid would also be a grille, if it was strong enough for a child not to fall through. At that briefing I said: ‘Well, if you are not willing to change, or to add in an additional definition in the clause, would you at least put it in the definitions of solid lid under the definitions?’ Neither has occurred. It was a sensible and practical improvement to clause 20(5) because, as you know, many people find that their spas are too cold if you cover them up completely. That is all it was about, we were just trying to have a sensible addition to that clause.
Mr AH KIT: I am confused. Sorry, Madam Deputy Chair. Weren’t you addressing clause 20?
Mr WOOD: Clause 20(5). Perhaps if I read it to you, minister:
After that, I am asking that ‘or a grille with a mesh size that is small enough to prevent a child gaining access to the spa pool and’
It is purely trying to just make that a more sensible cover on a spa, especially in this part of the world.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, can I let the member of Nelson know - and for your own reference - my clause 20(2)(a), I thought, was the amendment that we would discuss first and deal with that. Member for Nelson, we are jumping the gun a bit.
Mr WOOD: Sorry …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: There is an amendment proposed in schedule No 29 by Mr Ah Kit, to clause 20(2)(a), so yours is …
Mr WOOD: So it does, my apologies, minister.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: … further down on the page.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I move the amendment 29.2.
Clause 20 of the bill specifies the conditions that a swimming pool or swimming pool barrier must comply with to be approved as a non-standard enclosure. Clause 20(2) relates to swimming pools that are situated on the premises that have some frontage to a body of water such as a river, pond, lake, sea, etcetera, and access to the swimming pool from a residential building is restricted in accordance with the appropriate Australian Standard or a non-standard enclosure, while clause 20(2)(a) names a body of water as a pond, etcetera, which would capture a marina. The word ‘marina’ is added to the subclause to make it quite clear that the legislation applies to a swimming pool that is situated on premises that have some frontage to a marina.
Also, may I thank the member for Port Darwin for the suggestion to include this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Well, I would like to say everything in retrospect. I have said it all before.
Ms Martin: Making the legislation retrospective?
Mr WOOD: No, I made the comments out of turn. I was going to save Hansard having to write them all down again. The minister understood what I said previously?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: You will see the member for Nelson is referring to schedule No 33, Mr Wood, on the second page, clause 20, amendment 33.4. Its reference is subclause (5), after ‘lid’ insert.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, the amendment is not necessary, as a solid lid means a durable or robust lid of sufficient strength that would prevent a child from falling into the water and could include such materials as solid mesh or grid. Trying to further define what may be suitable in the legislation could put a risk other types of mesh that do not fit the precise description intended. The Swimming Pool Fencing Authority will have the flexibility to determine an appropriate solid lid. The amendment is not supported.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister, I wondered then, why that definition you gave could not have been in the definitions because that is really what I argued in the first place. You have given me a definition of a solid lid. To make sure there is no misinterpretation, surely that could be put into the definitions?
Mr AH KIT: Not necessarily, member for Nelson because, if we wanted to define everything possible, the book would be thicker than this box on the Table here. We have to be pretty smart about how we go about this. One of the beauties of this legislation is the flexibility. That is why we do not want to see a situation where people on blocks are running around chucking ARC mesh, whatever square inches, over pools and have dangerous sides there with all that sort of stuff. We have defined it there. It is not in the definitions but, if people wish to argue a special case, then please take it up with the Swimming Pool Fencing Authority.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I thought ARC mesh would be quite suitable in the rural area, in keeping with the landscape. But I take your point, minister, and I will leave it at that.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Dr LIM: Madam Deputy Chair, I do not have any problems unless other members in the Chamber now have problems, I do not have anything until clause 45, so it might help you.
Mr MALEY: I can indicate just by trying to speed the process up a little, there are some comments that I wish to make about part 5, that is from clause 41 on.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: So we will do clauses 23 to 40.
Mr Stirling: No, Richard has one before that.
Dr Lim: No, 45, I said.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: No, the member for Greatorex has already indicated to me. Member for Nelson, do you have any problem with clauses 23 to 40?
Mr WOOD: Yes, clause 34. That is the one I have an amendment for.
Clauses 23 to 33, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 34:
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move two amendments 33.7 and 33.8. They basically put into the financial assistance scheme section a clarification of what the government has said within its swimming pool safety plan information kit; that is requiring people if they want assistance to get that assistance on or before the 30 June 2004. I felt that, as it is, clause 34 does not really state what the government has been saying in public; that this financial scheme is really only there for 18 months. I do not know if this is the right time but it is possibly the only time - with the financial assistance scheme it might be worth asking for a clarification of what that financial assistance scheme really means, because it is not written in to this clause 34. I mentioned before that we need to ask: does this financial scheme cover a new fence around a new pool in the first 18 months? Can the person get money for a fence around a new pool that they build within the first 18 months?
Ms Martin: No.
Mr WOOD: A lot of people believe that. Second, can they get it for a fence on a pool that does not have an existing fence? Then what is the difference?
Ms MARTIN: One exists. The whole point of having an incentive scheme is for those who currently have a pool to bring them up to the Australian Standard. That is what it is about. If you do not have a fence at all and you put one in, it has to be up to the Australian Standard. If you have one that does not meet Australian Standards, then you can upgrade that particular fence.
If you are building a new pool, this law says it has to be up to that Australian Standard, so the incentive scheme only applies to those who have an existing pool that does not come up to that standard; which will be established by registration.
Mr WOOD: I will ask a silly question: if you do not have to be registered within 18 months, I will put my pool in in January and I will tell you about it next year. I will put a bit of a barbed wire fence around it and then say: ‘I need some money to upgrade my fence’. You have created a bit of a problem here. Personally, I feel you need to apply it to all new fences that are built …
Dr Burns: Locks only stop honest people.
Mr WOOD: I understand that, but I am saying that it would have been much easier to apply it to all new fences.
Mr Stirling: They would be prosecuted for putting in an illegal pool.
Mr AH KIT: It is not retrospective. That is what I said earlier. So you would not be able to get away with it.
Mr WOOD: I am not promoting people doing anything illegally. What I am saying is that it is less likely that people will try to get round the system if it applied to all new pools and fences in that period.
Ms MARTIN: The whole idea is you bring in a law that says that is what the new standard is, but it is not making it retrospective. What we are doing for those who have existing pools that do not have the fencing that is up to the required new standard, is offering incentives. There is a very distinct difference that we are trying to achieve here. There is a very big difference between having a new pool that you put in knowing what the requirements are, and one that you put in, meeting the standards of the time - and there are different ones across the Territory - and the incentive to bring them up to the new standard. Two very different things.
Mr AH KIT: Could I just explain that the amendment proposes an end date to the proposed financial assistance schemes under this legislation. This is not necessary, as the terms and conditions of the financial assistance scheme will be determined by the minister under subclause (2), which will include the time any scheme will remain open for application.
The provision allows the minister to approve a financial assistance scheme at any time, not just to 30 June 2004, as government has already announced. The early registration incentive scheme will commence operation with the commencement of the proposed legislation and will remain open for application for the initial 18-month period that swimming pool owners have to register their swimming pool. Removal of flexibility to enable an extension to, or to introduce other schemes as and when necessary at a time when we are starting out on this process, does not seem sensible. The amendment is not supported.
Mr WOOD: I take on board and accept what the Chief Minister has said. However, it has not been made clear and the word ‘upgrade’ in this context is about having a fence already. That is the problem. Upgrade from nothing: is that an upgrade or is that a new fence? I have had this plan out in the front of my electorate office and handed it out to a lot of people. A lot of people thought: ‘Well, I will not put a pool in until after 1 January, because then I can get my new pool fence’. To some extent, this was not clear. If you put a new pool in, it just said you cannot get money for your fence; a new pool after 1 January, you will not get incentive.
Mr AH KIT: No.
Mr WOOD: That is right, but that was not necessarily clear in this document and it could have been clarified a little better. That is all I am saying. I am not against your incentive scheme.
Amendments negatived.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clauses 35 to 39, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 40:
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Goyder, you indicated a desire to speak to clause 40.
Mr MALEY: The indication was from clause 41 on, so I intended taking it as a whole. Clause 40 is fine. Part 5, there are a couple of questions I wish to raise. Part 5 of the bill, that is after clause 41.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 to 47:
Mr MALEY: Madam Deputy Chair, can I seek an indication from you? This particular part is only relatively short, it is from clauses 41 to 47. Is it possible to ask questions of the minister dealing with the mechanics of those six clauses?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: The member for Greatorex has questions regarding clause 45 as well, so if we are going to do that for you, then we will afford the same courtesy to the member for Greatorex, if we are dealing with it as a section.
Dr LIM: I am happy to debate all of it together. If I can ask questions in between on clause 45, it would be fine.
Mr MALEY: Part 5 from clauses 41 to 47 deals with the administration and enforcement of the act, that is fairly obvious. I want to clarify and ask you a couple of questions. Clause 44 talks about the minister having a positive obligation to issue identity cards. Therefore, the 10 people you spoke about on that reading will be given identify cards. Is that the case?
Mr AH KIT: Yes.
Mr MALEY: Yes, and it follows if you have 10 people with identify cards and they are a separate unit within the department, they will have to have an identifiable uniform. Is that part of the process?
Mr AH KIT: Yes.
Mr MALEY: As well as an identifiable uniform, because they are, of course, pool inspectors, will they have an identifiable car - a car with some sort of badge or sticker on the side?
Mr HENDERSON: Point of order, Madam Deputy Chair! I do not see what on earth this has to do with the legislation in this clause, which is about identity cards. It has nothing to do with uniforms or cars.
Mr MALEY: I can talk to the point. If the member for Wanguri was listening, these questions relate to all seven clauses, and not just clause 44 which is where I started. I want to clarify and set the parameters of what the unit is going to look like.
Mr KIELY: Point of order, Madam Deputy Chair! I am a bit lost, jumping all over the place. Perhaps it might be best if we did go back doing clause by clause in this section rather than leaping all over because I am having trouble following the argument. I seek your indulgence.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: I have already ruled that we deal with the section as a whole, so if you had an objection at that stage …
Mr AH KIT: Yes. Can I ask the member for Goyder what is it you are trying to establish so that we can move this along.
Mr MALEY: Is it the case then that you will have these pool police with identity cards and uniforms, albeit not identified labelled vehicles? They have the power under clause 46 to obtain a search warrant. That being the case, they can go to a Justice of the Peace and take an oath and, if they can demonstrate that they have a reasonable ground to suspect that an offence is being committed; that is, there has been some sort of non-compliance …
Mr Elferink: Unlawful harbouring of a pool!
Mr MALEY: Well, whatever. A pool is perhaps not up to the standard they say it should be. Then they are given a search warrant. If you read clause 46(3), these uniformed men with identification badges …
Mr Kiely: Could be women.
Mr Bonson: People.
Ms Martin: They have to be men? No, it does not say that.
Mr MALEY: Under the Interpretations Act, of course, ‘man’ means male or female, but I will not labour the point - person. This individual then has the power to use reasonable force to enter the premises. That means he can kick down your door …
Dr Burns: Oh, I see, this is the pool police now. This is what you are getting at.
Mr Henderson: Do you support this legislation or not?
Mr MALEY: Minister, through this legislation, you have given people power to come to your home and break down your door. Is that not the case? They can use reasonable force to gain access to the premises and that means if the door is locked and they cannot get in, they can break down the gate, break down the door.
Mr AH KIT: Well, Madam Deputy Chair …
Ms Martin: I think the member for Goyder should take a Valium and settle down.
Mr AH KIT: This is the gentlest process that exists in any Northern Territory legislation that provides for inspector-type functions. I do not know why you are targetting that as a situation that is going to have inspectors going around heavy handed, muscling in and taking search warrants, and disrupting people’s lives in the community. That is not the intent …
Mr Maley: That is what it says.
Mr AH KIT: That is not the intent. For goodness sakes, the Power and Water Authority for many, many years, had people going out and walking into yards and reading the meters, and nobody has said anything. They have, mind you, designated motor cars.
Mr Elferink: That is called ‘tacit consent’.
Mr AH KIT: Sorry?
Mr Elferink: That is called ‘tacit consent’. That is something different.
Mr AH KIT: So what do you propose if somebody does not allow you in to inspect? Do you have a problem with somebody being away on leave; the person is on night shift, and that pool does not fit the Australian Standards if it has water in it, and there are kids in the neighbouring residential houses. What then do you do, if you have somebody who is not wanting you to come in, to allow you to check the pool to see whether that pool is safe and whether it complies?
I pick up on the earlier point from the member for Nelson. Are we to say to our people, our public servants: ‘Do not go near any of those two hectare blocks because they are mad and they will shoot you out there’. We are parliamentarians. We live in a democracy; we make laws; we debate laws; we debate legislation, bills. So are we going to be threatened by these sorts of things? I do not know. I do not think so. I say to you: there is nothing untoward in this section, and it is not the pool police; it is inspectors doing their job in ensuring that the community is complying with the standards that we are requesting.
Mr MALEY: I can answer that initial question. There is another option, of course, which has been used in other jurisdictions. If someone does not allow you access to their home, that itself is an offence and they are deemed not to have complied. Anyway, you have chosen a path of empowering a public servant, which is all a policeman is, of course, to go to your home and use reasonable force, which involves kicking the door in …
Ms Martin: No, it does not!
Mr MALEY: … so that is a choice you have made. These are, for the sake of this discussion, pool police. These people are pool police. Do you realise …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Deputy Chair! The member for Goyder is making statements. Now, if he has a question, put a question. Stop making statements, or I will put the clauses.
Mr Elferink: This is a debate and people are allowed to debate!
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: There has already been a discussion on that point of order. I am going to rule it out and explain that hypotheticals have been allowed throughout the committee stage and I am treating this as a hypothetical. Rather than reality, I am treating it as a hypothetical.
Mr MALEY: Minister, you realise the powers you have granted public servants, or these pool police, to use reasonable force …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Deputy Chair! The member for Goyder is being deliberately mischievous. They are not pool police; they are pool inspectors, like environmental health inspectors and other inspectors. If he is going to use provocative language, I am going to put these clauses. They are not pool police. They do not have the powers of police under the Police Administration Act, they are inspectors. If he cannot use the appropriate language and take this seriously, I am going to put the clauses.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Goyder, I would ask that you refrain from using provocative language, so that we can proceed in committee stage.
Mr MALEY: If I could just speak to that point of order. There is absolutely no way …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Goyder, I say to you, that you do not challenge the authority of the Chair. I have asked for you to refrain from using provocative language. Let that rest.
Mr MALEY: I cannot use the word ‘police’?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: That is right.
Mr MALEY: Okay. Minister, you would have to agree, you would understand that an individual given these powers to use reasonable force to enter your home, includes the power, if there is a savage dog on those premises, to poison your dog. They can poison or sedate your dog. Do you realise that that is part of the arsenal of tools that people can utilise when you have a warrant that says, you can use reasonable force to enter the premises?
Ms MARTIN: The member for Goyder has not been in this place that long but, if he looked in legislation that dealt with PowerWater employees or building inspectors, he would see exactly the same level of reasonable force used. It is a uniform term used, and it does not mean kicking down doors. I do not even know what fantasy land you want to inhabit, but learn a little more about legislation, and you probably find that the building inspectors had considerably more power than the pool inspectors will; the PowerWater employees have considerable more power. You probably find, if you go to the council by-laws, that the dog inspectors have a lot more.
So, stop getting into a state about this. This was described to you as very gentle, and that is what it is. It is a minimum requirement, and it is part of all laws that have to do with this. So this should be: I move that we put clause 46.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Just a moment members, I will clarify things. We are dealing with clauses 41 to 47.
Ms MARTIN: Okay, I move that clauses 41 to 47 be put.
Dr LIM: Before you do that, Chief Minister, I beg your indulgence. Chief Minister …
Mr Kiely: You agreed that they all get done together …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Please, can everyone resume their seat. Member for Greatorex, I ask that you withdraw.
Dr LIM: I withdraw that, but Chief Minister, I ask your indulgence.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Okay, now member for Greatorex, when I spoke first of all, I did point out to members, that the member for Greatorex had said that he wanted to deal with clause 45. Chief Minister, are you willing to allow the member for Greatorex to speak to clause 45?
Ms MARTIN: Certainly.
Dr LIM: I know it is late and it has been long hours but, obviously, this is an important piece of legislation we need to go through. At a briefing that I received in the minister’s office a couple of weeks ago, I raised the issue about clauses 45(2)(b) and (c). This relates to giving seven days notice to enter premises, and entry to occur seven days after, but not earlier than 24 hours after the notice is given. My comment then was that I thought it was unreasonably short, that even most landlords and other rightful entry type authorities would normally give seven days notice before they enter.
This is knocking on your door, giving you a letter of notice that you are going to come back, and within 24 hours you come back. Surely you could accord the home owner, or home occupier a bit more time than 24 hours. From a practical and an equitable point of view, I raised that, and I thought the minister’s office would have picked up on that comment. I would suggest you stretch it to seven days as would be normal.
Mr AH KIT: We disagree. Look, I gave a commitment that I will report back in February how the progress is going. I am not a minister who is perfect, as with yourself when you were a minister and all the legislation that you moved through that was so perfect, and it never had to be touched again. But we disagree and I move that we put the clauses.
Motion agreed to.
Clauses 41 to 47 agreed to.
Clauses 48 to 50, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clauses 51 to 54:
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Was there an objection there?
Dr LIM: The question is that things have been rushed through pretty quickly, and it appears that all the ministers are not prepared to entertain questions, even though they have been put reasonably.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Greatorex is there any clause within 50 to 54 that you would like to draw out?
Dr LIM: Not at the moment, thank you.
Clauses 51 to 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 agreed to.
Dr LIM: Madam Deputy Chair, may I offer a bit of an olive branch and suggest that you move from clauses 58 to 62.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: No.
Clause 58:
Ms CARTER: I was wondering if the minister could advise with regard to clause 58, the fence if a swimming pool is not able to be used. In the electorate that I represent there are quite a number of times when properties change hands which might, for example, have a single dwelling residence with a swimming pool on the property. However, when the property is sold the intent of the sale is to build, for example, a block of units. The question that has being put to me by a constituent is: what does he do in that instance? He knows that his block is being sold to build a block of units and his pool does not comply with regard to fencing. Obviously, he does not want to fence it prior to the sale.
Ms MARTIN: As of 1 January, you can register the pool and there is no fee for that. So it can be registered and he does not have to put a fence in. So you can just dismantle it, there is no problem. Just dismantle the pool.
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clauses 59 to 62, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2:
Mr AH KIT: I move amendment 29.3 which amends the reference to the name of the Alice Springs Council by omitting the word ‘city’ and substituting the word ‘town’. The bill incorrectly names the council as Alice Springs City Council. The amendment corrects the name of the council to Alice Springs Town Council, which is in keeping with the wishes of the community and the heritage and the history of the town of Alice Springs. That was overlooked, and my apologies to the lovely townsfolk of Alice Springs.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
Swimming Pool Fencing (Consequential Amendments) (Serial 107):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Bills reported; report adopted.
Mr AH KIT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): I wish to clarify a statement the minister made during the swimming pool debate that the members for Nelson and Greatorex said that legislation in Palmerston and Darwin was greater than what was being put through in the act. That is not correct. The minister might have picked that up from - I do not know what the government calls those pink sheets of paper that they have on the desk, but when I was delivering my Christmas greetings, I saw my name on one inferring that I had made a statement about the Palmerston and Alice Springs by-laws. So I do not know who put - I was not attempting to read them, I was just …
Mr Bonson interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Hang on. Whoever put those together has put my name down on something I did not say and I believe that is where the minister took his information from. I did not actually say that, but I would say whoever writes up those pink sheets, make sure you get it right.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, in accordance with section 9 of the Financial Management Act, I am pleased to table the 2001-02 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement, my first as Treasurer. The statement forms part of the 2001-02 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report and outlines the financial results of this government’s first year in office. You will notice that a corrigendum has been provided to the report that replaces page 140 in Part 9, Debt and Employee Liabilities. The printed version of figure 9.14 is missing both the chart and access descriptions. The chart shows the gross and nett debt balances since 1993, and the major influences affecting the debt.
Whilst the Financial Management Act was revised in August 2002 to reflect the move to the accrual output based framework, this report has been prepared in accordance with the act in place as at 30 June 2002. In addition, the 2001-02 report has been prepared in accordance with the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act, even though the act does not apply until 2002-03, as foreshadowed in the 2002-03 budget.
The focus under the new framework will be on the non-financial public sector. It includes the general government and public non-financial corporation sectors, but excludes the public financial corporations. Therefore, the analysis in this year’s report is largely based on the non-financial public sector.
In October last year, the Chief Minister delivered the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report, the first of this government. Although the report dealt with the previous government’s last financial year in office, it included a number of improvements to the format in line with this government’s commitment towards open and transparent financial reporting. In this year’s report, I have continued with these improvements and, as I have explained, included further additional information in line with the requirements of the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act.
As with the 2000-01 report, there is an expanded overview which provides analysis of the outcome against this government’s November 2001 mini-budget. Explanations of significant movements from the mini-budget to the actual outcome are provided for each agency, and an analysis of gross and nett debt and employee liabilities is also included. Also, for the first time accrual financial statements have been provided for general government, public non-financial corporations and non-financial public sector, and public financial corporations.
I move on to specific parts contained in the report. Parts 1 to 6 are the audited sections of the report, with parts 7 to 10 provided as supplementary information. Part 1 presents the nett transactions of government; that is, all transactions internal to government have been eliminated. Part 2 presents the gross outlays and receipts both by agency and aggregated into sectoral summary information. Schedule 2.7 within this part provides an explanation of the significant allocation movement from the time of the mini-budget to 30 June 2002. Parts 3 to 6 provide information on the Territory’s assets and liabilities in accordance with the former Financial Management Act. Parts 7 to 10 are unaudited and provide additional information on the government’s financial performance. Part 7 meets the Territory’s reporting obligations under the uniform presentation framework, and is prepared on a cash basis consistent with the mini-budget. The information provided on a uniform presentation framework basis has a whole-of-government focus that is broader than the public account information provided in Part 1.
Part 8 presents a set of accrual financial statements for general government, public non-financial corporations, total public non-financial sector and the public financial corporations. This information is not formally required to be included, but has been done so in accordance with the Fiscal Integrity Transparency Act, as I mentioned earlier. It is expected that these statements will form the basis of future financial reports.
In both Parts 7 and 8, two sets of schedules are presented. The first excludes the AustralAsia Railway Corporation and the second includes it. Information excluding the AustralAsia Railway Corporation has been provided as the materiality and timing of the railway-related transactions distort the Territory’s underlying position. Part 9 presents information on the Territory’s debts and liabilities with Part 10 providing assessment of the 2001-02 outcome against the fiscal strategy in place at the time of the mini-budget.
I turn to the outcome for the 2001-02 financial year. The assessment of the outcome is against the November mini-budget on a uniform presentation framework basis for the total public sector. This excludes the AustralAsia Railway Corporation for the reasons mentioned and the TIO, consistent with past practice. You are aware when this government first came to power we were informed by Treasury that the May 2001 budget handed down by the previous government was unsustainable. We brought in Professor Percy Allan to undertake a review of the Territory’s financial position and he confirmed Treasury’s advice. We then brought down the November mini-budget which reset the base for the key areas of health, education, law and order and incorporated the government’s election commitments, included budget improvement and revenue measures, and implemented a deficit reduction strategy. The result of these changes was a projected deficit for 2001-02 of a $126m. I am pleased to announce that the actual result for 2001-02 was a deficit of $83m, an improvement of $43m.
A deficit reduction strategy is beginning to take effect …
Mr Elferink: That’s because you ramped up debt by $110m. Up by $110m; that is why you are dropping it on the table on the last day of sittings. No Question Time for the rest of the year - nice trick.
Mr STIRLING: The member for Macdonnell needs to listen and find out how this occurred because it is something that you blokes could not achieve.
Current outlays were $10m less than projected in the mini-budget. However, the mini-budget included a carry over …
Mr Elferink: Open, honest, accountable.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member for Macdonnell does not want to here this but other members do, and I will keep going over it.
Mr Elferink: Well, if you wanted this to be public why are you dropping it at the last sitting day of the year?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Macdonnell, let us allow the minister to finish his speech.
Mr STIRLING: Current outlays were $10m less than projected …
Mr Elferink: No, I cannot get it out of the Table Office until it is tabled.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Macdonnell, you have been spoken to once.
Mr STIRLING: I will go back to start, I think, Madam Speaker. In accordance with section 9 of the Financial Management Act …
Mr Elferink: Oh, precious!
Mr STIRLING: I am prepared to go through it all.
The result of these changes was a projected deficit for 2001-02 of $126m. I am pleased to announce that the actual result for 2001-02 was a deficit of $83m, an improvement of $43m since the mini-budget and an indication that the deficit reduction strategy is beginning to take effect. Current outlays were $10m less than projected in the mini-budget. However, the mini-budget included a carry over of expenditure from 2000-01 of $17m. When this is removed, the outcome is a small underlying increase of $7m, largely related to additional expenditure obligations associated with additional Commonwealth funding. Capital outlays were $5m higher than anticipated in the mini-budget, and that reflects the decisions made by this government early in 2002 to increase capital spending as a result of accelerated progress on major capital works such as the hospital and the port, and our response to a downturn in the construction industry.
Revenue increased by $41m from the time of the mini-budget. The increases were the result of: additional grants received from the Commonwealth, some of which had matching expenditure obligations; higher stamp duty revenues from one-off conveyance related transactions; growth in the value of other items subject to stamp duties; and an increase in royalty revenue due to improving market conditions.
Gross debt as at 30 June 2002 was $2.4bn; an increase of $124m from $2.3m at the 30 June 2001. The Territory’s nett debt position as at 30 June 2002 was $1.7bn. However, a broader assessment of the government’s liabilities includes employee liabilities as well as nett debt. At 30 June 2002, employee liabilities totalled $1.7bn with superannuation representing $1.3bn or 79% of that amount. Nett debt plus employee liabilities was $3.4bn as at 30 June 2002. In the last three years, there have been significant increases in both nett debt and employee liabilities. These are associated with the Territory’s contribution to the railway, high deficits and a revaluation of the unfunded superannuation liability, in addition to the expected annual increase in the superannuation liability.
This government has committed to bring the budget back to surplus by 2004-05, which will result in a reduction in nett debt. Whilst the superannuation liability will continue to rise, the rate of growth will slow due to the government’s commitment to commence funding the liability from 2003-04.
This government took office and found the financial position of the Territory was not quite as it had been presented by the previous government. In response to this, we handed down the mini-budget, which implemented significant new initiatives, and set ourselves a difficult target of bringing the budget back to surplus by the end of our first term of government. We have had to make tough decisions to reduce the Territory’s unsustainable deficit which was ballooning out at around $126m under the previous government, coming off the back - for the member for Macdonnell’s information - of a deficit of $275m the year before. The longer these clowns were in office, the greater the debt grew.
It is pleasing to see that those decisions this government have made are beginning to pay off. I am incredibly pleased with the result of our first financial year, as we have not only met the target we set ourselves, but we came in under that target. God only knows what it would have been had the CLP remained in office! This contrasts markedly with our predecessors who failed to deliver an outcome for the bottom line at or within their initial budget targets for each year of their last term in office. We still have a long way to go to bring the Territory budget back into the black after years of irresponsible and unsustainable spending by the previous Country Liberal Party government.
Madam Speaker, I table my first Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report which incorporates the 2001-02 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement. I commend it to the House, as I commend the work of the former Treasurer, our Chief Minister. She established a great record as Treasurer in terms of fiscal restraint and the message that she sent to Cabinet and to her ministers, and she has made my job as Treasurer considerably easier than it may otherwise have been.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 27 November 2002.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I rise to put the opposition’s position on this matter. The minister came into the House this week seeking to pass this matter on urgency. I have received a briefing in relation to this, and I understand the requirements for this to be passed on urgency. Nevertheless, it poses some issues that should be covered here today.
The issue that the minister raised in his second-reading speech is more than just the issue of certificates. He does assert that the act may, in these circumstances, fail in toto. Not only would the certificates, of course, be placed in jeopardy - these are the certificates allowing works to occur on sacred sites – but, naturally it leaves those sacred sites themselves, or their declaration as sacred sites, in jeopardy. Indeed, the whole of the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act is in jeopardy. Everything about sacred sites, as a consequence, is in jeopardy if the Northern Territory act is found to be invalid because of section 50(1) of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act.
I asked the question during the briefing, and I confess that I am still not entirely sure what the mechanism is. I would have presumed that, if a section of the act was to be found invalid, the rest of the act would stand. However, the advice I have received is that the whole act would collapse, and I will accept the word of a QC immediately and without reservation.
So that is the situation; this whole act could fail. Obviously, I asked what the consequences of this were, other than the obvious one, because I simply thought that the Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) Act could be invoked. It also has a sacred sites structure established in it. However, the existing sacred sites are not validated by the Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) Act and, as a consequence, I could imagine nothing but the most extraordinary situation occurring in the Northern Territory. Of course, as a consequence of that, I can well imagine that the government would be very keen, indeed, to protect their position through this - what is, on the face of it, a very simple amendment.
That is exactly what the minister has invited the House to do, and he has been quite clear in relation to the position of the Northern Territory government on it. Added to that, we do not sit again until February and, should a case come before the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory which does call this act into question, then it would be very difficult for the minister to respond legislatively before February. That, I imagine, is the need for the urgency in this case. Once again, the opposition accepts that need, and we indicate our support for these amendments because they are common sense and necessary. It would be a disaster of unimaginable proportions, if this was allowed to settle and the outcome that the minister hopes will not occur, actually occurs.
However, I go to page 7 of the second-reading speech, which the minister was kind enough to provide yesterday, and I would like to quote from that. The issue is over the risks:
Indeed, just terms is the issue that resides in section 50(1) of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act. In that subsection - similar to the Australian Constitution - should the government acquire property rights, as it questionably does through the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act, then there has to be a settlement on just terms. That is the area of risk that the minister has directly pointed to.
Regarding just terms, the settlement issue is what we are trying to solve here today. However, in the passage that I have just quoted, the minister effectively acknowledges that there may very well be compensation payable to a person who loses a property right. Now, section 44 of the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act states that there is no loss of proprietoral right but there may be a loss of another right with the expression of, or the declaration of, a sacred site. And that is where the grey area may very well exist. It may be the right to enjoy an amenity or some sort of right of access, or some other right, over the property in question.
We are talking about pastoral leases or freehold. As the minister quite clearly points out, the situation of pastoral leases and freeholds is that there may be a compensation process available. Indeed, he talks about the matters being dealt with at law. The reason I raise this issue is that unclear right, or some loss of right over land that I might hold freehold, for argument’s sake. If I then seek to go through a process of compensation, I understand from the minister’s statement - and I am not entirely clear on it and would ask him to clear it up - that compensation process would require an application to the courts.
Yesterday in this House, we debated at length the importance of staying away from litigation. What the government did then was say: ‘With native title and land rights claims, rather than go through a litigious process, what we would rather do is go through a process where we negotiate in the first instance. So we will go out and find all the people who have a possible claim and who may be able to establish a claim, and we will accept certain elements of that claim and we will negotiate that process out’.
Here we have a situation where, already, the first hurdle is being cleared by the property owners in question, so that they will be able to assert the right to make a claim very easily by virtue of the fact that they are already the possessors of the land, especially in a situation where there is freehold. If I suffer a loss as a result of the declaration of a sacred site on my freehold property, then I would expect that a compensation process would be available to me. It seems what the minister is saying is that I have to go through a litigious process.
What I am asking the minister to confirm for me here today - and I hope that he understands the full thrust of where I am going - is that I would like to see an equalisation of the rules, the policy; a standard, single policy which is consistent with the policy situation outlined by the government yesterday. What I am asking the minister consequently is this: will the minister go out and find every individual person and property owner who is affected by a sacred site being declared on their property, and go through a negotiation process for the purposes of determining what compensation, if any, is payable to them? Will that become part of government policy or will that not? If that does become part of government policy, then it is consistent with what was said yesterday. If it does not become part of government policy, then the minister needs to explain why there is a set of rules for people who are making claims under the Native Title Act, and under the Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) Act, and why there may be a different set of rules for people making claims under the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act.
There are large tracts of freehold land in the Northern Territory affected by this sort of thing. I would like to see the government take a step away from the litigious process consistent with their position - if that is going to be their position. I would like to know from the government this simple thing: are they going to be consistent in how they approach those claims made against them? It is not a difficult issue, but it is a very, very important one. It goes to the heart of the government’s policy in negotiating rather than litigating.
I do not know how much freehold and pastoral lease is affected, but I know of some large tracts of freehold which have been seriously affected by the declaration of sacred sites. I imagine the compensation package, especially in terms of development, may very well run into millions, possibly tens of millions of dollars. This is a fundamentally important issue, because the litigation bill will also be as high as the one that they were describing yesterday.
I would seek that assurance from the government. If they are not prepared to make that assurance, they should clearly demonstrate why they are not prepared to on this occasion. I look forward to the government’s response.
Mr AH KIT (Assisting the Chief Minister on Indigenous Affairs): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his comments, especially those that were supportive. He has a good understanding of the situation that was explained in my second-reading speech.
The government has, through moving this on urgency - and it is not something you want to do every day, or every sittings. As I said, we need to bring this act into line with the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act and to provide certainty. We have big projects; I mentioned those yesterday - Darwin to Alice Springs railway, Bradshaw Defence facility etcetera. The bill will provide certainty for certificates issued by the sites authority since 1989. It provides for just terms, compensation for any acquisition of property as a result of the operation of the NT Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act. However, we will negotiate with the potential compensation claimants. If we cannot reach an agreement, if we cannot settle, then the claimants will have an opportunity to take it to the courts.
Mr Elferink: Not far enough.
Mr AH KIT: The member for Macdonnell says: ‘Not far enough’. They had an opportunity to fix this; they stuck their heads in the sand. I come along and I am the minister responsible and I seek urgency to fix it, because once again, it is another thing that was put in the too-hard basket that was not dealt with by the CLP. You then sit over there in opposition and make all these comments.
I value the contribution, but our position has been made clear. I seek leave to move a motion for the third reading.
Madam SPEAKER: No, we have not done the second reading yet.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Chair, what I require from the minister is, basically, a clear yes or no on this issue. The standard that was set yesterday is that the government will go out and find those potential applicants or people seeking compensation or agreement, and they will come to a negotiated settlement. What is on offer here is: ‘Come and see us and we will talk about it and then we will possibly have to litigate’. What I need clearly from the government - he can say yes or no - is he prepared to go out and find and approach each person who is a potential litigant and enter into negotiations with them?
Mr AH KIT: No.
Mr ELFERINK: That is it.
Ms MARTIN: I would like to contribute briefly in these committee stages, because the whole point of bringing this amendment in on urgency is that the previous government never looked at this in a reasonable way and saw that they had to act. An act like this must comply with our self-government act. It must be stated within this act that any compensation is on just terms. That was never dealt with since the inception of the act in 1989 by the previous government. It is important for the validity of the act. Everything that has happened between 1989 and now - which includes massive projects for the Territory like the railway corridor - this gives certainty to.
All the issues being raised by the member for Macdonnell are simply red herrings. This is about certainty. This is about ensuring an act like this one, which is the NT Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act, is valid; so past actions and future actions are valid. Let me say very clearly in answer to the member for Macdonnell’s question: no, this is about certainty and responsible government. I appreciate his support, but do not start running down unnecessary corridors about this.
Mr Elferink: It is perfectly necessary for some acts, but not others. These are two sets of rules you are talking about, two different sets of rules.
Ms MARTIN: No, we are talking about lands acquisition acts have to – all the acts. We are currently having them reviewed to make sure that they do work within the terms of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act which defines all the acts that we discuss in this parliament. We have to make sure that these acts comply with our Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act and that acquisition on just terms is a key component of our self-government act.
Therefore, if we are going to look at the kind of issues raised by the member for Macdonnell - he stands here and says: ‘Well, are you going to go out and ask everyone who might seek compensation and ask them individually?’. What kind of rule is this? That is not how native title works. It is nothing.
Let us understand what this is about: it is on urgency because the NT Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act deals with things that are major projects for the Territory. The previous government did not deal with it year after year. This is about just terms. It is a simple thing, but it is about certainty. That is why we are doing it on urgency, so I thank you for your support.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I have to respond to what the Chief Minister said. I am not disputing that they are important projects. I am not disputing at any point or any stage the importance of this amendment to the act. That is why I have said that this government will enjoy the opposition’s support.
However, the issue is quite different. It has nothing to do with the validation of this act. It has to do with how this government is going to respond to exactly the same situation in different legislation. They have said consistently that they are planning to negotiate these issues out. They are prepared to negotiate with groups which may possibly have a claim, but will not negotiate with people who have an established claim.
Ms Martin: Nobody has an established claim. Which established claim? You are not understanding it.
Mr ELFERINK: For the sake of the Chief Minister, in the native title process, a claimant has to establish the right of claim in the first place. That is the first hurdle that a claimant has to get over. Under the NT Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act, there is no doubt as to who the owner of the property affected is; they are already over the first hurdle. They are closer to a resolution than an applicant under the Native Title Act. That is why a person affected by the NT Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act is closer to an outcome. Yet, the government is still not prepared to negotiate consistent with their policy statements in this Chamber yesterday.
Mr BURKE: The member for Macdonnell is seeking a simple answer, and that is that does the government intend to deal with …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Chairman! This question has already been answered with one word previously. The fact that I cannot reflect on the member’s presence in the Chamber; he could not be bothered to be here. The answer has already been given, I would urge we get on.
Mr AH KIT: And I gave my indication by remaining seated.
Mr CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order.
Mr BURKE: Mr Chairman, I would have thought that, at the very least, the member can get an answer to his question …
Mr Henderson: He did not ask a question; he made a statement.
Mr BURKE: I thought, actually, the minister provided the answer as he closed debate, and that is that these issues will be settled by negotiation in the first instance. That is the substance of the member’s question that, on the one hand we have an issue where the government does not intend to invoke litigation for native title claimants where we have a group of people - a large group of people in the Northern Territory, some of whom I know personally. One in the West MacDonnell Ranges is where a pastoralist has had a large section of the West MacDonnell Ranges excised because of sacred sites legislation.
The issue is clearly that, in this legislation, there are just terms compensation that will now be paid retrospectively. The principle of this government is that they will not seek legal means for native title claims on the one hand but, on the other hand, we have people who clearly have a compensable right recognised in your legislation. The member for Macdonnell is simply asking the government to be consistent in its approach. Do we have an approach of government for one group of people which means if you make a claim you can get a settlement and compensation or, for another group of people do you have to seek the comfort of the courts? That is a simple question and it does not require abuse; it simply requires an answer. Does the government intend to seek out these people, determine who are involved ...
Mr Ah Kit: It is retrospective.
Mr BURKE: The legislation says it is retrospective, but it also says that it will be decided at law. That is the question the member for Macdonnell is asking: will this be settled at law or will it be settled by negotiation and appropriate compensation, in the first instance? It seems to be the principle that government has decided for one group of Territorians. The member for Macdonnell is simply saying: does it apply to all? That is the question.
Ms MARTIN: To respond briefly to the former Chief Minister, who had two-and-a-half years as Chief Minister and many years as Attorney-General to bring what was an important amendment to this act into this House in the past, and did not. The previous government did have advice that this was needed and simply ignored it - it could have put in jeopardy the rights of many people – and chose not to do that.
If somebody has been issued with the site certificate on their land, they will not necessarily be the subject of an acquisition. You are jumping way ahead of where anything is. It would be up to any potential claimant to determine their own circumstances, and they can approach the government if necessary. But you are implying that there is a whole raft of Territorians. We will talk to people.
This is not necessarily about saying this amendment applies broadly. No, it does not. It is an important amendment to make sure that this act is valid. The implications that this act is not valid - this is what we are talking about - could mean an unravelling of the biggest Territory project we have ever seen. So, this is what it is about.
Mr BURKE: Chief Minister, I do not think you understand. Firstly, the opposition supports the legislation. We are talking about how the legislation will be implemented. The clear issue is that we know any number people in the Northern Territory who have had pastoral leases excised for the purpose of sacred sites legislation.
Your legislation now recognises that those people require just compensation. It is the process of how that compensation will be decided which is the question. Will those people be sought out and compensated outside of a legislative process, or do those people themselves have to begin the process and seek a legal outcome? On the one hand, you are dealing with one group of people who have not been identified under the way you are dealing with our parks; who have not even decided upon, identified or even lodged a claim; and you have decided that not only will the government seek them out, but they will negotiate outside the legal process. On the other hand, we have a group of people who are clearly recognised in your legislation as being disadvantaged and compensable. Why won’t you use the same process to deal with them?
Mr ELFERINK: I will just pick up on one comment by the Chief Minister. She said that she will talk to people. Can I get clarification that she plans to approach those people and negotiate with them, or …
Ms Martin: I did not say that.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, you did. I pick up on the interjection. The Chief Minister has just said: ‘We will talk to people’. I would like to know what that means.
Ms Scrymgour: We will do every day.
Mr ELFERINK: That is what I thought. It is going to be too hard.
Mr BURKE: Mr Chairman, we have the answer. The government does not want to participate. We can only interpret their response in the response that has been given, and that is the people affected by this legislation will have to seek comfort at law and through the legal process ...
Ms Martin: No, that is not what I said.
Mr BURKE: That is the intent of the legislation, and the non-response from the government confirms that.
Ms MARTIN: No, that question has been responded to and the Opposition Leader is being deliberately misleading of this parliament. If he had been here for more of the debate, he might have understood that.
Mr HENDERSON: Put it to the vote, Mr Chairman.
Bill agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr AH KIT (Assisting the Chief Minister on Indigenous Affairs): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, before we go into the third reading stage, the government has just made a farce of its ‘negotiate to avoid litigation’ policies outlined yesterday in this House. This government has said repeatedly when on this side of the House, even before it came into power, that they would negotiate claims against their public estate rather than litigate. Yet, at the first opportunity when they have a legislative program in this House, they suddenly realise what that actually means; they have to actually engage in a positive process.
They have chosen two pieces of federal legislation over which they have limited or no control, and to seek out potential applicants and negotiate with them to avoid the process of litigation. Yet, when they identify actual litigants in this process, they do not choose to negotiate, they immediately say: ‘Sorry too hard, sue us’. This is a breach of the government’s policy; of how the government is going to deal with these litigation processes. They have a particular axe to grind and, other than that, it is business as usual: ‘Unless you are making particular types of claims, we are not going to negotiate, go away, sue us’.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I present the report of the Ombudsman for the financial year ending 30 June, and I move the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report and I have leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday 18 February 2003 at 10 am or such other time and/or date as may be set by Madam Speaker pursuant to sessional order.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I lay on the Table the Public Accounts Committee Report for 2001-02. The purpose of this report is to set out the committee’s activities for the year. It is not intended to be a political document. I would like to place on record the committee’s appreciation of the work of the previous Chair, the member for Johnston, Dr Chris Burns.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr McADAM: The member for Johnston leaves this committee having proved that he is a very strong and capable parliamentarian and, more importantly, a very decent, honest and fair person.
I would also like to place on record acknowledgement of the contribution of the member for Nelson to the committee. We have not always agreed, but on the whole the relationships have been professional and constructive. I hope this can continue in 2003 as, indeed, in respect to the members for Greatorex and Drysdale.
The establishment of the new Estimates Committee is a great achievement. After 27 years, it was clear that the Territory needed an enhanced scrutiny process. I personally, and the committee as a whole, should feel honoured to have been part of the first Estimates Committee in the Territory. The investigation into the previous government’s budget was a very serious one and, perhaps, one of the most significant committee inquiries in the Territory’s history. Contrary to some incorrect assertions, it was not set up or run to get the member for Katherine or anyone else. It was set up and run to get to the truth, and I believe that was achieved.
On occasions, it was a difficult and arduous process for all - the committee and the people who gave evidence. It is totally outside the scope of this report, or this committee for that matter, to reflect on the consequences, if any, of any of the evidence provided. It should be put on record, however, that any suggestion that public servants were intimidated, terminated or adversely affected because of the committee or its activities is false. I look forward to the Public Accounts Committee’s activities next year.
Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be noted and seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.
Leave granted.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is this time of year that we should all pass greetings on to each other, regardless of what side of the House you sit on or where you are; and regardless of the ups and downs we have had this year. I certainly wish you all a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year and hope that you have a safe holiday and come back next year all well.
I want to pass my thanks on to many people: all the staff of the Legislative Assembly - and I am sure that you would agree with me - particularly the Clerk and Deputy Clerk; Gaddy who looks after our Table Office so well; committee people who have had really a very busy year; all our admin staff and our drivers; Hansard who tend to make sense of the nonsense we sometimes say; and of course, I must thank in particular my two staff, Katie and Robyn who are a tremendous support to me and who certainly look after me very well.
I wish you all, and your families, a very merry Christmas. I will be very pleased to be having a break with my family who, as you all know, are so very supportive of me and look after me so very well. I wish all Territorians a safe and happy Christmas.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, first of all I would like to wish you a very merry Christmas and a very happy new year. At the same time, I would like to wish everybody, on both sides of the House and the Independent, who has given me a hard time sometimes in the past, a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. Certainly, to all our colleagues in this side of the House. Also to the staff of the Legislative Assembly, people who work really hard here during the year to support us and sometimes they have to put up with us. A special thank you and a very merry Christmas and a happy new year to the staff of Hansard which I have really given a hard time. I believe some have had to attend special Greek classes just to be able to pick up my accent.
However, I am very proud to have an accent. I am one of the 50 different nationalities in the Territory and I have to admit that I and the member for Greatorex represent the ethnic communities in the Northern Territory and we are real proud of our background. If we sometimes speak with an accent, not easily understood by the general public, so be it. After all, we all live together in a small town and we have learned very easily to understand each other, even if some of us have a very strong accent.
I would like to wish a merry Christmas to all the 5th floor, the 4th floor staff; everybody who works in this building and, certainly, many great wishes to my staff and my ministerial office. I would also like to wish a merry Christmas and a happy a new year to my electorate officer, Ms Victoria Pollifrone, who worked with me very closely for one year. Unfortunately, she has to leave the office and move to Adelaide because of family urgency. Victoria has been a valuable member of my team. She had never worked in a political office. She is the mother of two children and supported her husband in a small business. All of a sudden, she found herself an Electorate Officer for a minister, and she has done an excellent job. I have to admit that I will feel her loss because she has been absolutely fantastic: very good with the people in my electorate. I must admit I have had the best electorate newsletter in the whole Territory. Victoria is really professional with excellent desktop publishing skills - she is a talented artist. Apart from managing motherhood, she also finds time to sculpt and to paint beautiful pictures. Well done, Victoria. Merry Christmas to you and good luck wherever you go. I am sure that someone in Adelaide will utilise your skills, and I will miss you.
I would like to wish Merry Christmas to friends and members of the party, people who supported me through this year-and-a-half. It was a hard year. It was a year that we were thrust into the limelight. We went from candidates to members of parliament and, in a week, ministers. It was a really hard time. People talk about steep learning curves, but ours was vertical rather than steep.
It is the time of the year we follow the Christmas spirit, we are feeling really well and we have some ho, ho, ho from both sides of the House. Hopefully, we will see this Christmas spirit in the next few weeks.
At the same time, I would like to say I am very proud of some of the events that took place in my electorate. First of all, the Dripstone High School Science Shade House project. The Dripstone High School has been presented with the Territory Tidy Towns 2002 Young Achiever Award for long-term commitment to recycling, as well as a school presentation for Outstanding Environmental Initiative. These awards are recognition of the efforts of a group of Year 9 students at the school and their SOSE teacher, Miss Iolanthe Sutton. I was very pleased to be invited to officially launch the initiative of the school earlier this month. The project was designed to give students an opportunity to experience being active citizens in their community through the rehabilitation of the science shade house.
It has been so effective that students who had bad truancy records are now keen to attend classes. Over three terms, the students and other volunteers worked on cleaning up and repairing the shade house, establishing a market garden of Asian vegetables, painting and decorating the compound, setting up a fish breeding facility, and creating an ornamental garden. Fundraising for the project by the students included cake stalls, ice cups and lobbying members of the community for funds. They certainly lobbied me and they received some funds. They were also successful in applying for support from the Community Benefit Fund, and thank you very much to the minister for gaming for those funds.
This project is in the first phase of what will be an ongoing program being taught across both SOSE and science over the next few years to Grade 9 Dripstone students, although all students at the school will benefit from access to this new education facility. Students who participated in the project where Kathy Trevitt, Tiana Brown, Shari Hill, Nathan Cornell, Woyan Knox, Nathaniel Patterson, Thepphithak (Tom) Chuamnonsoong, Laetitia Chandler, Irene Hourdas, Kelly Bowden, Teneecia Leedie, Sera Sim, Matthew Lee, Hayley Fletcher, Pauline Kassman, Poppy Loizos, Jenna March, Des Hayes, Brenton Medbury, Jahzeel Molomolo, Jacob Milne, Maria Billiris, Josh Cubillo, Xavier Hayes and Darcy Taylor.
A large number of people mentored the group in many different ways and supported the project in kind. Most notable was Bob Sutton, Iolanthe Sutton’s father, who spent many weeks working with the students while visiting Darwin from interstate earlier this year.
Mr Deputy Speaker, on 15 November, I attended 25th anniversary celebration of the Casuarina Soccer Club in the Main Hall of Parliament House. I really enjoyed it, even though, for many years, I coached the Mindil Aces - as you probably remember, since we thrashed your team 19:1 recently and then we repeated it with about 15:0, as I recall. My ministerial colleagues, John Ah Kit and Paul Henderson were there celebrating with me.
The club was formed in 1977 by Portuguese and Timorese refugees who fled East Timor in the mid-1970s, together with other immigrant families living in Darwin. From these humble beginnings, the club has gone from strength to strength, and is now one of Darwin’s biggest, with around 60 senior players and more than 200 juniors. The club has been responsible for nurturing many talented players, some of whom have gone on to play in the national soccer league. Thanks to an enthusiastic membership and a hard-working committee, the Casuarina Soccer Club will, no doubt, continue to grow and develop. I hope I will be around to celebrate their golden jubilee in another 25 years.
I would like to remind the House that the most popular sport in the Territory is not AFL, basketball or netball, it is soccer. Soccer is played from Darwin to Borroloola, with excellent Aboriginal soccer players. I have seen them in action and I am very impressed. I am telling you the next soccer star is going to be an Aboriginal person from the Northern Territory. We all do our best. It was a great pleasure to see the players of Hellenic or Aboriginal descent doing very well, thank you very much, together and thrashing some of the other clubs - in some cases including my own Mindil Aces.
I was very pleased to support Chief Minister, Clare Martin, in the launch of the annual K-Mart Wishing Tree Appeal on Wednesday, 13 November, at Casuarina Square. The initiative is proudly supported by the Salvation Army and K-Mart, and this year the appeal’s theme is ‘Every gift brings a smile’, highlighting the tremendous difference that every gift donated will make to a child this Christmas. The appeal has become an important part of Christmas in Casuarina. To participate, simply take a present, wrap it and put it under the tree. It does not matter if you buy the present in Big W, K-Mart, Woolworths or anywhere else, just pick it up, wrap it, put on the tag, and I am pretty sure that the present will find its way to the appropriate kid. You only have to mark the card with the age and the sex of the kid, and a kid will be happy this Christmas. Congratulations to K-Mart and to everybody who is participating in this program. I believe, in the past 14 years, K-Mart has actually managed to distribute two million gifts nationally.
I have to admit I have a very soft spot for this program because, in the 1960s, I grew up in Greece. I remember very well, things were tough, they were not easy. My father was working from 6 am until 8 pm. I remember I saw my father very few times when I was six or seven-years-old. I always recall Christmas as particularly tough, especially when you were looking out the windows and could see, in the other houses, the Christmas trees with lights that were flickering on and off, while our house did not have a Christmas tree for the simple reason that we could not afford one. I remember very well that I did not receive my first Christmas present until I was seven-years-old. As a matter of fact, I recall I had to buy my own Christmas present, because I collected the money after singing Christmas carols, as the tradition dictates in Greece. I went and bought a small plastic truck and that was the biggest thing I had in my life; that was the first Christmas treat.
So I can understand how kids feel now if they do not receive a Christmas gift. I know it is very sad and you are wiping your eyes but, unfortunately, sometimes reality is harder than what is in the Hollywood movies. But I believe some of us shared the same experiences, growing up in really tough conditions. Some of us grew up on farms, in towns in Australia, and some of us grew up in other countries. Things are really easy for our kids today, but we still remember what happened in our early years.
In conclusion, once again I would like to wish everyone a merry Christmas and happy new year, and a great thank you, especially to the Hansard staff. I know they have a very difficult job, and I understand I now have my very own personal Hansard editor who is fluent in Greek and English …
Mr Stirling: They put them there as punishment.
Mr VATSKALIS: That is what my ‘Sir Humphrey’ says. A great thank you and a merry Christmas to the Chief Minister, the Deputy Chief Minister, all my friends and colleagues from both sides of the House and, certainly, everybody else who worked and supported us in these difficult 16 to 18 months in this House.
Ms MARTIN (Fannie Bay): Well, it is the last day of the parliamentary year and it has been a fairly volatile last three days. But I believe we managed to find a little Christmas cheer along the way - references to stars and those things, fading or otherwise …
Ms Carter: And ho, ho, ho.
Ms MARTIN: And a little ho, ho, ho. However, I would like to put on the record my thanks to Madam Speaker for her work this year, and her nurturing of our parliamentary process. To the Deputy Speaker and the Chair of Committees, thank you as well. To the Clerk, the Deputy Clerk and all who work in the Assembly - we sometimes take the smooth operation of the Assembly for granted, and yet there is considerable work and a lot of commitment that goes in, to make sure that our parliament works as effectively as it does. So, from Chief Minister, thanks to everyone.
To Hansard, who the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure just referred to - and certainly sometimes recording the words of the member for Casuarina can be challenging. Thank you, Hansard, for all the work you do. To the library staff, to security, to everyone who makes this building hum, thank you - and particularly security because it has not been an easy year.
My thanks also go to everyone who has worked with me over the year in my office on the 5th floor. It has been a challenging year and I know that they have worked very hard. Also, to the other officers who work on the 5th floor - we probably do not say it on a daily basis - thank you for all the work you do. We do not say it weekly, monthly or bi-yearly, but we can take this time of the year to say it in a grateful and formal sense: thank you to everyone who works with me, and that is right across the 5th floor.
Can I thank the hard work of my ministerial colleagues and my caucus colleagues because, again, it has been a challenging, but very rewarding year. I would like to thank those who have worked in my departments over the year: the Department of Chief Minister, the Treasury for most of the year certainly, and the ongoing work of Treasury, and the section of Arts and Museums within Community Development. I certainly treasured working with all those public servants over the year. I want to thank Treasury for the support they gave me as a learning Treasurer over the 15 months that I had the privilege of being the Territory’s first Labor Treasurer.
I would like to thank all our CEOs across all departments, particularly my own CEO in the Department of Chief Minister, for their support and hard work for the Territory; all the senior public servants who I know put in long hours; as well as the 14 300 public servants who worked right across the Territory for the benefit of Territorians. We, as a government, could not do it without them. So, my personal thanks and happy Christmas to them.
I would like to thank my electorate officer, Jessica, who does a great job. One of the disappointments, I suppose, of being Chief Minister is you do not get to spend as much time in your electorate office as you would like. However, I am determined to change that next year. But Jessica does a great job and I am very thankful for her work.
Last but not least, I would like to thank the people who probably suffer most in my life, and that is my family. I thank them for their tolerance and their patience over the year, for the times of having a snappy mother and partner at home. I can only say that we will continue our juggling act next year. When I talked earlier today about government and reviews, particularly, I mentioned family and the reviews that have to go on family. In my family it is on a daily basis: how we manage and negotiate. I would certainly like to thank my family for all the patience, love and affection they have shown this year.
I would like to wish everyone a happy Christmas and a safe and a prosperous new year. It will be coming in - how many days? - about 27 days I think. It would be wonderful to think that the Territory could get through a holiday without one fatality on the road, and I hope that we can achieve that.
One of the dreadful things about the Christmas period, and holiday periods generally, is when there are accidents and fatalities. It seems to be so unnecessary at a time when we are relaxing a little, celebrating Christmas and then the change of a year, that somebody should die on our roads. When I say a safe Christmas and new year, I mean that from the bottom of my heart.
So generally, thanks to everyone, and we will be back rearing to go for a new parliamentary year come February.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, I also wish everybody a very merry Christmas for this year. It is nearly 16 months since the last election, and these last 12 months of the year in opposition has been quite an enlightening experience, if I may say so.
I was most surprised to find out the volume of work that one has to do even in opposition, and maybe that reflects the way that we all service our own constituencies, meet the daily demands of shadow portfolios, and carry on other duties such as committee work. No doubt, the workload can be quite taxing at times.
Unfortunately, the more time you spend at work, the less time you spend at home. Our families deserve our greatest gratitude. My poor long-suffering wife, Sharon, probably spent more time on her own than with me throughout last year. It reminds me of a little tale I exchanged with the member for Port Darwin. I told her, after the last sittings, that I was going to be home in Alice Springs for two weeks. She thought that I was going to spend two weeks at home, in the home in Alice Springs. I said, ‘No, I have appointments’, and suddenly she realised that what I meant was, home, being in the community of Alice Springs, and not just being at home. That is the way life is, I suppose, working in Central Australia, with only a few of us representing our constituencies. I thank Sharon, my wife, for her faithfulness, loyalty and support for the work that I do here in the Assembly, in the committees and also in Alice Springs representing the CLP with my colleagues, the members for Araluen and Macdonnell.
We are blessed that one of our children has returned home to Alice Springs to live with us and has been with us for the last 18 months or so. That has been a great joy to us. Another is still away at university studying, and the oldest one has just recently remarried. As a family, there are lots of times when we vie for each other’s attention.
I would also like to express my appreciation to my electorate officer, Caroll Lyons and her little daughter, Cayce. Caroll has been with me now since before the last election, and has continued to improve in her skills. She is very, very uncomplaining of the workload that I put on her but, without her support in the electorate office and in the electorate itself, my workload would have been almost impossible. She is here this week in Darwin, for the electorate officers workshop, and I trust she enjoys herself up here and, hopefully, will enjoy herself a even more tomorrow at lunchtime. Backing Caroll up on occasions, as a locum, I would call the fill-in electorate officer, is Jim Goulding. Jim is a retiree in Alice Springs, whose background is in administration, and fills the role as the replacement electorate officer very well. Not this very minute, but this week he is manning my office in Alice Springs. He is also a very faithful branch member.
Talking about my branch, the previous chairman, Colin Saunders, retired at the last AGM and is now replaced by David Forrest. Both men have been very strong in their leadership of our branch. My branch, which was formerly the Greatorex branch, then became the Greatorex Macdonnell branch, and now is the Alice Springs branch. It is one of the strongest branches in the CLP and has been one of the leaders in achieving great progress for the Central Australian region. We look forward to working with the other branches of Araluen and Stuart to form a strong unit in Central Australia.
I would like to thank the Clerk and his staff, particularly Vicki Long and Naoko Kitazato who I have plagued incessantly this year with matters IT. They have been a great support for me and been very gentle in their ways with me. They could have just as easily have said: ‘No, you cannot have this or cannot have that’ and it would make my life more difficult seeing that I do push the edge on the use of IT in this job.
The ladies in Hansard, Helen Allmich, Sue Fitzpatrick and the others, you all do a very good job of Hansard. On reading what you provide for us, I am amazed by my own eloquence. I do not know how it comes together so well, but when I read it think: ‘No, I do not remember saying those things in that way’. But it turns out reasonably well, and the Parliamentary Record being a permanent record for all time, maybe some people a few hundred years from now might want to look back and say: ‘Geez, these people, back in those days talked funny, but they talked well’.
I would like to offer my appreciation to the people of Greatorex for the support that they have given me this year. Many people in Greatorex actually helped me hand out my newsletters which I deliver into the electorate at least four times a year. It has been a great help for me that I have such a large gang of people who will do some streets every three months. It shows a commitment that the electorate has for me. Likewise, I have to respond with loyal service to the electorate.
Alice Springs is very much Central Australia. We obviously have Barkly, Macdonnell and parts of Stuart. I like to spend some time in the bush to help out the member for Macdonnell if I can, and visit some Aboriginal communities. Sometimes, they see me as a racial minority just like they are, and have some sense of affinity and understanding of the hardships that they go through just about every day of their lives.
Merry Christmas to everybody in this Chamber, my colleagues in the CLP and also - I would not call them opponents - my fellow political members on the other side of the Chamber. I said last year that it is never easy to be feeling good about everybody at the end of the year after a whole year of argy-bargy, yelling at each other, and calling each other all sorts of names. However, sometimes one has to put that to one side, be a bit more objective, push aside all the hurt and anger that one tends to feel sometimes, and look at the good product that actually comes out of this Chamber at the end of the day. That is what it is all about; we are here to govern the Northern Territory and we try to do the best that we can. Sure, we see things from a different political perspective, and it is for those reasons that we argue the way we do.
I do not think it is the right thing to attribute bad motives to the other side. We all do things with the best of intentions. We all come to politics hoping to do the right thing by our communities and our societies, and as long as we can stay focussed on that, we can achieve many things. I would beseech all members that, when we debate, try to leave out as much of the personalities as we possibly can and deal with the issue. The issues are complex enough without having to drag in the frailties of humanity which we all have. If we do that, we detract from the issue at hand.
Be safe, everybody, for the Christmas and new year period. As the Chief Minister said, many people are travelling and that brings up the issue of safety, not so much just your personal safety in your own community but in motor vehicle accidents, drunken driving and all things like that. That is not the best way to celebrate the festive season.
To the ethnic communities of the Northern Territory, in particular the many Chinese groups that are here in the Top End and a smattering of them in Central Australia, I thank them for their support this year. They have been most supportive of my activities in all the festivities that I have been involved in organising, in particular the Chinese New Year festivities and the Moon Festival.
Next year, unfortunately, the Chinese New Year festival is going to be curtailed to the extent that each Chinese group will celebrate their own Chinese New Year festival. There will not be a combined Chinese New Year festival as we have had for the last three years. The Moon Festival seems to have taken on a greater prominence, and I look forward to another year organising the Moon Festival and celebrating that in even greater splendour than ever before.
All in all, merry Christmas and happy new year to everybody, and be safe.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will not be long tonight, but I will begin by wishing everyone in this honourable Assembly a merry Christmas, and I hope that everyone has a happy new year, of course. Naturally, that extends to their families and friends.
To begin with, I would like to wish all the staff at the Millner school a merry Christmas, especially Ron Argoon. I thank him for all the support he has given me during the year. All the staff and teachers do a great job at Millner school. There is Millner Preschool, with Mrs Cook, the principal, who does a fantastic job and I wish her a merry Christmas. There is the Lutheran Preschool, and there is the Ludmilla school with Helen Southam and staff, in particular Ingrid Clarke, Damien Zammit, and Donna Mincham who all do a fantastic job down there with all the other staff - merry Christmas and a happy new year.
To the Seniors Hall, who recently elected a committee, in particular, Maureen Hack, Audrey Grace, Bill Douglas, Aunty Mavis Tye and John Bonson and the rest of the gang - good luck, merry Christmas and a happy new year to all of you.
To the Jape family and to their businesses that are situated in Millner, merry Christmas. Of course, to the Mu family - Marty, Paulo, Victor, George and Mr Mu Senior - who own Happy Foodland Supermarket and have been proprietors of that shop since I was a boy, happy Christmas.
To Lois and Ian who run the Rapid Creek Markets on Sundays, merry Christmas. You do a fantastic job there with limited resources, but you manage to keep a huge number of stall owners happy.
I extend Christmas greeting a happy new year to some of the Millner residents: Willie and Karen Markos and family, the Grant family, Aunty Ruthy, Dominic, Dion, Nathan, Paddy and Peter and all your extended families; the Ah Sam family - Denise, Joe, Jason, Darren and children; the Sedens, another large family - in particular Paulie, Peter, David, Peter Senior, Dallas, Eden and all the other Sedens I do not have time to mention; the Parfitt and Fejo families, very well known local Darwin families of Larrakia descent - I hope you keep plugging along; and the Ah Mats, another large family of the Northern Territory.
Merry Christmas and a happy new year to the Bagot community and the president there, Darryl Cooktown; the administration officer, Natalie Haywood; the Palmerston Health Clinic, Joy and Val White, in the women’s shelter, and Don White, long-term members of the Bagot community for over 25 years; Mr Johnson, at the workshop, and his wife and sons; and to Lesley and Norm Hoffman and the staff in the community shop.
To all the families at the Minminarra community, I hope you have a great Christmas and an enjoyable new year. Also Aunty Mavis Tye, Shannon and Bubba, of course, I hope you have a good time there and a merry Christmas to you.
The Diamond and Zikos families who run Sabine Shopping Centre, merry Christmas to you and all your families. And to Michael McGregor and family, happy new year.
I would also like to thank and extend greetings to all the committee of the Darwin Football Club - Alison, Aunty Margie, Geoff Dupuy, Frank Ah Mat; the coaches - Paul Motlop, Chris Lewis; and all Darwin players. Also to the Rebels Baseball Club committee and president, Derek Lee, and all other players. To the Nightcliff Dragons, well done for winning the fourth premiership in a row: Kane Bonson, captain; Joey Romelo coach; the committee, Jackie and Stem Edwards, Patty Edwards and numerous others - well done, happy new year and merry Christmas to you all.
Also to the ALP Millner Branch, thank you for your support during the year and I hope you support me next year and we have a good time - just as good as we had this year. To ALP members across the Northern Territory, merry Christmas and happy new and I hope you keep working to keep the Australian Labor Party in government after the next 2 or 3 years. We thank you for all your support.
Merry Christmas and happy new year to all the staff in the Legislative Assembly: those who work in Hansard; in the Clerk’s office who deal with all matters at all different levels; the staff on the 5th floor, all the advisors and ministerial staff. You do a fantastic job behind the scenes, working many, many hours - best wishes to you and your families.
Of course, to the ministers and all my colleagues on the backbench, happy new year and merry Christmas. I know it has been a very exciting year and sometimes it has been very hard, but our solidarity during this period of time has been fantastic, and a party united can never be defeated.
I would like to also give special thanks to an odd-jobs man, who he gets everything done and supports every member to the best of his ability. That is Frank Moukaddem, who does a fantastic job, and best wishes to his family and wife and happy new year to them.
I would also like to thank my family of course, and wish them all a very merry Christmas and happy new year: my mother Rosanne and her husband Steve; my sister Nicole and husband Chris and nephew Cowan; brother Luke and niece Siana; Uncle Don and Aunty Vicky Bonson, Gregory, Annie, Bianca, Josie, Dookie and young Thomas; your partners and to any of your children I have forgotten to name as well; Uncle Kenny, Kane and Jacob and their families; Jason and John Bonson, senior and junior; Aunty Patsy, Dennis, Yvette and Liz and children; Joe, Rodney, Pacita and April and families; Aunty Pat; Ammo, Cyril, Chrissie and Donald, Uncle Ian and Aunty Betsy; Tony and Cecil, Hanna and Elliott Ankin; Aunty Lynette, Donna, Patricia, Sonya and partners and kids; Yasmin, Bianca, Trevor and Ali; Aunty Esther, Chelsea, Travis, Gary; Aunty Josie and David; and the De La Cruz family.
Like everyone in this House who gave thanks to their partners, I would like to give special thanks to my partner, Mona Lisa. She does a fantastic job of putting up with me. Whenever I go missing or am away for long hours, she is always forgiving. She is a pillar of strength who grounds me always, and makes sure I remain humble. She definitely brings me back to what it means to come into this place to represent people we are supposed to be representing, and all the good things that we love in our communities. I would like to thank her for giving me that support, being that strength behind me, and giving me encouragement to keep going. Also, of course, for making me laugh at all times.
Finally, if there is anyone else I missed out, merry Christmas, happy new year, and best wishes.
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to wish all members of the Assembly a safe and happy Christmas: the staff of the Assembly; Madam Speaker; the Clerk who does a great job ensuring the business of the House runs smoothly; the staff of Hansard; the Table Office - Mr Gadd, Stokesy and Sam, who certainly keep the procedures running smoothly in here as well. Gary and the drivers do a tremendous job looking after the ministers. Jenny, my electorate officer, looks after the office and the constituents whilst I am here in Darwin with ministerial duties. the staff of the ministerial office on the 5th floor with Jamie, Ron, Rob, Peter, Chrissie, Kate and recently, Mary has come into our office, are a great team and they pull together when the pressure is on.
The staff of DEET under Peter Plummer, the CEO, and all of the teachers, I know, with two weeks of school left, are looking forward to their break. Jennifer Prince has only recently gone across to Treasury. I already had enormous respect for the ability of Treasury, with the strategic thinking that they were able to bring to all manner of problems before government, they do a terrific job.
In short, I wish all Territorians a safe and happy Christmas and a safe return to their jobs in the new year. I want to wish Steve Bracks, the Victorian premier, and the Labor government of Victoria, all the very best in the lead-up to Christmas. They are just 48 hours away from the polls. The polls look good, but you never know until the day, and I hope it is an early Christmas present for the Victorian Labor Party under Premier Bracks.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to pay tribute to a number of people who in no small way have contributed immensely over the past year. First of all, I would like to extend my appreciation to Jerry McCarthy, president of the Barkly branch of the ALP. Jerry was elected earlier this year, and his tireless efforts in maintaining the branch in a very professional dedicated manner, is to be admired. Jerry’s contribution to the Barkly is underestimated. Quite apart from writing weekly columns in the local newspaper regarding educational issues, Jerry has been instrumental in getting the rodeo going after a long absence, and is always willing to volunteer in some capacity in respect to a whole host of other community events in the Barkly.
I would also like to say thanks to other members of the branch who give their time so unselfishly, particularly Sharon Kinraid, Pam Stein, Nigel Rush, Jan McCarthy, Elva Cross, Graham Thomas, Dennis Carrol, Heather Keokouer, Peter Callinan, Marty Strachan, Jan Hill, and of course, Alf Chittock, who is an inspiration to us all in the branch.
I would like to take this opportunity to extend a very special mention to three people. Firstly, Max Smith. Members may recall that during my maiden speech I spoke of Max. Max suffered horrific burns as a result of a bushfire at Kurundi Station some 18 months to two years ago and, as a result underwent prolonged hospitalisation for treatment. Max undertook a further period in the rehabilitation hospital in Adelaide, but I am really happy to say that he is out of hospital and slowly recovering. Max is a wonderful person and deserves the very best. Old mate, I hope to see you back in Tennant Creek real soon.
Another member of the local branch is Valerie Simpson. Valerie is presently in intensive care at a hospital in Melbourne. Val was attending a workshop on behalf of Batchelor College when she suddenly took ill some six weeks ago. I have been advised, however, that Val is slowly recovering. We know it will take time but, with the wonderful support of her husband, Peter, we hope to see them back in Tennant Creek in the not too distant future.
Yesterday in my adjournment, I spoke of a gentleman by the name of Theo Hendriks. Theo passed away on 9 November in Adelaide. As I mentioned yesterday, I will never forget the kindness, commitment and assistance he provided during the campaign - not only during the campaign, but to a whole host of people in the Tennant Creek community. Theo was always down at the local supermarket or at the Tennant Creek Show with his faithful companion, Pepe, selling raffle tickets. Theo will be missed by us all.
I would like to thank Graham Dingwall for his ongoing support in Borroloola. Graham is always on hand to provide support and to administer the occasional rocket when required. Also to Ahmet Latifoglu and Thelma Douglas from the same community - thank you very much for your kind support.
I extend my sincere appreciation to Norm and Karina Hart, Jackie Townsend, Gary Cronin, Carol and Dave Harris, Peter Fitzpatrick, Maria Pyro and Roy Hammer. All of these people are from Borroloola, and I thank them for their help and encouragement throughout the year.
I want to extend my sincere appreciation to Superintendent Steve Edgington and the local police officers in Tennant Creek for their immense effort in the local community to reduce the levels of crime and antisocial behaviour.
To Michael Dougal, the Chief Executive Officer of the Tennant Creek Town Council and the councillors, a special thanks for your commitment in working in partnership with the police and the community in developing the Safe Community strategy. Also to Mr Noel Hayes, the Chairperson, and councillors of the Yapakurlangu Regional Council for being very active participants and working towards some real outcomes in the Barkly.
I would particularly like to thank and express my sincere appreciation to Gail Dougal, my electorate officer, who has carried out her task in a very dedicated, caring and committed manner. Gail is a wonderful person; one in a million.
To all the staff in Parliament House, thank you for your professionalism and your commitment to your respective tasks. I would like to thank Clerk Ian McNeill, Dave Horton, Graham Gadd, Steven Stokes and Samantha Mannette. If I have missed out some people, please accept my apologies, but you can be assured that your support has been much appreciated.
Also to the Hansard staff, and I refer to Helen Allmich, Robyn Smith and Elizabeth Olajos. I thank you very much for your forbearance and your patience.
To my colleagues on both sides of the Chamber, I thank you as well.
I would also like to record my love and appreciation of my beautiful partner, Barb Shaw, for her ongoing support throughout the year.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I trust all will enjoy a peaceful Christmas, and a productive and successful 2003.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, well, it is the last sittings before Christmas - that sounds a bit like a novel, doesn’t it? I would like to wish all honourable members, their families and friends the very best for Christmas and the new year.
The Johnston electorate is a great area with great people. I suppose I keep on hammering this point, but I doorknock as much as I can, and I find it very pleasurable. It is good exercise for one thing and you get to meet a lot of different people. Some people invite you in and you sit down and have a drink of water, a cup of tea, or maybe even a beer sometimes. You hear what people are thinking about, what is concerning them, and you hear good news about their lives and how they came to the Territory. That is what makes the Territory great, that so often people just come up here for a bit of a trip, and they end up just staying, it is just such a great place. I thank the Johnston electorate for their support. It is getting a little bit harder, but I will be out there doorknocking as much as I can towards the end of this year and early next year, weather permitting.
I would like to pay special tribute to my electorate officer, Judy Herring. Not only does she have to put up with my absent mindedness and eccentricities and now my absence, but she takes it all in her stride, like a good bridge player. She is a bit of a mind reader, which helps. We deal with the public, and sometimes there is that one in a thousand that is a bit of a trial, but Judy has infinite patience and usually, we get a pretty good result for people. Often, what people want is an understanding ear and someone who can give them advice, and Judy does that very well. So Judy, thank you so much for all your assistance and support. I look forward to working with you next year.
The Johnston electorate has a number of schools. Casuarina Senior College is one, and I would like to thank Steve Sjoberg for his support and his advice. I believe Casuarina Senior College is a premier educational institution in the Territory, and they certainly turn out some fine graduates. Their council is also a very fine council.
Brian Bennett, a relative newcomer from Tasmania, is Principal of the Moil Primary School. Brian and his wife are really enjoying life in the Territory. Brian has brought a real spark of life into Moil Primary School. Leslie Wilcox is Principal of Jingili Primary School, along with Mim Regan at the preschool. It is a great school. Michelle Cody is at the Wagaman Primary School. All of these schools have great school councils of dedicated parents who come along, and I would like to wish them all a very happy Christmas and a successful new year.
In terms of the Assembly, I would like to extend seasons greetings to Madam Speaker. She has to sometimes put up with some bad behaviour, and maybe I am part of that syndrome. However, I hope that I do not give her too much grief. I respect her and her advice and, as she knows, I often seek her advice. She is someone with a lot of wisdom. Katie Tchia has to put up with us when we have our soirees. We are having one tonight, although I have only had a chance to have one wine, but I might go back and maybe have a beer for Christmas. They are great nights and, as I have in the past, I commend them to members because it is a way that we can meet informally and all become a bit more human that way. We have had some good nights.
To the Clerk, Ian McNeill: you have a very hard job, but I know that you are absolutely impartial and that you engender a lot of respect for the institution of parliament. Of course, also to Deputy Clerk, David Horton, and all the staff of the Assembly. I know Graham Gadd puts in some long hours, as do Steve and Sam, behind us there, in the Table Office. They keep the Assembly running smoothly and they also have a few good jokes.
I know the IT people are not directly underneath the Assembly, they are from outside. Quito Washington is a livewire and he loves to drink coffee and he is full of coffee beans. Quito is always helpful and he always manages to get me back on the network almost, or part of the way …
Mr Kiely: Sometimes, maybe.
Dr BURNS: Sometimes. But it is not the fault of Quito. He is a great bloke and a very interesting character with very interesting hobbies.
Hansard: well, Helen Allmich and the crew, I wonder how they do it. They get all the names right – 95%, 98% right. They seem to order what you say. As the member for Greatorex said, you read it and say: ‘Gee, that sounds pretty statesmanlike’, but it seemed pretty ordinary as you were saying it. I really appreciate the Hansard staff and the crucial job that they do.
Corporate Services led by Vicki Long: I know that is a hard job, particularly the IT stuff, but my thanks to Vicki. The few times I have called on her she has really helped me and I appreciate that.
Building Services led by Jan Bradley and Derek Stafford: they do a fantastic job and keep this great building, as big as it is, running smoothly.
The committee staff: I would particularly like to thank Terry Hanley and Ros Vogeli for the PAC and Estimates Committee. When I was Chair there, they were a great support to me, and they certainly put in a lot of extra yards and do a lot of extra work. The workload of the PAC and Estimates has increased exponentially this year. Terry and Ros, I thank you for all your great efforts. Another committee is the Substance Abuse Committee, with Pat Hancock ably assisted by Liz McFarlane. That is a very important committee, and I was sorry to leave that committee. I have a large interest in that, but I know the member for Sanderson has stepped in there and he will do a great job.
The Parliamentary Library: well, I know I could come in for a bit of a caning for saying this, but as someone who likes to research, I love the library. I have a lot of respect for the librarians; they are very helpful, very efficient and they certainly dig up those facts and figures and are very extensive in their searches. So, to Marilyn Hawthorne and Ruby Lindberg who is a relatively new mother, which is great: thank you for all your support.
Now I have become a minister, I have lots of people to thank in DIPE and DBIRD. I have actually got to know a lot of people in those departments, and certainly also PowerWater. I have been told I have to go to Ben Hammond coming up to Christmas and put $250 on the bar there, and we all have a big party. So I can hardly wait to go along to the Christmas party at Ben Hammond. I have heard a few stories and I will probably have to touch base with the member for Drysdale. I heard he had a great Christmas party one year, and I want to find out the ropes from him.
My parliamentary office or my ministerial office upstairs: I am so fortunate to have Mark Hough; he is a great chief of staff and I have a lot of respect, confidence and trust in him. Valerie, who is on secondment, if you like, from the Tourist Commission until we get our permanent staff in place, has been a great help. Valerie has a great sense of humour and a great knowledge of the tourism industry. Caroline and Myrene, they are just fantastic and help me so much. There are others to come on board - Andrew Buick is also there like Valerie, helping out on the environment side of things. That is fantastic and I really appreciate it. My job has been made a lot easier by the great support that I have received from these people.
I am having a little more to do with the drivers and they are great. They certainly know their way around and they know the protocols, and that is great support also. So, thank you to all the drivers. The security staff always have a joke; they are a good crowd of people who have an important job to do and I appreciate that. Also, the Protocol staff do a great job with all the functions that we have at Parliament House.
I mentioned Judy before, but Phil Powling is someone who comes in and steps in for Judy when we let her take holidays. Phil does a great job; he is a very experienced electorate officer and he has some good ideas. As the member for Millner said, I would particularly like to thank Frank Moukaddem for his help in so many ways. Whenever there is a party function on Frank is there, and is not afraid to do the work. He is just a great support for me and for our party. He is someone with a good heart - a true believer and a very hard worker. Frank and his wife are expecting a baby in early 2003 and I wish them all the best for that very joyous occasion.
To all the branch members in the Casuarina branch, I guess we have to have a few Christmas parties over the next month, but I thank you for your support. As always, I will endeavour to get along to branch meetings because they are just so important. As with doorknocking, at branch meetings you get the political feedback, the support and encouragement of branch members, and that is fantastic.
Regarding my colleagues, I have already wished everyone on both sides a happy Christmas. I certainly endorse what the member for Greatorex said about putting aside our political, and sometimes personal differences at this time, to wish each other and our families all the best. When you look at the bigger picture, even though we are opponents we are part of a fabric - a three-way fabric with the Independents - and that makes it a little more interesting as well. We all are part of the proud fabric of Australian political life and we all contribute. I would particularly like to thank my colleagues on this side in our caucus. We are a tight, very friendly group; we talk to each other freely and listen to each other’s concerns and advice and that is fantastic - we are a great team.
I suppose without trying to pick favourites from within the team, my colleague, the member for Sanderson, and I were friends long before we came into parliament and I hope that we are friends long after we leave. He is looking at me sideways here. It is great to have someone who you do have a history of friendship with. I have known others here before I came into parliament, but I met Len and Marie a long time ago out at Maningrida and we became friends before we were in politics, and that is very important.
Finally to the family: I have been a bit of an absentee, always with some sort of project on. I suppose before I entered into politics I was always working long hours or out doing field work. I have a very understanding and supportive family for which I am eternally grateful. They are also great critics. We need to be self-critical and to have friends and family who are critical of us and tell us exactly what they think. That is very important. It has been a tough year, which has had its highs and lows. I lost my mother earlier this year and that was hard. However, merry Christmas to everybody, and good evening.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I look back at the year and, perhaps, look forward at what is to come. I also recognise the things that I have been a part of during this past year, which would not have been possible without the help and support of many people; and for that help and support I am eternally grateful. I have tried hard to be a good local member for Sanderson.
The things that have happened this year around the place that I have participated in as a local member, as well as being good for my electorate are good for the Territory in a much broader context. I recall the Freedom of Information legislation. It is a bit of a sleeper, that one, but it has been a long time coming and is going to make some big fundamental changes to the interactions between the community and government. It has made government more open, and the benefits of our Information Act are yet to be felt through the community. I am looking forward to that, and I am very proud to have been a part of it. I am proud that the people of Sanderson elected me so that I could be a part of it.
During these sittings, we saw the pool fencing legislation go through which will be a great boon to the community in years to come. It will not completely stop the tragic occurrences of children drowning. In future, we will see such tragedies occur, but we are addressing it and looking at ways of trying to reduce it as much as we can.
The smoking legislation that we introduced was a long time coming; people have been wanting government to act on that. I am not trying to make any political mileage on this, but I am saying that we were voted in on these items and we have delivered on them. I am proud to have delivered on them in this short time, and it justifies the choice of the Labor candidate by the people of Sanderson at the last election.
One of the big things that we, as a government, have done for the community is the drug legislation. Quite a number of drug houses around the Sanderson area have been targetted, making it difficult for them to trade. We have all seen the stories about Foils on Moil. People in my area know what a pestilence this has been to the neighbourhood. I was in Pelican Crescent doorknocking the other day and was told by the neighbours that we had busted an amphetamine factory there – and this is in the leafy suburb of Wulagi! This is part of the government that I belong to, and this has all happened this year. I am proud of it and the people of Sanderson can also be proud of it.
I have struck up a good relationship with our police at Casuarina and they are very responsive when I give them a call about constituent issues. I am pretty happy about that.
I have found that I have good relationships with all of the ministers and their advisors. If a constituent comes to me with an issue, then I have open access to the ministers and their advisors and we are able to sit down and work out the best deal that we can. It is an excellent working relationship, and that is of great benefit to my constituents.
On the local scene, the government has delivered on an election promise that was made regarding funding for the upgrade of the Sanderson High School tennis courts. I understand that minister Vatskalis and one of his senior advisors, Alf Leonardi, are working very closely on making sure that money is provided. They have promised me that it will be delivered, and it is going to happen. I know that minister Stirling, who is responsible for DEET, and also the principal, are working hard to make sure that money gets to the school. This is a great tripartite community effort.
Dr Burns: No reason why it should not happen.
Mr KIELY: That is right; a promise is a promise. They are delivering; we are delivering and I am happy about it.
The Marrara Neighbourhood Centre is another election promise fulfilled. We promised them, coming into the election, in the vicinity of $170 000-odd, I think it was, to carry out work that was urgently needed to help maintain that centre as a good community asset, as well as an inclusion worker to help children with special needs. We delivered on that.
As a local community member, I have tried my best. I have been out doorknocking; I get around the electorate having a good chat. It is always wonderful to go into the houses of the people I represent. The suburbs that I represent are not anything special, but they are full of good people – good, down to earth, solid Territorians. It is always a pleasure to sit down and talk to them. Everyone is hospitable, and they will let me know their points of view, and I value the feedback on my performance.
I will get back to my support base. As I said, I can only be a good, effective member if I am supported. I would like to start off with the ministers and their staff. I will not go through naming them all, but, believe me, I value the support that they give me. I believe I have a good relationship with all of them - which is evident in the results that I am able to achieve - particularly Alf, Mark, Lyn, John. There are so many I am bound to miss some out so I will not go through the names. Charlie Phillips and Jane Dancey organise us very well and are always looking after us. They have the best interests of the community and us as backbenchers at heart and they work hard.
I would especially like to pay tribute to the Chief Minister, who we have regular meetings with. It is rather presidential, a fireside chat with the Chief Minister. We are able to talk to her about issues, she gives us feedback about how we are going, and we also talk to her about how she is going. This open communication, this 360 feedback as you say in the trade, is excellent and it makes for a great working relationship. You see the results on the ground in the community, that there is a great parliamentary Labor Party team here, and they deliver. I am as proud as punch to be part of it.
The family of the Legislative Assembly is a wonderful family to belong to. I know as a politician I am outside of it slightly - I am like a second cousin, I suppose, but I am not a neglected second cousin.
Dr Burns: A poison cousin.
Mr KIELY: Not a Tasmanian one.
They look after us. The spirit that is engendered is a culture engendered by the Clerk, Ian McNeill to whom I would like to give my personal Christmas thanks, and to his very capable 2IC, Captain David Horton. The way those two relate to members and staff is what sets the tone for this place, and that is why we can achieve so much.
I would also single out Graham Gadd and his team in the Table Office, for their support during sittings - any time, in fact. It is always there, nothing is ever too much to do. They make a wonderful effort. There is my old mate, Derek Stafford in Building Management. I actually did a year course with Derek. Nothing is ever too much for him. When we phone and ask about maintenance issues in our electorate offices, Derek is always there should we need help.
In committees, we have Pat, Terry, and Rick. Terry and Ros have been wonderful, in the support that they have given us on the PAC. We could not have done it without them. Pat, I know from a prior life, and I am looking forward to working with her on the Substance Abuse Committee.
On the IT side, there is Naoko Kitazato. I know Naoko from when I used to work with her in DCIS. She is a great IT person; always very helpful. I commend her to Ian and David for the work she does.
The list goes on and on and on. There is Vicki, Danielle, Jo - and I would like to say to Jo Carbone: good luck on the impending birth on Australia Day. I hope she has the bub on Australia Day and it all works out well and she gets a nice little medal for it. I hope she gets to footy because there is nothing like seeing Carlton getting a flogging. That is what she needs to see to bring her down to earth after such a joyous event as the birth of a baby.
I would also like to thank a few other people: Esther, Aaron and Ivan at security. They are very helpful as you come through the door. Many times I have forgotten my keys and they have come and bailed me out. One quick phone call or one step down there, they are always ready to assist. Or if you have visitors coming through they will help out straight away.
I would also like to thank my branch members for giving me feedback on the political situation and for their assistance on various fundraisers and other things that the branch has to do to support the local member. There are many, many of them. Might I say that the membership is increasing and some of the people who are joining are so talented, they bring with them a myriad of views and backgrounds and it all contributes to making a richer, stronger parliamentary party to better serve the community. I am very, very grateful for having them supporting us.
I would like to thank my branch colleague, Delia Lawrie, who is great out there. She has worked so hard on getting the Lake Leanyer stuff together, which is going to be another boon for the community. The Karama Sanderson Branch is very lucky to have her as a member. I am very lucky, indeed, to have her as a colleague; that is fantastic. As Chris Burns mentioned earlier on - he is a great, wondrous colleague, who is very supportive when I need someone to talk to about different issues, as one does in the political life. The friendship and relationship with Chris is very special to me, as well as the friendship that I have with his family: his boys, who are fantastic lads, and his daughter. Daniel is a bottler of a bloke and you are really fortunate to have a boy like him.
I would like to also say that it has been a bit of a sad year, with the accident of my friend Arthur Boland. Arthur is booming along now, coming on strong; he should be coming back up here at Christmas. I have learnt a lot from him about handling adversity, and that is a very special gift that has come out of his tragic accident. We all learn from these things.
I would also like to say that, when it comes to advice and guidance, that I am learning a lot from the family of Pippa Rudd and Sally Sievers and their wonderful daughter Luka. They are three very, very special people; who are able to demonstrate to us the fundamentals of a good family. I am very happy to have had these people assist me during the year with advice on different things.
I could not do anything at all without the assistance, the love - and political guidance, might I say - of my wife Marie, who is very, very attuned to my needs and the needs of the family. There is no ask too great for her, and she is certainly one to give me guidance when she believes I need it - that is usually nightly, sometimes daily and hourly. She is an excellent partner to have, and I am very, very grateful for the love and support that she gives me, as well as that of my children, Claire and Ned - they are fantastic little kids. Also my older daughter Verity, and son Morgan - I have been in contact with my daughter Verity recently, and it is excellent.
In the community, there are lots of groups who give their time for nothing, to make sure that we have a better community for us to live in. In Sanderson we have some special groups, and I am talking about the school councils; they do a wonderful job of keeping us all together. There are people like the combined Anula Neighbourhood Watch, the RSPCA, the Casuarina Junior Football Club - these are all people we meet in our office. I would like permission to table the members of this committee. I would also like to give special thanks to the Darwin Golf Club whose support throughout the years has been tremendous, and I hope they have another great year ahead of them.
Leave granted.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will be brief because, in keeping with the festive spirit, I actually want the staff who are here working tirelessly to be given a break and to close the Assembly, and I am the last speaker for the evening.
In the spirit of the festive season, I do have some thanks to pass on. First of all, I would like to thank my electorate officer. As a member, I have relied on Sandi Oldroyd. Sandi has been a stalwart by my side through a good part of the year and she is a tireless worker. She has lived in the electorate of Karama for 17 years. I consider her a dear friend and I say, thank you Sandi for the support, guidance and friendship you have given me throughout a year of incredibly hard work.
I also thank Teng Murray. Teng is someone who has been a volunteer in the Karama electorate office since the election; she comes in every Saturday. Whether she is there representing my needs on a Saturday, or the Darwin City Council aldermen needs, Teng is tireless in her duties. She is unpaid, a volunteer, and it is the people like Teng Murray who weave the fabric of our society. So in the deepest way, I say, thank you very much Teng, for your time, effort, support, guidance, insights, and wisdom. I look forward to many, many more years of working with you, Teng.
I also thank Ingrid Baderwellan. Ingrid is also another volunteer who comes into my office and does the often thankless task of filing. Ingrid, thank you for the effort you have made throughout the year; it is truly appreciated. The minutiae of work is often overlooked and Ingrid is there to effortlessly assist us.
I thank Kate Williams, my electorate officer at the moment; she has been a wonderful person to bring on board. She has taken us through an upheaval of the shift from our electorate office into Parliament House while the electorate office is being worked on. She made it as seamless as it possibly could be and she continues to be a great support and guidance to me in my daily work.
As chair of the subordinate legislation committee I have relied very heavily on the hard work coming from Terry Hanley, and the able support of Ros. To both of them: thank you. To my colleagues on the subordinate legislation committee I thank you very much for your hard work and effort throughout the year. As a committee we have shown that we can work in a bipartisan way for the betterment of the Territory.
I thank Madam Speaker who is often there to, as she said to my mother a couple of weeks ago, ‘ground me’. She is someone whom I listen to and from whom I seek advice. Thank you very much, Speaker, for your guidance. To the Clerk: Ian, words cannot express the support you have given me in the last few months. At times I thought I would never succeed in the plans I had to rejuvenate the Karama electorate - in a very physical way we had great needs. You came in and you gave me tremendous support. You recognised that things had to occur and in your inimitable style, they are occurring. Thank you very much for that. I know every member of the Assembly values your advice, and I am one among many. You are a fair, unbiased Clerk and you have great experience and knowledge that serves the people of the Territory well. Thank you.
To your Deputy Clerk, David Horton: what can I say? I have dealt with David on the House Committee. He shows precision of detail that comes from many years service in the armed services. David, you are a true gentleman. Your attention to detail assists us in every way, in every facet of the operation of this Assembly. You are very much valued and highly regarded. Thank you very much for the year that you have given to all of us.
Vicki Long has been a newcomer in a succession of people to the role of Director of Corporate Services. I have to say that Vicki, in the months that I have dealt with her, has been a tremendous support and assistance. She is someone who is even-handed who, like David, attends to detail and like Ian, in a calm and methodical way, gets the outcomes the members are seeking. To Vicki Long, I thank you very much. You know that I value your advice, guidance and support.
To Rick Gray, I look forward to working with you in the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee. I am sure that we will have a rewarding year ahead of us to the benefit of all Territorians.
To the head of Hansard, Helen Allmich, she is beyond doubt a tremendous asset to the Assembly. As a new member to the Assembly, yet someone who has a history of being associated with the Assembly, I certainly appreciate the knowledge, the wisdom, the intellect and the energy of Helen. We are all very well served by her daily. To Graham Gadd; it is Graham whom I often call upon to provide me with the details and substance for my arguments in Assembly matters. Graham, I appreciate your assistance; you work tirelessly for hours on end in the Table Office. Each of us in this Assembly get breaks from time to time during the long sittings, but hour after hour Graham Gadd is sitting in the Table Office continuing to work. Graham, on behalf of the members, I thank you very much for your tireless effort, for your knowledge which covers many Assemblies, and for your ability to have put up with, sometimes, our inane questions.
To the library staff, Marilyn Hawthorne, thank you very much for your assistance. Ruby, congratulations on your child. You are both very nice people, who are both very capable operatives and without you, my speeches would have been all the poorer.
To the people at Karama Shopping Centre who put up with me daily, I also say thank you: to Tony and the staff at the newsagency; to the crew at Coles; to Brumby’s to whom I feel I am giving all of my earnings; to the chemist, Kingsley - I know we are working hard at the moment to attract a doctor to the Karama Shopping Centre because we lost our doctor - so thank you, you are an intelligent and entertaining chemist and I am sure, with our combined efforts, we will secure a doctor for the Karama Shopping Centre again.
To the Malak shops: Henry Yap, you have vision and energy and I am sure continuing to work together as we have in the past year, we will achieve great things for the community of Malak.
Thank you to the three Darwin City Council aldermen who have given up every second Saturday to use the Karama electorate office to meet with the residents. I know it is no easy task, and I thank you for giving up your time to be available to the residents. Certainly, the feedback I have received is that they very much appreciate it, and I look forward to continuing to work with Darwin City Council to achieve an improved lifestyle for the residents of Karama and Malak.
I have six schools in my electorate, and I count Marrara Christian School as the seventh. I will not go individually into them, with the exception of a retirement that I must note. The Principal of Karama school, Bob Hale, is retiring. He is a man who has devoted decades of his life to teaching in the Northern Territory. The minister for education has already spoken about him in adjournment in this sittings. Bob, on behalf of the Karama community, I say a sincere thank you. You are a very committed man; you have taken the Karama School into a position of noted excellence in the Australian education system. Karama school, under the tutelage of Bob, has won national awards for its indigenous education that, in a real sense, has made a tremendous difference to the lives of the indigenous students in the Karama electorate. It has given renewed hope to the parents of those students, that their kids will not be undervalued, and will be dealt with in a culturally appropriate way. The results show through retention rates and MAP testing that Bob, above and beyond, is an incredible success in the history of indigenous education in the Territory. Karama school is losing a truly excellent principal and I wish Bob all the very best for his retirement, which I know will include enjoying a variety of red wines from time to time - in moderation, of course.
The Speaker’s staff – Katie Tchia has been a tremendous support to me. I ring Katie at various times in my role as a member. She is very efficient, she puts up with us all with the Speaker’s dinners late into the night and she never, ever complains. She is a very professional, charming, intelligent, witty and wonderful woman. So, Katie, I thank you very much.
To all of the members of the Legislative Assembly, I wish you and your families a very festive season - the Jew that I am, I cannot quite bring myself to say happy Christmas but, believe me, each of us need our time of reflection upon the year that has gone and the year that will come. Reflection is a very healthy thing for us to undertake, just as we should spend time with our families to give them the love and the fun that often this job takes away from them. So I wish all members a very festive season with their families and their loved ones.
I have a sad occasion tomorrow. I will attend the funeral of Peter Morgan. Peter has been a part of my life since I was eight. He was at my wedding a couple of years ago playing a starring role, as he inevitably did at any public or private occasion. To Peter, God bless you. I daresay you are with the Queen Mother, which was probably one of your ambitions. You were entertaining, challenging and, like many of us, passionate about this amazingly beautiful and wonderful city of Darwin. I feel privileged to have known you as well as I knew you, and my memories of you are there for me for the rest of my life, so thank you, Peter.
Finally, to my family: my mother who is a stalwart for me - bless you, Mum, enjoy your holiday in Italy and have a festive season; my father - enjoy yourself with your family over the festive season, and all the best for the new year; my sister, Dianne, my brother John, my sister-in-law Tania, their kids; my husband, Tim, whose support has astounded me because this job is difficult, as we all know, but he has filled the gaps that I have not been able to fill as a mother because of the job - so thank you, Tim; my daughters Jhenne and Bronte, not a day goes by without you astounding me. I know you will be great Territorians and I am very, very pleased about the fact that you were born and are being raised here.
I feel very privileged to be representing members of Territory society. I hope that the year ahead brings great benefits and outcomes for the people of the Territory. Bless you all. Have a safe, happy and loving festive season.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will try to be brief. First, I would like to thank the people who I have been working with so long and hard over the last 12 months since we gave our Christmas adjournments, all of my good friends on the parliamentary Labor team and, particularly, Clare and Syd for your leadership and support over this last 12 months. It really has been fantastic. The rest of our caucus team is a great diverse and united team. It has been a very challenging 12 months. I am sure we are looking to working really hard for the people of the Northern Territory over the next 12 months and the rest of our term, and keep kicking goals.
Moving to my branch of the Labor Party, the Casuarina Area Branch, owing to my commitments I have not been as active in the branch this year as I normally am. It is the biggest branch in the Darwin region, perhaps in the Territory, and it continues to grow; we have got great growth in membership. Martin Redhead is the President and Andrew Fyles is Treasurer. You have done a great job this year and I know you will continue to do a great job. It has been fantastic working with you. I cannot, obviously, pay tribute to everybody on the management committee, but I particularly single out George Mu who has been a fantastic support and a tireless worker for the Casuarina branch. Frank Moukaddem upstairs, is another tireless worker who will do anything for anybody. Frank, have a great Christmas and I really hope for a wonderful Christmas present for yourself and your wife with your first baby, and fingers crossed that everything will be okay.
We have seen some changes in my office this year, but they are a fantastic bunch of people and we have had a great time. There has barely been a cross word up there. If you cannot enjoy this job, you should not be in it and we have certainly enjoyed our time this year. Sean, Charlie, Jenny, Michael, Rebecca, Richard, Jim, Chantelle, thanks for all your support this year. The hours and hours of work that you have put in are appreciated and it has been great working with you - and a lot of fun.
My electorate officer Ryan, who is stuck out there at Hibiscus hardly ever seeing me, has been a great support this year. I know I keep saying that I will be out their more often, but it is a new year’s resolution to spend more time in the electorate next year. You have done a fantastic job, along with Jana relieving from time to time. Thanks very much for your support.
I would like to thank Madam Speaker, Deputy Speaker, Ian McNeill the Clerk, Gaddy, Stokesie, Hansard, Parliamentary Counsel, Parliamentary Library, everybody who keeps this place ticking over. Again, a fantastic bunch of people and it is good, even in this pressure cooker atmosphere, that we can have a laugh. As Leader of Government Business for a week, I am really going to enjoy working with you even more closely in the future. As long as we can have a laugh in this place with a great bunch of people, amongst all the tension, well, the better we will all be.
To the drivers, Gary, George, Hardi, Yuni, Wayne and sometimes Bill and Thor: you guys do a magnificent job; you look after us so very well. I know from everybody who uses your service, that you have been magnificent for many, many years. Thanks, guys. Again, we have a lot of laughs as we get around the place.
For the schools in my electorate: Henbury, Holy Spirit, St Andrew’s, Wanguri Primary, magnificent achievements through the year. I have chronicled those in adjournment speeches, but I really believe - and we are all pretty parochial about the schools in our electorate – that at Wanguri, St Andrew’s and Leanyer, in particular, the school grounds are an absolute tribute. Wanguri has won some significant prizes in Tidy Town this year, and I do not think that there are better looking school grounds anywhere in the Northern Territory. So, congratulations: great schools, great outcomes, great people.
To my constituents who put their faith in me by returning me at the last election, I will continue to work hard and represent your interests to the best of my ability, both as individuals as well as the broader community. I thank you all for your support; I am very, very proud to serve you.
Finally, and I am sure there are many other people I should have thanked - apologies, but you know that if you should be thanked, then I will find time over the next month or so leading up to Christmas. The most important people in my life are my wife Stacey, who is the rock I lean on all the time - thanks for your continued love and support; and my three beautiful children, Alasdair, Liam and Isabell – I would love to spend a lot more time with you, but you are there in my thoughts all of the time. Liam and Isabell have chickenpox at the moment - not the best of times, but they are wonderful, wonderful people.
To all the members of the House: merry Christmas, have a safe and happy new year. It is a bit of a bear pit in here, but I can certainly say from my point of view, in spite of all the things that fly across the floor, it is nothing personal; it really is the job that we have to do to represent our constituents. Sometimes passions get raised, but it certainly is nothing personal when things get heated. I wish each and every one of you a very merry Christmas.
Mr Deputy SPEAKER: Just before I adjourn, I would like to say thank you to some people I forgot last night when I thanked everybody, and that is the Hansard people. In my case, they do an extraordinary job, because I can nearly understand what I have said when I see it in writing. So I would like to thank all the Hansard people.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, we have some visitors in the gallery today. I would like to welcome the Year 6 students from Essington School accompanied by their teacher Miss Johanna Riddell. On behalf of all members, I extend to you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
PETITION
Tree of Life at Adelaide River
Tree of Life at Adelaide River
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 339 petitioners praying that the Banyan Tree or the Tree of Life on Lot 191 Adelaide River be allowed to live and grow unencumbered by giving alternative access to Lot 133. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Mr KIELY: We the undersigned respectively showeth that Lot 191 Adelaide River …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson. You don’t have to read it.
To the honourable Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, we the
undersigned respectfully showeth that Lot 191 Adelaide River NT is a historical World War II site. On
this site is the old police station house, cell block and a magnificent Banyan tree of 25 m in height, 16 m
trunk circumference and 25 m canopy. They are listed by the National Trust.
An access road to Lot 133 threatens the future growth and even existence of this tree. Greening Australia
NT has stated that the road use will cause compaction of the root system and the putting of services - water,
phone, power etc - along the access adjacent to the tree will severe the delicate root system.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this Banyan tree also known as the Tree of Life can live forever
and deserves to be allowed to live and grow unencumbered by giving alternate access to Lot 133. This road
easement is the property of the NT government and as such it has the authority to close this access and move
it elsewhere to give the tree a chance to survive and future space to expand.
This living monument deserves our recognition in respectful memory of the service men and women who planted
it because of sacrifices made by them during a time of war and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE –
Nomination For Membership
Nomination For Membership
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, in accordance with the terms of appointment, I nominate myself as the Independent member for the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Commander, Northern Command
Commander, Northern Command
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I want to speak this morning on the relinquishment by Brigadier Mike Silverstone CSC of his command of Northern Command and to outline the outstanding contribution he has made during his tenure.
A career soldier, Brigadier Silverstone has served in a wide range of training, operations and strategic planning appointments. These have included postings to the Inventory Centre, the Director of Inventory, Army Headquarters and Headquarters Australian Defence Force. In addition to these appointments, Brigadier Silverstone served for two years as the Australian exchange instructor at the US Army’s Command and General Staff College.
In recognition of his distinguished service as commanding officer of the Special Air Service Regiment, he was awarded a Conspicuous Service Cross in 1998.
Following his command of the multinational peace monitoring group in Bougainville, Brigadier Silverstone came to his current post of Northern Command on 2 January 2001. Headquarters Northern Command was established in 1988 as Australia’s first joint force operational headquarters. Its primary responsibility is for planning and conducting the defence of Northern Australia. Appointments for the Commander of Northern Command are taken between the three services, and Brigadier Silverstone will be handing command of Northern Command to Air Commander Stephen Walker on 2 December, and we look forward to working closely with Air Commander Stephen Walker for the duration of his posting.
In his two years as Commander, Northern Command, Brigadier Silverstone has had responsibility for the Australian Defence Forces support to border protection operations. In this role, his area of operations has incorporated all of the Territory, northern Queensland north of Mt Isa and Cairns, the Pilbara and Kimberley region of Western Australia, adjacent waters and air space out to Australia’s exclusive economic zone. Brigadier Silverstone has also been responsible for overseeing the provision of Defence assistance for the civil community, particularly in response to effects of extreme weather during the Wet Season. As the senior Australian Defence Force officer in the Territory, he represents the interests of sailors, soldiers and airmen, along with their families, seeking proper recognition of their service by the Australia Defence Organisation in effectively integrating them into the Territory community.
In conjunction with government, Brigadier Silverstone reviewed the Territory’s industry Defence coordination arrangements. This review led to the establishment of the Northern Territory Defence Industry Government Group, whose purpose is to provide a formal communications process for the support and sustainment of operations, exercises and major activities in Northern Australia. He also played a key role in reviewing, from a Defence support perspective, drafts of the government’s economic development strategy Building a Better Territory as it was finalised for release earlier this year. His involvement was much appreciated by government.
In recognition of his critical role in promoting the capabilities and expertise of the Territory’s research community to the Australian Defence Organisation, Brigadier Silverstone was appointed as a member of the Northern Territory government’s Research and Development Advisory Council. He also re-established the United Services Institute of the Territory and, in so doing, greatly assisted public discussion of Defence issues.
After a short but well-earned break, in January Brigadier Silverstone will take up his new appointment in Canberra as Director General Intelligence Capability Support to Operations.
Madam Speaker, the Northern Territory government - and I know this parliament - places on the public record its appreciation of Brigadier Silverstone’s contribution as Commander Northern Command, and extends to him, his wife Sharon and their two sons, its very best wishes for their future. It also extends to Brigadier Silverstone and his family the prospect of a warm welcome whenever they visit the Territory.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I also take the opportunity to wish Brigadier Mike Silverstone all the very best in his future Defence career. He is an outstanding career soldier, a personal friend of mine; we have served together over the years in various postings.
To my mind, he epitomises the SAS in many respects. There are people who conjure up an image of the SAS as being only physical. In fact, the SAS are selected for most attributes other than physical and, in that regard, Mike Silverstone is the quiet achiever. He is not only a quiet achiever throughout his career, including the SAS, but he has also been tested on many occasions, not the least being when he was Commander of the SAS Regiment when the Blackhawk tragedy occurred in Townsville.
As Commander of NORCOM, he also quietly, and unknown to many people, has organised the operations of NORCOM in a way that even NORCOM itself probably never envisaged. NORCOM was set up within the Defence Force as, I suppose, a headquarters that many thought would never ever see operations. However, in fact, the events in East Timor saw NORCOM come to the fore. NORCOM has quietly gone about an outstanding task in dealing with the illegal immigrants or illegal refugees coming to Australia; all of those operations coordinated out of NORCOM and commanded by Brigadier Silverstone.
An outstanding career soldier who will do great things further in his career. I wish him and his wife all the very best for the future. I take the opportunity of welcoming Air Commodore Steve Walker, a former student of mine at the Navy Staff College. I know Steve Walker will also make his mark. He is an F1/11 navigator, an outstanding Defence soldier in his own right.
Members: Hear, hear!
Crimes Victims Assistance - Review
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, one of my highest priorities as Attorney-General is to reduce crime and to help victims overcome the impact of crimes committed against them. It has become apparent that the operation of the Crimes Victims Assistance Scheme may not be the best way to provide the help the victims need. Concerns have been expressed about the length of time cases take to finalise, the distress caused to the victim with additional court proceedings and the difficulties in settling cases. The passage of the Crimes (Victims Amendment) Amendment Act in October was the first stage of our process to assist victims of crime. Those amendments will ensure that legal fees are of a smaller proportion to the overall cost of the scheme so that more available funds go to assist victims. We will be carefully monitoring the effects of those amendments.
In October, I also announced a full review of the Crime (Victims Assistance) Act over the next year. As a first step, I am releasing a draft discussion paper to encourage further debate and community input to our consideration of a more responsive assistance scheme. I will table that, Madam Speaker.
The Department of Justice will now undertake consultation with victims and other stakeholders as a first input into that review. We want to talk to victims and others who have been involved in the victims assistance process, to canvass their ideas about the best way we can proceed. We are determined to put victims first and to ensure that the assistance that is available has a maximum possible effect. Some of the ideas that we are seeking comment on include: immediate access to counselling and other assistance rather than a compensation payment long after the event; a charter of victims’ rights; and whether an administrative process to assess claims would be preferable to the present system. We want to hear from victims of crime about what would help them to recover quickly from the effects of offences committed against them.
The discussion paper will be posted on the government web site and sent direct to stakeholders. Advertisements seeking input will be placed in newspapers, and the Department of Justice will ensure consultation with groups including indigenous groups throughout the Territory. This government is committed to repairing the victim assistance scheme and we will do it with input from those who have most experience and stake in this arrangement within our government system; and that is the victims of crime.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, there is absolutely no doubt that the victims of crime are a special category of people who need the support of government and, indeed, have received the support of the previous government through the introduction of the crimes victims’ assistance legislation. It is interesting to hear the Attorney-General talk about reducing the distress which a victim endures after an offence has been committed, and especially in light of the fact that the reduction in legal fees and the reduction of the scale which is paid to solicitors to help them will effectively mean, under the amendment he introduced at the last sittings, that many of those victims will not be able to secure the help of a solicitor, thus adding to their distress.
I must say the review of the act is welcomed. Indeed, the opposition will look forward to playing an active role in that and, hopefully, contributing to that process. People who are involved in organisations like VOCAL, I would imagine will have an important input into the process.
However, it is one thing to talk about putting victims first and the rhetoric which we constantly hear paraded out by this government in terms of six-point plans, blah, blah, blah. But, ultimately it seems, they are intent on not spending money in this area. They are talking about ways of avoiding paying these people compensation, of avoiding trying to put these people back in the position they would have been; and that is the truth. That is what it is all about. You have pushed the rhetoric to one side; it is all about money. Quite frankly, I do not have any problem with government spending whatever it thinks appropriate in paying people compensation, providing counselling, and ensuring that they are properly represented. So I look forward to the review. I am suspicious it is all about penny pinching and affecting a sector of our community that most needs our help.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I welcome the opposition’s somewhat grudging support for our initiative. I can certainly assure you we are going to support victims of crime. If you feel that that support is not there at the moment, we have spent $5.25m in the last 12-month period on compensating victims.
What we are taking on now is a much more complicated task: that is to provide a package of support to victims which is going to actually give them the support that they need - particularly in the period soon after the offences have been committed - if they have suffered, whether it be financial, property, personal or physical damage as a result of that offence.
Victimisation is what we are looking at here: what aspects of victimisation there are and what support mechanisms we can put in place to deal with those aspects of victimisation, in every context around the Territory, whether that be remote communities or our main urban centres. We are up for this task; it is the harder of the two tasks. We would welcome constructive input from the opposition.
Darwin Port Corporation
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I provide a report on the status of the Darwin Port Corporation operations. The corporation has an establishment of 52 people and in the last financial year produced revenue turnover of $16.7m, handling in the order of 900 000 tonnes of cargo. The corporation’s commercial focus is based on the establishment of world class port facilities at East Arm Wharf and its significant community service obligation functions on behalf of the NT government.
The corporation has invested considerable effort and resources in working to achieve its government owned corporation status over the last 18 months or so. Extensive work has been undertaken under the guidance of the Northern Territory Treasury to restructure its accounting systems to one based on newly established lines of business. The corporation has, in particular, undertaken work which has been reflected in draft documents being forwarded to NT Treasury for consideration. Those documents include the Statement of Corporate Intent, Commercial Business plan, Constitution, and amendment to Darwin Port Corporation legislation to conform with the Government Owned Corporations Act.
The government did have a target date for progression of the corporation to GOC status by 1 January 2003. However, as was experienced with the Power and Water Authority, considerably more work is required by the corporation, the NT Treasury and regulating agencies and is now unlikely, given legislative sitting dates for passing of legislative amendments, GOC status will be achieved prior to 1 July 2003.
East Arm Wharf is the future growth business area for the corporation. With the completion of Stage I, worth $100m, the corporation has progressively transferred rig tenders, livestock and bulk commodity trades from the city port to East Arm. Stage II works, at an estimated cost of $93m, are now under way in order to meet the requirements of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway and port facilities associated with the joint user terminal, and involve the following:
construction of the rail access causeway and a four hectare rail container terminal;
The completion date of these wharves is expected to be October 2003; however, the crane will be relocated to the East Arm wharf in May 2003. Once the container crane is relocated to East Arm, all container traffic will be relocated accordingly, which will leave the discharge of petroleum tankers at the Iron Ore Wharf as the only large scale commercial shipping activity in the city port. Relocating this activity will be determined by the establishment of an agreement with the major oil companies for the establishment of a joint user terminal at East Arm. Officers of my department are currently negotiating arrangements with the oil companies.
On this basis, I have agreed with the corporation that all of its commercial operational functions will be withdrawn from the city port and be relocated to East Arm Wharf by the end of 2003. Only particular requirements associated with petroleum tanker discharges will remain. The relocation will involve the establishment of port control, pilot boat facilities and maintenance workshop facilities. The corporation is currently addressing a number of expressions of interest from port users such as Customs, AQIS, stevedores, etcetera, in establishing a central port administration facility.
Planning is currently being undertaken, and it is likely that the facility will be established during 2004. Budget capacity is currently being established for all facility consideration and consolidation. In terms of business growth, the corporation has a number of potential growth trades. With the establishment of railway operations and landbridging, container numbers are projected to grow to 50 000 TEUs per annum over five years of operation, and 100 000 TEUs per annum over 10 years. This compares now with the current 10 000 TEUs per annum.
Bulk trade in relation to the export of manganese is currently being addressed, and consideration is being given to justification for train unloading, stockpiling and ship-loading equipment. In relation to smaller trades, the corporation has recognised the shortage of cargo handling areas at East Arm adjacent to the wharf, and is negotiating the reclamation of a nominal six hectare area adjacent to the main port gate house. The corporation also continues to pursue consolidation of port activities in Darwin Harbour with the concept of establishing base load trades which would promote the introduction of scheduled liner service into Darwin and would complement the railway project.
Bakewell Primary School
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, today I address the concerns of overcrowding at Bakewell Primary School. Yesterday, I talked about enrolments at Bakewell Primary being at capacity and projected to increase in both preschool and primary, where the school has a permanent prescool capacity of 100 student places and a primary capacity of 480. DEET has provided an additional four transportables since the school opened, taking the primary capacity to 600. It currently has 566 primary age students accommodated within that 600 capacity.
In line with the DEET Infrastructure Strategic Plan, schools for Rosebery and Farrar have been planned as part of the capital works and forward works program. Until such time as those schools are constructed, DEET will endeavour to manage enrolments from these emerging suburbs in transportable accommodation at Bakewell, Woodroffe, Driver and Moulden. However, to address the immediate demand at Bakewell, DEET has made provision on the current 2002-03 minor new works program for construction of two transportable classrooms at $350 000, and an additional two transportables and toilet facilities in 2003-04 minor new works program, should that level of demand continue. I talked yesterday about the need to upgrade the power to the site in order to accommodate these additional rooms at a cost of $150 000. That is being worked upon now to allow that to happen as an absolute priority, even though the $150 000 was not inside the original costing.
That capacity figure that we talked about is based on up to 30 students per classroom. The NT News article today mentions 20 classrooms, but it fails to mention that the school also has the following teaching spaces: two general purpose rooms which is what they report as the stage; the library resource area; a special education classroom; community room; five withdrawal rooms; plus the multipurpose hall. All of the above areas are in addition to the classroom spaces not included in the above capacity total. It should be noted that, when the additional two transportables are on site in 2003, the capacity will increase to 660 which will reduce the utilisation rate to 85%, which would then be within acceptable levels of utilisation.
DEET officers have consulted with the school council regarding the strategy proposed to accommodate enrolment growth. That strategy was presented to the school council meeting on 11 September 2002, which was attended by the Acting Manager, Infrastructure, and the Director of Financial Services. In addition, DEET is writing to all parents explaining the current situation, to emphasise this pressure is temporary and DEET is doing everything in its power to minimise impact on students.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, my understanding is that, at the meeting on 11 November, the position of the school was put fairly clearly that they did genuinely need the four demountables that they understood was committed to. It may be difficult for demographists to understand that, as a Grade 7 class leaves at one end, we have three discrete intakes of transition at the other end. Therefore, we cannot just take one class at the top and add one class at the bottom; it is too simple, because we have more entering at the bottom end. The solution to this is quite clear. I was honestly astounded that there was not a recognition of the dramatic and real growth in Palmerston when we had it referenced to Rosebery Primary School being a solution. In fact, it was not acknowledged formally in any respect and reflected in the budget papers.
That is the solution to the problem we have in Woodroffe, Bakewell - which is bearing the greater brunt of it because Rosebery, with Darla now being opened up, there is no place for these students to go other than demountables in Driver – I am not sure about Gray, but certainly Bakewell and Woodroffe. They are excellent schools receiving an extraordinary amount of pressure. The fact is that they do need four demountables immediately to solve the current problem. They also need the ablution block because, with the high level of female teachers on staff, there is simply not enough toilet facilities for the female staff. They do need the ablution block - plain and simple.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): I thank the member for his comment, Madam Speaker. He really should know that he is at liberty to contact me at any time on these issues. I will certainly talk to him if he has a view that the information that I have from the department is incorrect. I can just reiterate: current population 566; two demountables at the start of 2003 increases that to 660. On my reckoning there is a spare capacity of 94. Those figures do not suggest that you need an additional two right at the start of 2003. The situation will be monitored very closely for immediate inclusion midway through the year if that demand continued at the pace that it is.
So, on my reckoning, and the advice from the department, is that it is within the numbers; that you get down to 85%. Okay, that is going to increase, and if that got up to 100% again by mid next year, then those extras would come in. I suggest to the member, pick up the phone, give me a ring, e-mail – whatever - always happy to talk to you if you think we do not have it right.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, it really sounds as though your voice is suffering today. If you want to give it a rest, that would be fine by me.
Mr STIRLING: It is the member for Daly’s fault!
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
POLICE ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 119)
(Serial 119)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend section 132 of the Police Administration Act to enable members of the Northern Territory police to manage some persons in custody more practically and safely. The bill, when passed, will assist in ensuring that persons who still appear to be seriously affected by alcohol or a drug, after being in custody for six hours receive an available level of medical attention.
The amendments arise from a recommendation made last year by the Territory Coroner in an inquest into the death of a man who had been released from protective custody. On 4 December 2000, Mr George M was taken into protective custody in Katherine under section 128 of the Police Administration Act, and was detained for in excess of six hours, then released. Approximately half-an-hour following his release, the man was fatally struck by a motor vehicle whilst crossing the Stuart Highway. Post mortem blood analysis showed the deceased had a concentration of alcohol in his blood of more than 0.33 at the time of his death.
A Coronial inquest was held in August 2001. On 12 October 2001, the Coroner handed down his findings from the inquest. At page 15 of his decision, the coroner found that:
… having heard the watch-house keeper’s evidence and, more importantly, having observed on the surveillance
tape the deceased’s behaviour on firstly being awakened in the protective custody cell, and secondly at the
watch-house counter, I find that the deceased gave the appearance of being sober, or certainly had the
appearance of being no longer seriously intoxicated when he left the watch-house door at 10.03 pm.
The actions of Northern Territory police were not criticised and were found to have been appropriate.
Although the operation of section 132 was considered by the Coroner during the inquest, the effects of this finding was that section 132 procedure of the Police Administration Act was irrelevant to the death. The current provisions of section 132 of the Police Administration Act require, with one exception, that where a person has been in custody for six hours and continues to be intoxicated - which has a technical meaning, being ‘apparently seriously affected by alcohol’ - the police must ‘… bring the person … before a justice …’ as soon as practicable. The purpose of this process is to authorise further detention.
The exception I referred to is contained in section 129(3) of the act. That section currently provides that, where a person is still intoxicated at midnight, they may be held without any further authority until 7.30 am. This provision applies regardless of whether the person continues to be intoxicated until that time, and its operation and effect will remain unchanged. Although the Coroner did not criticise the actions of the Northern Territory Police in releasing the deceased, and in fact found the member’s actions were appropriate, he did note that there are various practical difficulties in applying section 132. These difficulties are particular apparent in isolated or remote localities. The current provisions also do not specifically acknowledge or address the possible health risks to intoxicated persons at this time.
- … there would appear to be grave difficulties in applying the provisions of section 132 …
and
- … it is hard to see that a justice would be better placed than a senior police officer, or indeed, the watch-house
keeper, to assess the situation of a person held under section 128 after the expiration of six hours of protective
custody.
The amendments proposed by the bill recognise these issues. The process which the bill intends to provide for is already being applied by the Northern Territory police in practice. Although people rarely appear to be still seriously affected by alcohol after six hours in custody, it is the Northern Territory police’s policy to seek medical attention when this occurs. The Territory government considers it important to recognise these matters in legislation. It is the Northern Territory police’s current practice to assess each intoxicated person at the time of admission to the watch-house. The person is then checked at regular intervals whilst in custody.
The times during which any serious health risks are most likely to become apparent or arise are at admission and during the first hour or two in custody. People in protective custody are currently permitted to sleep off the effects of alcohol or drugs, particularly between midnight and 7.30 am. The bill will not alter this current exception to the six-hour period contained in section 129(3) of the act.
This exception exists due to people’s usual sleeping habits, regardless of whether they are intoxicated. Members of the police are currently able to seek medical attention for persons between midnight and 7.30 am in appropriate circumstances, and this discretion will continue to apply. Where it appears that a person’s condition is deteriorating rather than improving, or any circumstances become apparent which may be cause for serious concern, expert medical assistance is sought.
Nor will the bill alter the rights which persons currently have under section 133 of the Police Administration Act. Section 133 entitles a person in protective custody to request a member of the Northern Territory police to take him or her before a justice to make an application to the justice for their release. Section 133 currently requires the member of the Northern Territory police, if it is reasonably practical, to do so forthwith. This right is unaffected by the amendments and will remain.
The clauses and definitions which provide for the process are drafted to ensure as much flexibility as possible. The central requirement on members of the Northern Territory police will be to arrange for a health practitioner to attend to the person who appears to be still intoxicated as soon as practicable. The definition of ‘health practitioner’ is deliberately very broad. Remote locations in the Territory do not enjoy the same levels of medical expertise which exist in the more populous centres of the Territory. Despite this, those places that have at least a police station and a health clinic will be able to rely on the provisions in cases of persons with substance abuse problems, which may also be masking a serious acute medical problem.
The bill provides the Northern Territory police with authority to continue to detain persons in custody for the purpose of arranging for a health practitioner to attend to the person. The precise manner in which the provisions will operate will obviously depend on what location of the Territory the provisions are being applied. These matters are currently being discussed and decided between the Northern Territory police and the Department of Health and Community Services.
This legislation will assist members of the Northern Territory police to better manage persons in custody who suffer serious health problems and chronic alcohol or other substance abuse. The bill is constructive legislation which is intended to ensure that, where required, members of the Northern Territory police consider an available level of medical attention for persons who may suffer from these problems and who may be most at risk. The amendments are consistent with the Coroner’s recommendations handed down on 12 October 2001, and will also give members of the Northern Territory police certainty and confidence in carrying out this aspect of their duties. The bill, when passed, should also assist in preventing deaths in custody. As such, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
PETROLEUM AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 121)
(Serial 121)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time. The main purpose of this bill is to introduce environmental offences and penalties that are consistent with the Environmental Offences and Penalties Act, improve the management of the environmental aspects of petroleum activities, and to remove certain provisions in the Petroleum Act that are no longer relevant.
The Petroleum Act applies to land within the Northern Territory but not to offshore areas beyond the low water mark. Some of the more significant amendments relating to environmental matters are as follows:
the removal of specific operational conditions such at the reporting of the location of base camps;
methods of waste disposal; underground water flow and water quality; as well as the requirement to
provide an environmental management plan for exploration. These issues are covered by the general
conditions in section 58 of the act relating to general conditions, as well as under the regulations and
directions issued by the minister under section 71 of the Petroleum Act;
under title. This will ensure that the holder had complied with title conditions and that the area is
rehabilitated to an acceptable level;
conditions will be possible at any time during the term of the licence. Currently, it is only reviewable
at the grant, renewal, transfer or variation of a title. This will enable changes to be made to the amount
of security held by the government. If there is an increased risk to the environment, then the security can
be increased. Or conversely, if progressive rehabilitation is undertaken, the security can be reduced, and
operations under the act. These offences and penalties are consistent with the Environmental Offences
and Penalties Act.
Another group of amendments relates to the deletion of provisions considered obsolete and, therefore, inconsistent with current petroleum title administration. These include:
the removal of the requirement to lodge a statutory declaration stating the applicant’s interest, if any,
in any application or granted title under the Petroleum Act or the repealed act; that is, the Petroleum
(Mining and Prospecting) Ordinance. This requirement is no longer considered relevant and it does
not add any merit to the application; and
published in the NT News and the Koori Mail, the relevance of the publication of applications in the Gazette
is diminished.
Other amendments are administrative in nature and clarify certain provisions to enable a more efficient administration of petroleum titles and applications. These include: amending the annual fee which was formerly referred to as ‘rent’, to be lodged when the offer of grant is accepted by the applicant; making the term of the permit five years instead of having a term which can vary from two to five years; amending the term ‘permit’ to ‘exploration permit’ to indicate the nature of the title and the type of activities that would be conducted under that title; inserting a condition that a retention licence holder must discover a commercially exploitable accumulation of petroleum within his retention licence area prior to the grant of a production licence - this will ensure consistency with the existing requirement for an exploration permit holder to do the same before the grant of a production licence; standardising the acceptance period for an offer of grant or renewal to 28 days; maintaining consistency between the suspension of the permit conditions and a period of extension of the term of the permit; and including a penalty regime to conform to the Northern Territory government policy of establishing a penalty units structure for offences.
The amendments will also incorporate the shift to a new geocentric datum, the Geocentric Datum of Australia, or GDA94, to describe the position of titles. As honourable members will recall a similar amendment to the Northern Territory Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act passed through the House earlier this week. The background to this amendment is that on 1 January 2000, Australia adopted a new world-wide coordinate system called GDA94 to replace the existing AGD66. This shift in datum means that the physical position of a title will remain the same on the earth’s surface but its coordinates will change as they will be referenced under the new datum. In principle, the amendments provide for the description of a point, line, block or other area in a title or instruments in latitude and longitude under the GDA94. The distance between the same set of coordinates for a position on the different datums will be approximately 200 m to the north-east.
The advantages of this shift are that it is compatible with modern survey techniques. It provides for the integration and compatibility with an international global system and it includes the direct use of satellite positioning systems. The new datum is based at the earth’s centre of mass and is linked directly to the orbit of satellites. The change will allow Australian latitudes and longitudes to be integrated in the new global system for greater accuracy and efficiency. The Commonwealth Petroleum (Submerged Land) Act has adopted this system and the amendments to the Petroleum Act are consistent with that legislation.
Finally, the amendments also include the updated gender provisions to keep in line with Northern Territory government policy.
Madam Speaker, the amendments proposed by this bill will facilitate better management of the environmental aspects of petroleum activities and provide for better petroleum title administration. I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL (No 3)
(Serial 118)
(Serial 118)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend various Northern Territory laws in minor respects or to correct minor errors which have come to light. None of the changes proposed reflect substantive changes in policy. A number of acts have been identified as having served their purpose and the bill effects their repeal. These include the Commission of Inquiry (Chamberlain Convictions) Act, the Criminal Law (Regulatory Offences) Act, the Racing, Gaming and Liquor Commission Act Repeal Act, the Transfer of Powers (Law) Act; and the Transfer of Powers (Health) Act. A similar situation exists with section 3 and the schedule to the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act.
Clause 9 corrects a mistake contained in section 190 of the Law of Property Act. The Law of Property Act repealed the Perpetuities Act 1994 and replaced it with Part 11 of the Law of Property Act. In particular, section 190 of the Law of Property Act replaced section 11 of the Perpetuities Act. In the course of repeal and reenactment, the word ‘not’ was inadvertently left out of section 190. Clause 9 remedies that error with clause 2(2) providing that this correction is deemed to have occurred on 1 December 2000, being the date of commencement of Law of Property Act.
Clause 12 of the bill amends the Unit Titles Act in such a way that all fees other than court fees can be set by regulations made under the Registration Act. Currently, the Registration Regulations provide for the fees payable to the Registrar-General under the Unit Titles Act, but do not cover other fees collected by the Registrar-General for various other processes in place under the Unit Titles Act. This amendment will enable the preparation of consolidated regulations under the Registration Act covering all of the fees payable to the Land Titles Office in respect of dealings with land.
Another amendment worth noting in this bill is the inclusion of a definition of ‘order of the court’, in section 19 of the Local Court Act. This will overcome a potential problem that, in practice and in accordance with rule 4.04 of the Local Court Rules, appeals from decisions of the court constituted by a Judicial Registrar or Registrar, go to a magistrate. Technically, the act currently provides that appeals from the local court which, according to a current definition includes a Registrar or Judicial Registrar, are to the Supreme Court.
Other amendments are consequential to the repeal of other legislation. For example, the repeal of the Caravans Parks Act requires definitions to be inserted into those acts, regulations or by-laws that relied on the Caravan Parks Act for definitions of caravans and caravan parks.
The schedules to the bill contain a number of minor changes to other acts and regulations. Amendments such as those to the Disasters Act and to the Health Practitioners and Allied Professionals Registration Act aim to remove the need to constantly amend this legislation every time a department’s name is changed. The regulation making provisions in the Darwin Port Corporation Act are amended by changing the maximum penalty so it is expressed in terms of penalty units. This will make sure that the regulations and the act express penalties in the same terms. The other amendments made by the bill are of a very minor nature and are generally self-explanatory.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Statute Law Revision Bill (No 3) 2002 to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
PAY-ROLL TAX AMENDMENT BILL (No 3)
(Serial 103)
(Serial 103)
Continued from 16 October 2002.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, this bill principally covers two areas of application of the legislation of payroll taxes. The amendment demonstrates that, from the point of view of legislation in this particular area of payroll tax, and indeed, the collection of any taxes, that it is necessary for a government to ensure that the ability to apply those taxes and to collect them is watertight.
From the second-reading speech, it is not evident that there have been problems in relation to the collection of taxes. To quote the second-reading speech: ‘to clarify anomalies that could potentially hinder the recovery powers under the act’, is an appropriate course of action for a government to take in identifying problems before they arise and taking action to ensure that they do not; that is, amending the legislation as is the case with this amendment to ensure that the ability exists to be able to do so.
From that point of view, the opposition supports the amendments, recognises the purposes for which they are being made, and considers it appropriate – I suppose housekeeping would be an appropriate term - to ensure that the ability to recover payroll tax or monies owed to the commissioner is sound. From that point of view, we support the bill.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition spokesperson on these matters for their support of this bill. The amendments are straightforward, albeit minor. They do close off that loophole in the event that they are unable to recover additional tax in these two areas of further tax, and whether the particular group member was an employer or not. It is consistent with most other jurisdictions’ tax legislation in the payroll tax area. We thank the opposition for their support.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
AGENTS LICENSING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 99)
(Serial 99)
Continued from 17 September 2002.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I can put on the record that the opposition will be supporting this bill. The main purpose of the bill is to implement the National Competition Policy Review of the Agents Licensing Act.
The review actually started many years ago in 1995 when the Commonwealth, states and territories signed an agreement. There are, in fact, 14 recommendations that were made. They were made by what the Attorney-General referred to as the Centre of International Economics.
I have discussed the second-reading speech and portions of the proposed bill with representatives from the real estate industry, and I am happy to report that, although there it was not unanimous, generally speaking they were comfortable with the proposed changes. In fact, one leading proprietor of the second largest real estate firm in Darwin said frankly, he has no real difficulty with the changes. They are interested in some reforms to the procedural aspects of the Agents Licensing Board, and he is going to play an active role in that.
The opposition, as I said, will be supporting the bill in general terms. I note something that has been happening for years, of course - and not that we are really making the point - but the deletion of the so-called sexist references from the act, deleting the word ‘chairman’ to replace it with ‘chairperson’. Obviously – perhaps the Attorney-General is aware of this - but as a matter of grammar ‘chairman’ is the Latin derivative of ‘manis’ being the chair in charge of and making sure that everyone behaves. The word ‘man’ as it appears there is not a sexist term; it is really that Latin phrase. So that is how the term ‘chairman’ came about. It certainly is no reference to the sex of the person sitting at the end of the table. In any event, it is only a minor thing. I know it is being changed to ‘chairperson’, but ‘chairman’ is actually the correct term. The word ‘man’ appears in the word ‘woman’ as well and it does not denote or have any similar connotations.
In any event, the opposition support the lengthy bill and the numerous amendments, and I can say that the industry generally supports it as well.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I support the Agents Licensing Amendment Bill as proposed by the Attorney-General.
As outlined by the Attorney-General, the main purpose of the bill is to implement reform as identified by the National Competition Policy review of the Agents Licensing Act. Clearly, this legislation is designed to further protect the consumers of real estate, businesses and conveyancing services, in respect to potential misconduct or negligence on the part of agents. Having said that, I also wish to make it very clear that, by far and away, the majority of agents presently performing these functions in the Territory are of high repute, and are regarded well in our community.
Equally, these amendments proposed by the Attorney-General provide certainty in respect to the real estate industry, business and the conveyancing industry and their operations. Of importance also, is that these amendments allow for conveyancing agents to be permitted to prepare mortgages, leases and business sale contracts subject, of course, to them having the appropriate qualifications to provide such services. These amendments augur well for the consumer, as it will provide a basis for more competition in the marketplace and, accordingly, more options in terms of product.
The amendment bill provides far more objective criteria in determining if an agent is a fit and proper person to hold a licence. This is another consumer protection provision. This bill also seeks to address the educational requirements for agents. It is imperative that the right mix be accommodated, and the bill allows the Agents Licensing Board the authority to approve competency-based courses, provided there is consultation with the industry bodies and relevant government agencies. These provisions draw on the experience of the unnecessary tension experienced interstate between the industry and the licensing authorities, industry bodies and educational regulators. The previous arrangements for industry training are less than satisfactory, whereby the Real Estate Institute in the Northern Territory is the sole provider of training content and delivery.
Clause 26 of the bill allows other training providers to access funding from the Fidelity Fund for the purpose of providing educational courses. This amendment provides for real competition and allows education institutions, such as, for example the NTU, to compete in the industry.
Clause 31 of the bill removes the requirement for an agent to maintain an office in the Territory in order to practice here. Times have moved on and, in this day and age, it is a simple fact that businesses have the capacity to operate and perform on a national and, indeed, an international level. The requirement to have a trust account in the Northern Territory and other compliances will remain. No longer will the industry be required to have licensed agents in each and every office. Under the proposed amendments, it will be sufficient to assign the management role to a business manager. One business manager may have responsibility for more than one office. The business manager must exercise appropriate control of each office and severe penalties will apply where this is not done. This amendment will result in some savings in efficiency in the industry without sacrificing industry standards.
Membership of the Agents Licensing Board will now be drawn from the entire industry, not just from nominees, as was the case in the past, of the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory. This amendment will ensure a more representative board.
Madam Speaker, the Agents Licensing Amendment Bill 2002 is a good package of reforms and will improve competition in the industry, and this must be good news for consumers. I urge members to support the bill.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition for their support of what is a fairly routine reform as part of our overall reforms in view of the national competition policies. You are right to say that there is no great heat about these reforms in the industry. We have had extensive consultation with the real estate industry and conveyancing agents and, while it is to some extent a brave new world; that there is some new deregulated arrangements, particularly the ability of interstate firms to operate more freely into the Northern Territory, equally, I suppose the opportunity is there for the reverse to happen.
Everyone has accepted that these are sensible reforms. They are reforms that the industry can live with, and life will go on. Probably in more recent conversations I have had with the real estate industry, they are much more interested in how the economy and the property market is going than these particular structural changes. I again welcome the opposition’s support and commend the member for Barkly’s contribution to the debate. It was, as usual, well researched and reflects very much what the bill is trying to do.
Just one other issue. I share the member for Goyder’s comments about how language does change. However, language does change; it is not frozen in time. I personally find ‘chairwoman’ a bit of a mouthful as well. But that is coming into common use and our legislation has to reflect the contemporary use of language rather than its roots. I accept the learned gentleman’s explanation of where ‘chairman’ originated from, but we have reflected the contemporary uses in the act, as we try to do with all legislation that we bring forward.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 4:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 32.1.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 8, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 9:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 32.2.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 12, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 13:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 32.3.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 32.4.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 25, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 26:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 32.5.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 32.6.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 28 to 30, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 31:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 32.7.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 32.8.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
SWIMMING POOL FENCING BILL
(Serial 106)
SWIMMING POOL FENCING (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 107)
(Serial 106)
SWIMMING POOL FENCING (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 107)
Continued from 17 October 2002.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, at the outset let me say that no one denies that pool fencing will not help prevent children drowning. It is one of many measures which will help prevent children drowning, but is also only one measure in a combination of several others, the most important of which is parental vigilance.
In April 2002, the Chief Minister flagged that she would introduce Territory-wide pool fencing legislation, then went on to coerce local government into complying with her wishes; shoe-horning her draft on the run into the throats of local government. The process that the Chief Minister took is an example of how this government has approached many of its social engineering agenda; that is, it announces what it wants to do then embarks on the gammon consultation process. It is a classic case of how not to make a decision.
On her so-called round of consultations, the Chief Minister found that many of her plans were unworkable. As the Lord Mayor of Darwin said to me, and I quote:
- Despite this, they continue to make decisions before consulting, even though the Darwin City Council,
other councils and LGANT have offered to work with them.
I quote again:
- At a meeting between the Chief Minister and the Lord Mayor, the Chief Minister went off her face and accused
the Lord Mayor of politicising the situation. The Chief Minister was quite irrational and claimed the Lord Mayor
had instructed the Darwin City Council staff not to cooperate with the Northern Territory government. However, the
Darwin City Council staff have been able to provide e-mails and other correspondence from the DCC to the
Northern Territory government that have remained unanswered.
The Minister for Community Development wants all private swimming pools to be fenced according to Australian Standards and I wonder if he truly understands what that means. In his second-reading speech, the minister intimated that all new swimming pools would have to comply, but existing swimming pools do not need to have complying fences until the properties are sold. Furthermore, all swimming pools must be registered within 18 months of the legislation. To encourage pool owners to register and comply with the pool fencing requirements, the minister has provided a cash bonus of up to one-third, or $5000, and an interest-free loan up to the remaining two-thirds, to assist non-complying pool owners to do so. This incentive is denied every Territorian who has been responsible and put in complying fencing. Those who have taken the bother to comply with Australian Standards from the very beginning - even those who have just done so in the last few weeks - will not be able to receive the grant or the interest-free loan.
I now come to the next point about the exemption of pools in properties of two hectares or larger. What is the rationale for this? Can a child not drown in a pool on a two hectare or larger block? What difference is there between a child walking from its home, down a road, through a neighbour’s backyard and falling into a pool, whether it is in a large or small block? At the moment, the municipal by-laws require these pools in two hectare or larger blocks to be fenced. This legislation says they do not have to fence it. Is this then legislation which is designed to make swimming pools safer? I think not. May I ask: what is a swimming pool? What is the definition? By definition on page 4 of the bill …
Dr Burns: What is the definition of ‘death’?
Dr LIM: If I may? On page 4:
- ‘swimming pool’ means an excavation, structure or vessel that –
(a) is capable of being filled with water to a depth of 300 millimetres or more at the deepest point
of the swimming pool; and
used, for the purpose of swimming, wading, paddling or another human aquatic activity,
- and includes a spa pool but does not include –
(d) a structure that is within a bathroom that is within a building; or
(e) a structure that is prescribed not to be a swimming pool for the purposes of this act …
Can the minister then explain to me: does this apply to any supermarket vinyl splash pool, one of those that can hold water to a depth of 300 mm or more? If I have this vinyl splash pool in my backyard …
Dr Burns: Always got the big picture; always the big picture man, but he never made it.
Mr Bonson: Always targetting the …
Mr Dunham: This is not a frivolous issue you know. This is quite a serious issue we are trying to discuss here.
Dr Burns: It is a serious issue.
Mr Dunham: Well, then stop interjecting, just let him have a go.
Dr LIM: This legislation has been on the books for all of us for a long time. This is about preventing child deaths. The frivolous, inane interjections from the members for Johnston and Millner are really very distressing and most unfortunate. It just reflects the mental attitude that these guys have.
Let me come back again to asking the minister: does this legislation apply to those supermarket vinyl splash pools? They might contain 300 mm of water or more. If this vinyl splash pool was in my backyard, I assume from the legislation, the draft bill, that I must have a complying fence around it. Is that right, minister? I hope to hear your response in your reply.
What happens then if I have this say, 2 m by 1 m contraption in my tiled lounge or bathroom? It is the same vinyl pool with 300 mm of water or more. Am I allowed to have it unfenced? I look forward to the minister responding to that.
I assume that this legislation is Territory-wide; is that correct minister? I saw this paper that you dropped off this morning for all of us. It looks like a PowerPoint presentation that you have given us a hard copy of, and it says on the third slide, on the third dot point:
- This act provides uniform legislation throughout the Northern Territory as some areas, for example Katherine,
Tennant Creek and Yulara, do not have any swimming pool fencing legislation.
If you can give me a reassurance that it applies across the Territory, that would be fine because I cannot find it anywhere in the legislation. I find it difficult to envisage how the government proposes to regulate all pools across the Territory, including many remote communities, settlements and townships. Perhaps in his reply the minister can reassure me that this legislation does apply to all private pools across the Territory, and then explain how he proposes to regulate these pools.
I would like to know how many personnel the minister proposes to have in this dedicated unit of inspectors he spoke about. How long will they take to cover the Territory to ensure all pools are registered? I have talked to some municipal councils about the inspection units. Municipal council inspection units will tell you that dedicated units will not have the effectiveness of general inspection units that they, the councils, have. The networking among members of the general inspection units, each doing jobs that will bring them into contact with pools and fences, would be able to identify and report non-compliant pools. A dedicated unit would have to rely on specific inspections, invited or not invited, aerial photography or even satellite photography. I wonder how many Territorians are going to tolerate a government that spies on them from the sky? What powers will these inspectors have? Minister, I look forward to your explanation.
Each registration of a swimming pool will need some form of compliance audit or check. That means an application fee will be required to register. In the second-reading speech, the minister never once mentioned the application fee. I ask the minister to advise this House of the fee, when it is payable and whether every pool fence has to be inspected following the application.
I vaguely recall $100 was mentioned by someone as the application fee. I quickly flicked through this PowerPoint hard copy that you provided us and I cannot identify what the fee structure is.
Ms Martin: Haven’t you flicked through the act, Richard?
Dr LIM: Well, $100. There it is on …
Ms Martin: Yes. Flick through the act as well. Dead give away.
Dr LIM: I am not sure what page this is now, but probably about the fifth or sixth page, $100. Thank you very much for that. Anyway, another new tax, isn’t it? It is another new tax that this government promised it would not introduce.
Mr Henderson: Are you supporting it or not supporting it?
Dr LIM: Yes, we are. A new tax for wanting to have a pool or spa in this tropical climate. The way I see it, this legislation was designed to catch pool owners in Darwin. The minister was careful with his words when he said there was consultation. He admitted that he had no part to play in the consultation. The Chief Minister met with the Darwin City Council, the minister’s department staff met with representatives of the Local Government Association of the NT, but the minister did nothing.
This legislation is a hastily drawn up mish-mash which attempts to extract the Chief Minister and her rash commitment from further embarrassment except that, on closer examination, it puts her deeper into it. On the one hand she said and I quote:
This is not rocket science.
And then she said later:
It is a very complex issue.
Now, it is either simple or it is complex; it cannot be both. I wonder if the Chief Minister to this day understands what she has created. Next we hear the Chief Minister say, and I quote again:
- The standards that have been put out there are the Australian Standards. Follow those, it’s simple.
And then contradicts herself by saying, and I quote again:
We are doing the work, complex work it is.
No wonder Territorians are confused and angry that this is being imposed upon them so hastily in such a heavy-handed way. The Chief Minister was so very keen to reassure people saying, and I quote again:
- I can assure Territorians that those who put in pool fencing to meet current requirements will not be penalised.
No? Well, what is the registration fee for the inspection if the fence complies with the Darwin City Council by-laws at present? When the property is to be sold, at the time of conveyancing, does the fence have to be inspected and perhaps be brought to the standards stipulated by the legislation? If not, may the property be sold? Not penalised? Tell me another porky pie.
The Country Liberal Party has always maintained that we support private pool fencing. We also supported that local government was the best level of government to control pool fencing with their by-laws. They are the closest level of government to Territorians and have a strong sense of the desires and needs of the community. In my years with the Alice Springs Town Council and my continuing association with local government since then, I have never heard any calls from any local government for Territory-wide private pool fencing legislation.
The Darwin and Palmerston City Councils’ private swimming pool by-laws require a person to apply to council before construction of a private pool. I repeat: these councils, the Darwin and Palmerston City Councils, require a person to apply to council before construction of a private pool. Nowhere in this government legislation does it say that a person must apply to construct a swimming pool. Minister, if you can find it for me, I would like you to show me where it is.
I have pointed out many of the deficiencies in this legislation. It needs major correction before it can be used - if at all. The councils, particularly the Palmerston City Council, have by-laws that are better than this legislation that is being proposed by government. This government is going to repeal these by-laws. You are going to repeal by-laws that are stronger than yours. It does not make any legislative sense. You are trying to introduce legislation to improve child safety in private swimming pools. You are bringing in legislation to improve the safety, yet you are introducing legislation that is weaker than that which some councils have. Now, don’t you think that you should have at least adopted those by-laws that set a higher bar than your piece of legislation? That, to me, would be more logical. What you have done is not logical, and all it does is water down the Palmerston City Council by-laws - you have watered it down.
Mr Ah Kit: So, you want to go and tell the other councils to come into line with Palmerston? Is that what you want to do?
Dr LIM: No, while I support pool fencing, this piece of legislation has a lot of work to be done - has a lot to be done. The councils can do better, and we shall retain the responsibility with councils and …
Members interjecting.
Dr LIM: If you really want to do it properly, it would be better for you to resource the councils to introduce by-laws across the Territory - and resource them to implement the by-laws, with an appropriate inspection unit. That is what you should do, and that would be a better way to spend your money than what you are doing here.
I wish you had dropped this PowerPoint overhead a lot earlier than an hour ago. If you wanted us to seriously consider this, you should have done this several days ago. I am sure this was prepared only this morning. It prepared this morning, was it?
Let me go to slide No 4, minister. I ask you to explain this for me: in slide No 4, dot point three, swimming pools and spas located on commercial properties are not covered by this legislation. I ask you: what does that mean? Do you mean a motel, or a block of units that is owned by one private company or private person who rents it out as rental accommodation? What is a commercial property; how do you define it? It is not in this bill either; I cannot find it anywhere. Minister, I ask you to explain that. Can a child drown as easily in a motel pool as in a private swimming pool in the backyard? I suggest to you that there is just as much likelihood of a child drowning there than anywhere else. Why are you doing this exemption? I do not understand that, and I look forward to your explanation.
I have spoken a little about the role of the department and its inspection unit. Minister, I am not sure how many people you can have in the unit. I would like you to tell me about that, because I would be most interested to know how you propose that unit will be able to do all the swimming pools in Darwin, Palmerston, Litchfield and further south. At a briefing, I was told that you were going to have six inspectors in Darwin and two in Alice Springs. I do not think it is going to be adequate. I would like you to think about it before you reply, and give me an appropriate response.
I said earlier that your legislation does not require anybody - whether it be a builder or a private person - to apply to the inspection unit - I assume that is what it is, or the authority - before they can dig a hole in the backyard. Well, with last night’s rain, had there been a hole in the backyard last night, and the person dug that without any permit, the hole would be pretty full by now - and there is no fence! Is that a swimming pool? Under your definition it is!
A member interjecting.
Dr LIM: Minister, there are a lot of questions you need to respond to. Now, you laugh, minister, but a Darwin City Council or Palmerston City Council by-law will require that the private person or a company actually put in an application - that is the first thing - so the council is aware that the person is constructing a swimming pool in the backyard. When I was living in South Australia, the same thing applied. I had to apply for a permit to build. Then the first thing I had to do before I put a hole in the ground was to put a fence around the area where I was going to dig the hole. Because, what would happen is - like last night - that hole would have been filled by the rain. Then what do you do? A child could have fallen in first thing in the morning before their parents are out of bed. Are you going to take responsibility for that? So minister, your legislation is flawed.
Mr Ah Kit: So, what do you want to fence - buffalo wallows on five acre blocks? What do you want?
Dr LIM: Your legislation is flawed. Look at it closely. Why are you absolving all of Litchfield’s two hectare and larger blocks from fencing? It does not make sense. Do you think that a child would not drown in that swimming pool? Of course, it will! The house and a swimming pool are not to be going to be hundreds of metres away from each other; they are going to be pretty close to each other on a two hectare block, but you are saying in your legislation that they do not have to fence it.
Mr Kiely: Talk to the member for Goyder, he will back you on that one.
Mr Ah Kit: Member for Goyder, member for Nelson …
Dr LIM: I am not asking the member for Goyder. This is your legislation, minister, you answer. The member for Goyder and I have talked, but this is your legislation and you have to respond to that.
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Apart from the members for Nightcliff and Barkly, the interjections have been frequent, common and in a very jocular vein about this very serious matter. I would ask you to afford my colleague some protection from those interjections.
Madam SPEAKER: As people know, interjections that interrupt the flow of the speech are unacceptable. Members of government should also realise that the purpose of the second reading speeches is for people to raise issues about legislation, and it is their opportunity to do so. You should at least, when you are speaking, also raise any concerns you have about the legislation. We should allow the member for Greatorex to have his say.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, could I just make a point there? If the style of the speech is one that keeps on posing questions to government and directly doing it to a minister, then it is very difficult not to respond. Maybe that is part of the problem we have.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, I know there is …
Mr DUNHAM: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, in posing questions, he is …
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me, member for Drysdale, resume your seat. There are times when both sides are very provocative in their remarks, and you are well aware of that. That is what usually causes the interjections to come about. If members do not want to be interrupted by interjections I suggest they do not make provocative remarks. Member for Greatorex, you have the floor.
Dr LIM: Thank you, Madam Speaker. In response to the Chief Minister’s comments about my posing questions, that is what it is about. The second-reading speech is to pose questions to the minister, to the government, so that he can address them in his response or in his reply closing debate. If he cannot do it, then he has a problem.
I look forward to some very logical responses. I am sure the minister has logical and clear reasons for what he has done. I do not know what they are, reading from the second-reading speech. I cannot make out what it is. On slide No 7, ‘registration of swimming pools and spas’, the first dot point:
- The minimum requirement for owners to register an existing swimming pool or spa will be that the swimming
pool fencing complies with the current local government requirements in that area.
Anyway, I have posed quite a few questions, and the minister, I hope, has taken note and will respond to them. If he cannot, then it is really hard for us to really support this particular piece of legislation. I still say to you, minister, that local government has better by-laws in place and you should seriously consider how you can provide more resources to them so they can do their job better and ensure that their tighter legislation can be in place rather than yours.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, on this very important matter I state categorically, at the beginning, that I support swimming pool fencing. The reason I support swimming pool fencing is that I do know that one of the main reasons for death of toddlers under a certain age is by drowning in pools, and secondly baths. Therefore, there is a strong case to be put for swimming pool fences.
The difficulty I have is that the government, of its own volition, has decided to separate it into small premises and large premises. In the case of the Litchfield Shire, that means that a block above two hectares is now exempt and a block under two hectares is not exempt. There are some areas in my electorate where the one hectare blocks are right across the road from two hectare blocks. A two hectare block is roughly 100 m wide by 200 m long. A one hectare block is roughly 100 m wide by 100 m long. There are different shapes, but if you just average it out, that is what it is.
It is very fair for the owner of a one hectare block who is sitting across the road from a two hectare block to ask: ‘Why am I required to be registered when the person on the other side who has a pool does not have to be registered?’ The government, by making that exemption, has actually made itself a rod for the future, especially if it wants to introduce some form of protection around pools on larger blocks. I emphasised with the minister that the reason I was looking at the process was to recognise that the rural area, especially Litchfield Shire, does not have any by-laws. Another thing was that people had built pools with the understanding that there were not any by-laws so you have pools with quite substantial gardens and various things around them and that, if one was to try and enforce pool fences on some of those places, not only would it cause a lot of angst but it would also require a very brave swimming pool inspector. I was suggesting a look at common sense and, although you have taken up some of the issues I raised, by exempting the two hectare block you have actually created a problem which might come back to bite us later on. Anyway, I make that as a preliminary statement.
I also thank the minister for the briefings. Briefings have two good things about them. You can put your opinion to the people at the briefing and, hopefully, they take them on board. You can go away feeling really good about it and say: ‘Well, obviously the government believes that some of the things I am putting forward have common sense’. They are thinking: ‘We are a government that will listen to common sense and implement some of them’. However, I must admit that I came away from these briefings saying: ‘I have Buckley’s’.
Regardless of whether I have Buckley’s, I intend to put my thoughts about the swimming pool fence legislation to parliament. Hopefully, people will understand that what I am trying to do is not move away from the idea of fencing swimming pools - as I said, I support it - but apply a little common sense into how the legislation should be put into place. In fact, what I am trying to do is save the government money. We all know that this government wants to save money because, after all, it said there was a black hole: it is looking at deficit reduction, looking for fiscal integrity - my favourite phrase, it had spending cuts, and we have a budget development levy. I thought that this government would then make sure this legislation went through in a manner that would be most efficient - especially from the financial point of view. However, the government, from what I gathered at the briefings, is going to have 10 inspectors. That is what I was told.
A member: It has gone to 10 now, has it?
Mr WOOD: My briefing notes say 10 inspectors. Not only will those inspectors require to be paid, I imagine they will have other back-up staff within the Department of Community Development. They will have office space, vehicles and all the other costs that go with that. I would imagine that is at least $0.5m upwards - and a fair way upwards. I am being very conservative; I am just working on a figure that $50 000 per inspector including a vehicle, etcetera, and 10 of them - $0.5m.
But as I say to the government: have I got a deal for you! In fact, I have two deals, because the approach to how this legislation is to be run is the wrong way. I do not believe I actually should be speaking to the Minister for Community Development on this bill. I believe I should be speaking to the minister responsible for the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment because this bill should come under the building code.
The member for Greatorex has said he believed this legislation would be better put under local government and give local government the finances to run it properly. My argument is that, in the Northern Territory, at no stage has government of any persuasion believed the council should have either planning control or building code control - building legislation. I know because I have been battling for years trying to get local government to have planning controls.
Some councils, in their wisdom, decided to take on swimming pool legislation which, in most councils in Australia, would come under their building regulations. These councils, for whatever reason, took on swimming pool regulations. Some of them took on the sign legislation. I know why the government would love them to have those because they are probably about the most controversially pieces of legislation local government can take on. They are difficult, they cause controversy and they are hard to manage at times. However, as the government is taking it back and does not believe that local governments should have building regulations as one of their functions then, surely, we should be looking at bringing swimming pool fencing under building regulations. It just makes sense.
For instance, in the Northern part of Australia in the cyclone region, if you want to build a solid fence - I think it is one metre high – you are required to get an engineering certificate. It is a fence - just a fence! So what is the difference between that fence and a swimming pool fence? I cannot see any difference. You could use the system we have already. In fact, you could use section 50 of the Building Act, which deals with safety standards around a construction. In the definitions of a swimming pool, the word ‘structure’ is used - I will just double check there: ‘A swimming pool is an excavation, structure or vessel’. If it is a ‘structure’ all that has to be declared is that you cannot build that structure or, even if you can build it - and I take on some of the points from the member for Greatorex about perhaps getting a permit before you build it – all you needed to do is have a regulation that says you cannot fill it with water until you have a fence to the required standard constructed around that pool, and inspected and approved by the building inspector. We have building inspectors already in existence. I may not agree with the private building certification – that is another issue - but we have a system of building certifiers and inspectors.
We are only dealing with a fence; we do not require to have a whole new department start up looking after one sort of fence. It does not make any sense. So I am saying that the enforcing out of this legislation could have been carried out using existing structures at a much cheaper rate. Then you would develop your fee structure around all of that. So that is one side of the story.
The other side of the story - and this could have been included in the building regulations - is that we could apply the requirements in this act a lot simpler. We are going to have 10 inspectors going around checking everybody’s pool. Well, first of all it says that all pools on small premises, regardless of whether the council has had by-laws or not, will have to be registered in the first 18 months. I assume there is going to be a lot of registration of pools. It then says that new pools will have to be registered and the pool will have to be up to the required standard and that, where a house is rented and has a pool, or where it is being sold, you will also have to bring that pool up to the required standard.
Three councils which have swimming pool by-laws have lists of what swimming pools are registered in their municipalities - Darwin, Palmerston and Alice Springs. So, already you have a list. In the rear section of the legislation, the government can ask for a copy of those lists and the certification of those pools. Therefore, all you need to do is to automatically presume that all those pools are registered. You have it there. So, it saves a lot of money. You already got them registered, because you can only upgrade those pools at the point of sale and at the point of renting anyway, unless people want to use the incentive scheme. If you want to use the incentive scheme you take your certificate to the government or, if you have not been caught up in the loop or if the council has not caught you, you have to get it registered if you want some money. In the amendments I am trying to put forward, the onus will be on you: if you have not registered with your own council, you will have to get registered anyway. So, the amendment is not saying people should not be registered. There is a simple way of doing things.
We have to remember that the main objectives of this act is not to register pools, the main objective as written in this second-reading speech, is to ensure that the requirements of swimming pool fencing in the Northern Territory are brought up to the Australian Standards as soon as possible. Yes, you have the incentive scheme; registration is not going to make that any quicker, except for those who want an extra bit of money, because people will wait till they either rent or sell their houses. So, it is not going to …
Ms Martin: They’ll get no money!
Mr WOOD: I will come to the money. The money is not clear and I will come to the money later. Another, I suppose silly, thing about this is that the one hectare blocks of land in places where there are not by-laws, according to section 15, will have to be registered. But, because there are no by-laws, those pools do not have to have a fence and they only have to have a fence when they either sell or rent the property. Why would you register a place that did not have to be fenced in the first place? It sounds like you are just going around filling in time; I see it as nonsense. I am sure that the government really does not want inspectors doing things that do not serve any purpose.
It will be a classic case in which you will get some very angry people. I know in my electorate and anywhere else in Litchfield Shire that has blocks under two hectares, people will just shake their heads and say: ‘Why are you inspecting my block and registering my pool when I do not really need to have a fence?’ There are certain things here that lack what I call the practical touch. This legislation needs to go back and be refined; in fact, re-thought, because it will cost a lot of money.
I have a couple of other issues. The Chief Minister mentioned the incentive scheme. Whether it has been deliberate or intentional, people are being misled by the incentive scheme. The reason I say that is I was under the impression that, if you had a pool that was not fenced, you would be able to take advantage of the incentive scheme. However, this is not the way it actually reads. I will also check it out here in the little PowerPoint presentation, but the original water safety plan information sheet says,
- … the early registration incentive scheme is intended to encourage those with pools to upgrade their pool fences
within 18 months of implementation of the legislation.
Now, I thought upgrade meant new pool, new fence, but I do not believe it does. If you are asking people, for instance, in the one hectare subdivisions, who have never had to have a fence, to ‘Come on, be registered because you can get finance’, when you read this, they cannot. I would say they would quickly put three strands of barbed wire around and say: ‘Yes, we have a fence, we just need to upgrade it’. I do not want to tell them that – oh, I should tell them that actually.
On the front page of the five-point water safety plan - and this is where it is a little deceptive - it states:
- … an early registration incentive scheme with a cash bonus.
You are telling people they can register early and get cash, but the trick is that if they do not have a fence already, they do not appear to get any money.
So, not only will you be asked to register your swimming pool in the rural area for no reason because you do not require a fence, but they will be telling you: ‘We are really doing it so that you can get some money’, which, in actual fact, you cannot. That needs to be re-thought, it is not helpful. The government should look at allowing people to use this incentive scheme for the provision of new pools, and pool fences as well. It needs to be thought through a little more thoroughly.
Mr Dunham: No 8. Solid, lockable cover.
Mr WOOD: Yes. No 8: ‘Owner prefers to use a solid lockable cover on top of a spa pool instead of swimming pool fencing’.
At the briefing they certainly supported that you could have a grille, although they were a bit concerned about an ARC mesh grille. I would say that if you have a grille that is suitable enough to hold up a child without the grille sinking, that is basically what you want.
Mr Elferink: As robust or solid as in …
Mr WOOD: That is really it, and the swimming pool inspector can make that decision. But it was to allow people not to have to cover their spa and then have to heat them up because they are so cold That is what happens with spas, especially those under verandahs - they get freezing.
I was a little disappointed after the briefing. I thought that was a good point. Perhaps the government might take on my amendment because I think it is a sensible amendment. There is no politics in it; I am just trying to be practical because that is how people use their spas.
I did have another concern, and it was raised in a letter in the paper yesterday from a bloke - he only used his first name so I will not mention his name. He had a concern that, when he rang up the information number, they did not know what the Australian Standard was. I would be interested to know what the minister has to say. This is not being frivolous; the act does deal in section 5 with the appropriate Australian Standard, and mentions the Australian Standard there.
I am not an expert on the Australian Standard, but the PowerPoint presentation you have handed out there, minister, deals with, from the second last page, swimming pool fencing heights, and there are two slides on that: gate and gate latches, where rails or horizontal supports are used. Then it goes on about the cost of swimming pool fencing. I presume this will available for the public. Does that match the Australian Standard? It does not appear to say that that is the Australian Standard. The sixth slide says:
- All new swimming pools from January 2003 will be required to be registered and be fenced to comply with
relevant Australian Standards.
What I am asking you is to make sure that, if that information is going to the public, it contains the Australian Standard and that there is no doubt about that because the gentleman that wrote to the NT News yesterday certainly had some doubts about whether the department knew exactly what standard was required.
My final query - and this was raised at a briefing where the member for Greatorex was present – may be through my lack of technical expertise. It deals with the application of the act under clause 3(1):
- This act does not apply to or in relation to a swimming pool that is situated on an area of land that is occupied
by the Crown, a statutory corporation, a council or the Jabiru Town Development Authority.
If I look at the Crown land issue - and this may not occur, but I will be hypothetical. In the Darwin municipality which takes in the Berrimah Research Farm, say there is a caretaker’s cottage there. He may have an upstairs house with a pool. Now, is he exempt under clause 3? That is, of course, within a by-law area …
Dr Lim: In a school.
Mr WOOD: At a school - if the caretaker of the school with, say, a one metre K-Mart special pool, would he have to have that fenced, or is that regarded as Crown Land? Or say, with the Police Station at Mataranka which may not have by-laws for pools. He is on a small premise, he has to be registered – well, he never has to be registered at all, because he cannot sell it, or rent it. But if the government installed the pool for him, would he be required to have a fence? Mataranka is made up of very small blocks, so that needs an explanation.
A statutory corporation, I am not sure of. I presume that would apply to …
Dr Lim: PowerWater.
Mr WOOD: Well, PowerWater - say they have some facilities. An example would be McMinns Lagoon pumping station. There is a caretaker’s cottage on that because a person lives there full-time. Perhaps they get away with it because they are on a large premises but, just in case it was cut up into small blocks, would they be exempt? But council-owned land for its staff; would they be required to fence their own pool? It would be silly for them to be telling every one else to fence pools and they were not; but are they exempt? The Jabiru Town Development Authority, I thought they had laws of their own. You might be able to explain to me why they are exempt, but I thought they did have their own by-laws under this.
I will make some more comments when it goes to committee stage. My comments are not to denigrate what the government is trying to do. I support the concept of swimming pool fences. Because swimming pool fences have not been in the Territory in all parts ever - this is the first time that many parts of the Territory will be required to come under this legislation - that the best way to do things in the Territory where people are pretty independent and not great fans of regulation, is to bring them in gradually and sensibly. The idea of introducing them with the installation of a new pool, a rented property pool and when a place is being sold, makes a lot of sense.
I believe some of the other things, like the manner in which things have to be registered and any exemptions, are going to cause problems and they are also going to cost the taxpayer a lot more money than was really needed. We could have got away with two inspectors. You might say it is not much, but if your regulation required a company which was putting pools in to not hand that pool over to the owner until there is a fence, you use the systems we have; the building inspector will make sure that there is no way a pool can get filled with water.
So there are methods that we could have used and achieved exactly what you are doing without starting up what I call a new mini-department of swimming pools. I do not know whether you would call that MOSP – yes. Anyway, I just put those comments that …
Mr Henderson: This is a job creating project.
Ms Martin: Yes, building our public sector.
Mr WOOD: Well, I would like to see job creation in projects that are wealth creating of their own. I am not sure this one is wealth creating of its own. But, anyway …
Mr Henderson: A gas pipe will do that, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: All right, thank you, minister. I do put those thoughts to you seriously. You might take them frivolously, but they do make some sense.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, before the luncheon adjournment, we had a contribution to this debate from the member for Greatorex which we certainly welcomed, but I have to say that at the end of that contribution, I am still uncertain about whether we have support for the bill from the opposition. There seemed to be more positions put by the member for Greatorex than we have seen in previous times. I really cannot understand whether we are actually supported by the opposition for this very important bill. I cannot tell whether we have in principle support.
The member for Greatorex asked a great number of questions about the bill, but what alarmed me was that I do not think he had actually opened the legislation. I know he attended a briefing, but maybe he did not ask those questions there. It was disappointing. He was handed the hard copy of a PowerPoint presentation and seemed to be making all of his references to that when he was asking his questions, rather than to the specifics of the legislation.
So on this side of the House, with this very important legislation, after one contribution from the opposition, we are no clearer about whether we and Territorians are going to have bipartisan support in this House. The member for Nelson made it very clear when he contributed to this debate. He said: ‘I am supporting this bill’. He had a number of points to raise …
Mr Dunham: No, he did not. He said it requires amendment and it is poorly drafted and you should take it away and do it again. Do not verbal him.
Ms MARTIN: He said: I have a number of points to address, and I am in support of this bill. From the opposition’s point of view, we do not understand …
Mr Dunham: That is not what he said!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, you will have your chance. Chief Minister, would you direct your speech through me and not directly across to the member for Drysdale who is retaliating.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, it is an important point to make. It would be appreciated by Territorians if we could know the opposition’s position on this bill. It has been interesting in the debate that we have had over the last six to eight months, that the opposition has never indicated a clear position. They seem not to have the courage to say: ‘This is something that needs to come into place - adequate pool fencing right across the Territory’. I hope further contributions to this debate might actually sort out what that position is. To me, it indicates a fence-sitting attitude. It indicates great prevarication and, I would say, a great deal of cowardice. That is very disappointing.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The label ‘cowardice’ should not be applied to members of this House because it is offensive. It should only be done by way of substantive motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, I do not think the Chief Minister was directing it at anyone individually. There is no point of order.
Ms MARTIN: At the heart of this legislation is the saving of human life, particularly the lives of our young children, the Territory’s most valuable asset. It is all about buying valuable time for parents and carers to protect wandering toddlers. For years, the Territory has lagged behind the rest of Australia in providing the safest possible environment for children around water.
It should be a matter of shame to the opposition that, in all their years in government, they never took steps to bring the Territory into line with every other state and territory by introducing swimming pool fencing legislation to Australian Standards. I know that the issue of pool fencing is highly contentious, but that is no reason to leave it in the too hard basket, as the previous government did for more than 20 years.
As I noted in a message to Territorians earlier this year, backyard swimming pools and spas are part of our great lifestyle, yet we have the weakest pool fencing laws in the country. The government is not proposing the introduction of stronger pool fencing laws to damage that lifestyle. Pools are at the heart of our suburban lives, they are part of our homes where we live our everyday lives: busy cooking dinner, watching television or having a cool drink at the end of a hard day. Sadly, this is when accidents can and do happen. As a parent, I know our children are always the number one priority; however, I do not believe any of us would argue it is possible to watch children every hour, every minute, every second of the day. All parents are well aware of the propensity of toddlers to wander and explore. We need to provide some safeguards for those vital first few minutes.
Children are especially vulnerable when it comes to drowning, and toddlers even more so because of poorly developed perceptional skills and poorly organised defences. They are most at risk because their increased mobility is not matched by an awareness of risk. In Australia, childhood drownings are second only to road trauma as a cause of injury or death in children under the age of 15. For those under five years of age, drowning is the most common cause of death. An issue not often considered is the fact that a significant number of survivors of near drowning suffer permanent and severe brain damage.
In 1996, Coroner John Lowndes conducted an inquest into the deaths by drowning of five young children, all two-years-old or younger, in Darwin between October 1994 and October 1995. Since that time, a further four children under the age of five have drowned in swimming pools, in addition to the two tragic drownings in Lake Leanyer last year which led to my government closing the lake to the public and carrying out extensive work to improve safety standards.
In the past 25 years, 31 children under the age of five have drowned in backyard swimming pools in the Territory; 28 of those in Darwin. These statistics, and the fact that the Territory has the highest incidence of infant drownings in Australia, are absolutely unacceptable to my government and, I suggest, to the Northern Territory population as a whole.
At the beginning of his submission to the Lowndes inquest, Dr Alan Ruben, of Kidsafe, the Child Accident Prevention Foundation of Australia made the point:
- Statistics are people without the tears. It is easy to be glib about numbers but at Kidsafe we try to remember that
behind each and every drowning there is a family, a family who will never recover from the tragedy.
In its submission to the 1996 inquest Darwin City Council noted and again I quote:
The Northern Territory government has repeatedly declined to require pool fencing standards to be included in
the building code or to play a role in the regulation of the fencing of private swimming pools, despite approaches
from both the community at large and the NT Local Government Association.
This Northern Territory government will no longer brush aside this life and death issue.
Kidsafe’s position on pool and spa safety rests on four basic principles: appropriate pool fences - if a child cannot get into the water it cannot drown; children must be supervised in water at all times; supervisors should have a good working knowledge of first aid and resuscitation; and children should be taught water safety skills.
In relation to pool fencing, some interesting research into child drowning has been conducted in Queensland by Dr Robert Pitt of the Mater Children’s Hospital in Brisbane. Until a few years ago, Queensland had the highest rates of toddler drowning in Australia. This has now been surpassed by the Northern Territory - what a feat! Dr Pitt collected details of a large consecutive series of drowning incidents, possibly the largest series in the world. In the latest 100 immersion incidents in backyard pools and spas he studied, there were 10 fatalities and a further five children left with severe brain damage. In only two cases did children climb an Australian Standards swimming pool fence. These were the only two Queensland children to die since 1984, after climbing a fence built to Australian Standards.
In relation to supervision, certainly young children should never be in a pool unsupervised. Outside the pool, however, as I said earlier, all of us who are parents know that it is physically impossible to provide close supervision to our children 24-hours a day. Effective pool fencing and barriers can provide that possible lifesaver for those crucial few minutes before those little escapees are discovered.
A good working knowledge of first aid and resuscitation is a valuable skill for all of us, and I would encourage all Territorians to avail themselves of the excellent courses in first aid and resuscitation provided in the Territory by both St John Ambulance and the Royal Lifesaving Society. A dramatic example of the effectiveness of resuscitation was demonstrated on the Queensland Gold Coast in recent years. A child strapped in a stroller fell into a canal near the Gold Coast Hospital. During the full 10 minutes it took to find the child underwater, an emergency team was summoned from the hospital. Excellent resuscitation occurred and the child survived with no evidence of any residual damage.
In relation to child water safety, while it would seem obvious that if a child can swim it will not drown, this is, unfortunately, not always the case in practice. A four-year-old Darwin child drowned in 1994 in a neighbour’s unfenced pool, despite being able to swim the width of Nightcliff pool. There are numerous other examples interstate and overseas.
Public awareness campaigns can play a vital part in saving young lives. I am pleased to note that Darwin City Council has, over the years, conducted several campaigns highlighting supervision, fence and gate maintenance, and the need for constant supervision of young children around water. Kidsafe, the Royal Lifesaving Society, Channel 8 and others, have also been involved in these campaigns. I understand similar campaigns have been conducted in Alice Springs as well. Pool safety and awareness campaigns need to be kept up on a regular basis. As one of the witnesses to the Lowndes inquest noted: this needs to be kept up given Darwin has a somewhat more transitory population than other areas of Australia.
My government is developing an extensive electronic media campaign which will be launched next week by my colleague, the Minister for Community Development. The campaign will cover both television, radio and informational brochures in regard to the new requirements, that will be available for Territorians from January. An information line was set up in early October, and will continue for the next 18 months. Already, over 550 inquiries have been received. The information line number has been highlighted in a series of newspaper advertisements throughout the Territory.
A series of meetings with real estate agents, conveyancers, swimming pool providers, swimming pool fencing suppliers and contractors have been held in Darwin. Currently, meetings with these groups are taking place in Alice Springs to enable them to have an understanding of the new legislation.
A small pool fencing implementation unit has been established within the Department of Community Development to set up the pool fencing inspectorate that will implement the Swimming Pool Fencing Act. The issue of legal liability is one that all pool owners should carefully consider. The Australian Standards state:
- Swimming pool owners should be aware that, where death or injury to any person occurs in their pool, a legal
liability may fall upon them or upon the person responsible for the pool at the time of the incident.
Pool fencing built to Australian Standards and properly maintained will, I suggest, go a long way to providing legal protection to pool owners.
I know there will always be people in society who will oppose regulatory legislation such as this, and I respect their right to their views. Emotions have sometimes run high on both sides of the debate over this issue. Such legislation is never universally popular and, when it affects people financially, it is likely to be even less so. Nevertheless, I believe it is the responsibility of governments to make hard decisions for the benefit of the electorate as a whole. I would remind members that the introduction of the compulsory wearing of seat belts in cars was greeted with loud protests when first introduced in Australia. In the intervening years, however, countless lives have been saved by seat belts and the wearing of seat belts has long been accepted as normal practice.
My government’s five-point water safety plan includes measures to ease the financial burden on affected pool and spa owners, as well as an early registration scheme with a cash bonus. Interest-free five-year loans will be provided to help fund upgrades. The government will also provide financial assistance to parents through a water safety voucher system to help offset the cost of water safety or swimming lessons for that critical under five age group.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I strongly support this legislation, and I urge all members of this House to support it. Our five-point water safety plan is fair and equitable, and there can be no reason to oppose any measure aimed at saving young lives and buying valuable time for parents and carers. As I said earlier, while watching kids with an eagle eye, and teaching them to swim lowers risks around swimming pools, so will improvements to pool fencing. I believe we must employ every measure possible to save our children’s lives.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, it is important to say at the outset that the opposition, like the member for Nelson, supports fencing private pools. We support it; we believe it is an imperative, and that it is a fundamental issue for governments.
The threshold issue for us as legislators is to pose some questions to ourselves. The first question is: who is responsible? The CLP was quite clear that this was a matter for local government. Like the Territory government, local governments get offended by intrusions from other layers of government. I know that when the Commonwealth want us to do certain things for which we have a difference of opinion, or a different style of legislating, we are offended by their intrusion. It is the same for local government. The only difference is that here the Northern Territory government can intrude, statutorily and through its primacy in its legislative base. It can say to local government: ‘We do not think you are doing something right, you should do it differently’. So, that is the threshold question: whose job is it?
The second question is: having decided it is your job, and your responsibility, how are you going to fix the problem? That is the next question for legislators. We have to say: ‘Is it an educative program, a legislative program? Do we have inspectors and things of that ilk?’
The third question we must pose to ourselves is: ‘Have we chosen the best way?’ My colleague, the member for Nelson, was very eloquent on this. He said: ‘Do not try to have a division of opinion here that you support pool fencing and we do not, because that is a given’. All of us support pool fencing.
Those subsequent issues of criticality still have to be answered. You have already decided that it is your problem, and we can understand as a government you have that prerogative, and we support you in doing that. We do not agree with you necessarily, but we support that you can go to local government and say: ‘We believe that you are so inept, your competence is in such question that this is something we are going to un-devolve. We are going to take it back off you, and it is something we will do and, therefore, we are responsible’. So that is okay. We can understand that you would do that. You have taken on the mantle of responsibility and the next series of steps that fall to you is to fix the problem and to do it in an efficient way.
I do not believe this legislation fixes the problem. When the Chief Minister was asking what our position was and she ran a case of the tragedy of childhood drowning, none of us - none of us - are going to stand up in this parliament and say: ‘We believe that the issue of childhood drowning is an issue of little consequence.’ Of course, we are not. But it is incumbent on us, particularly in the circumstance where the Chief Minister has said: ‘This is now my job; I am now responsible. Childhood drownings from here on are on my conscience’. That is essentially what she said. That is okay. It is a brave decision within her competence.
Having sorted out our relevant positions; that is, that we believe that local government as an elected, accountable level of government, with differentiation available for the variations in geography and demographics that occur across the Territory, is best placed for this issue. We think that the Chief Minister agrees with us on this. Because, if this was universal uniform legislation across the Territory, it would apply everywhere. Already, she has arrived at that threshold issue with us. She said: ‘Things are different in Litchfield and Darwin - Gapuwiyak, Lake Evella, Ti Tree, all a bit different - so we will have different stages of regime across it’.
That is pretty much where we were. We said that it is a matter for those local authorities to competently decide what is best for their community, to face their constituents at the ballot box and to be lobbied by those constituents on matters such as this. That is where we differ.
However, the opposition fully respects the Chief Minister’s right, and her bravery, in saying that this is a matter that is her responsibility - totally. There are issues relating to consultation where she asserted that it is a matter that the opposition was all over the place with. I can tell you it was very difficult to elicit detail from the government. My colleague from Greatorex read out various statements where the Chief Minister said: ‘Look, this is not rocket science’ and within three lines in Hansard was saying: ‘This is a very complex issue’.
She received a tick for her first year of government from the NT News for bringing in pool fencing, and we were still keen to get the details. As late as this morning, we were still receiving details on this. So do not give us this thing that we are all over the place. We are responding to what you have decided to do, which is to take the full responsibility, onus and rectification steps upon yourself.
What we want to do, as concerned people who critically analyse legislation in this parliament, is to see whether it is going to work. One of the things you have to ask yourself is: if the Darwin City Council had a certain level of legislation, and the bill before this House has a lesser level of legislation, is that likely to make it better? In my head, I would say: ‘Nup.’ If the Darwin City Council has a regulatory regime that is stricter than this - and I was quite interested at some of the comments from across the way. When the member for Nelson was pointing out that it was quite an intensive bureaucratic process and there were other ways of doing it, the member for Wanguri said: ‘It is a job creating project’. While that is cynical, it would appear that it is certainly top heavy and extravagant with human resources. That is something that we have to look at.
The Chief Minister said: ‘We are not proposing stronger pool fencing laws’. You have to say: well, if it is the same or, I would suggest, weaker than Darwin, why are you doing it?. Why have you taken away the responsibility from the Darwin City Council to look at pool fencing across the municipality and make it weaker? I cannot understand this. I can understand them upping the ante and various little strategies to make it stronger, but to have a lesser regime just flies in the face of reason.
I will use my own case. I currently live in Leanyer and I have a fully compliant pool fence. It complies with all the diagrams there. It is 1.2 m high, it has 100 mm gaps in the bars 100 mm above the ground, self-locking gate, all of that stuff. Under this legislation, I can actually take it down tomorrow; I do not need that fence. I can have a totally unfenced pool.
I have probably a dozen neighbours living within 100 m, and I can have an unfenced pool in the municipality of Darwin, and it fully accords with this legislation. That is dumb! Of course, I shall not remove my fence because, like many commentators out there, many people believe the first issue is an issue of responsibility for not just the parent, but for the landholder. As a parent and a landholder, I believe I carry that dual responsibility. That pool fence is there because I am a parent, first and foremost. Indeed, before there were pool fencing regulations here in Darwin and we had a pool, we fully complied with those standards that existed. As a parent, I am quite happy to say: ‘No matter what you say legislatively, I will have my fencing to a standard that I think provides a secure environment for young children’.
The other thing is this business of who benefits from it in terms of this little fund of pool fencing upgrades. If I, with my extensive pool fence, go to the government, they will say: ‘No, you’re right, mate. You’re tickety-boo’. What we want to do is subsidise those people who have not done the right thing, who have not brought it up to standard, which seems a rather strange thing. I can understand that you would want to bring those pool fences up to standard but, essentially, the people who have done the most work receive the least reward, and the people who have done the least work receive the most. While that is a sort of Communist Manifesto thing, it is a very strange way of providing this sort of incentive.
There is no doubt that, while the word ‘tax’ does offend those opposite, this is a tax. It is a fee that will be payable; it is something that will cost money. It is something that, because of its high levels of inefficiency, will mean that we are paying for this. We are paying for something that is born inefficient. There are other models and other ways of doing it as the member for Nelson has pointed out.
The Chief Minister has within her repertoire of inspectorial capacity, quite a large capacity already on the streets, with uniforms, able to be deployed for this stuff. So, setting it aside is a unique thing has some logistical problems and, certainly, some efficiency problems.
The whole law enforcement issue I will leave to other speakers, but issues of compliance are not issues of a once-only inspection. I have been to a couple of barbecues recently where people, in anticipation of this, have already fully fenced their pool and taken down the panels for the barbecue because, obviously, it intrudes on their backyard area. Now that is going to be a fairly frequent phenomena and I would say that if you were going to get into this law enforcement type regime, it is not just a once-off inspection. This is big brother keeping his eye out all the time for these naughty people who might remove a couple of panels now and then.
The logistics of registration are difficult also because each of the councils has done it a different way. I understand in Palmerston City Council it is actually recorded against the property, whereas in other places it might be recorded against the applicant. So the merging of these data bases is a matter that is going to take some time. Perhaps in the early stages, you say: ‘Look, if you are adequately registered with your local municipality, we will leave it there. We do not need to look at it’, and look at others. Because there will be some urgent tasks. The most urgent task will involve people who are trying to sell their property. What we are going to have in a mere few weeks is, if you sell your property, an inspector will go around and say: ‘Look, come settlement day you are not going to be able to settle this, mate, because your pool is not up to standard’. One would assume then that, having been served that notice – and one would assume you activate it by ringing somebody, who may to be out in a matter of days - you then have to do the remedial works. Following this, one would assume that the inspector comes back and assesses the works and says they are okay.
Most real estate agents will tell you that settlement up here is 30 days. So I hope these blokes have roller skates on, because there is great potential for this to intrude on the orderly conveyancing in this town. The trading of property in this town could be slowed remarkably, especially if we find that these inspectors are a bit slow getting out and that the people who are selling have to call the inspector, get the remediation works done, call in the contractor, call the bloke back to check it - all within 30 days. While on the one hand I am saying that you are awash with staff, I would hope your staff treats this as an issue of great concern to make certain that people who are selling property at some hundreds of thousands of dollars and seeking to move elsewhere - or to even move to the Territory - are not somehow put behind the eight ball because the inspectorial regime takes so long.
If the Chief Minister is genuine in her attempt to save human life, I applaud that - I put that firmly on the record – but we have to analyse all of the drowning statistics. We have to look at the causes for it. While I will be the first to admit pool fencing is an ameliorator of those statistics, potentially, I would say that there are other sites that are also hazardous. The Chief Minister herself has mentioned Lake Leanyer. Lake Leanyer had some design difficulties that are being changed, but there are places with much more radically hazardous design difficulties than that.
For instance, there is the wharf. I would say that the biggest drowning hazard in Darwin is the wharf. Not only do you have a trip hazard that is a mere 30 cm of the ground, and not only is it unfenced, but the water underneath is not still. Sometimes it is going through under that wharf at some knots. So while we are on identifying drowning hazards, there are many of them. There are also many of them in Aboriginal communities that are not called swimming pools. They are places where children frequent that, unfortunately and tragically, emerge on our statistics from time to time. So let us do a little back track; let us see all of those circumstances where the potential for drowning exists and whether there is the necessity to take this further. Because it is not right to talk, on one hand, about the tragedy of childhood drowning and then, on the other hand, about how the masked crusader here with her cape is going to come in and stop all that. Because, the tragic reality is there could well be more. I would suggest that, having taken on the great mantle of responsibility that the Chief Minister has, and then conveniently flicked it past to the unfortunate Minister for Community Development, she has more work to do and she has to start looking at things.
People in my electorate who live in Bayview and Fairway Waters are most concerned about the government’s steps with regard to those bodies of water there. I know you can say it is exempt in the act and all the rest of it but, the fact is, if Lake Leanyer and pools that most people in Darwin believe are adequately fenced are a drowning hazard, so too are these public bodies of water. I would like the Chief Minister to explain, if her fundamental ingoing position is that she wants to prevent drownings, why there are other bodies of water other than swimming pools exempted. Many of our Aboriginal communities along the coast have access to water, and there are young kids who swim in pretty much all of them - every place I have ever been, anyway. This probably has to go further in annunciating how this policy - this one shot in the locker policy of the Chief Minister taking over the fencing - is going to fix all of that.
I was also a little disappointed with the Chief Minister talking about seat belts and how people were a bit agin it, but it came in – I am not sure that is directly relevant. I do agree that governments can introduce something sometimes where there is an absolute cause and effect exit. The seat belt issue, yes, okay, it was pretty brave of governments of the day and all the rest of it. Prior to seat belts, there were no seat belts. Prior to the Clare Martin Swimming Pool Fencing Bill, there were pool by-laws. Some of these statistics she quoted, they were in municipalities where such legislation exists, albeit by-laws. So you are not going to an environment here where there has been an absolute absence of any legislation.
You may run the case then that, okay, what about those recalcitrants in Katherine where there were no by-laws? It could well be that Katherine has to be looked at. But I will tell you, I lived in Katherine. I lived there for most of my young life and I swam in the river pretty much every day. The drownings in Katherine occur in the Katherine River. They are still tragic and they include people I knew. But let us not assume that, if every pool is fenced in Katherine, that drownings will disappear, because they will not. The most commonly used body of water in Katherine is the beautiful Katherine River. It is also a potentially hazardous environment, particularly for young children, and drownings will continue to occur.
Therefore, the Chief Minister cannot just take this on and say: ‘CLP left problem’. Chief Minister swans in, puts bill on the table, gives it to her faithful travelling companion over here and it is all done …
Mr Ah Kit: The good looking fellow.
Mr DUNHAM: The good looking fellow, and a damn fine and competent swimmer, if I might add and whose pool is fenced. I know that for a fact because I have actually swum in the minister’s pool - once when he was not there. No, that is not true. I swam there when it was owned by a previous person. But it is fully compliant and fenced and I applaud him for that. I hope he has done a little stocktake through his ministry and advisors, because they might be surprised when they do that stocktake about levels of compliance within the pack. But that is obviously for another day.
As legislators, it would not be a productive debate if we talked about the great tragedy of young drowned kids and just left it there. If that is our ingoing position - if our ingoing position is to eradicate that - we have to pose those questions: whose problem is it; will this fix it; and is it the best way of fixing it? I am quite happy to sign off on it being the Chief Minister’s problem. So threshold issue one, I would disagree with her and believe it is a matter for local government, but I understand it is within her competence and is something that she and her government want to do. So I am happy to tick off on that.
Issue two: does it fix it? I would say no. Issue three: is it the best way? I would say no. So I hope that is clear to the Chief Minister because we, as an opposition, have no problem with the government entering this field. We have no problem with them enacting an act of this type. We are merely being concerned, critical commentators. If she wants to portray that as ‘Therefore you are happy to sign off on childhood drownings’, that is not the case. That is not the case; everybody on this side would support any measure to reduce that.
But what we will say is that this is a flawed piece of legislation. It is certainly late. The consultation was definitely flawed. I talked to people in a policy area who were involved with this who were saying to the Chief Minister: ‘For God’s sake, talk to the councils’. She was out there doing all this chest beating about how she was going to fix it up; did not describe to councils the regime she wanted to put in place, had very conflicting points of view going out about the complexity or otherwise of this legislation and how it would be achieved; and that was the biggest problem at the start. So, the biggest problem at the start when she described going in - a bit like a President Bush-type approach - and did not describe the how and when. Now bang! it is on her desk. In fact, we have a layman’s guide with these little overhead presentations only this morning.
So, the debate is a matter of her making. She kicked it off; she was instrumental in starting the debate. This is her bill; this is her assumption that it is entirely her responsibility. We, as an opposition, do not have any problem with that. What we are, though, is people who have our ear to our constituencies. Many of us have small children and swimming pools and we think we can give her some enlightened advice. So that is how she should take it. We are merely trying to help her with this flawed piece of legislation, to make it better. We are saying at the outset it is your call: if you want to go into this policy arena with this legislation, we are not stopping you. We believe it is entirely your call.
That is our position and I do not think it should ever be translated or parlayed into some sign-off on the high levels of childhood drowning that occur, because one is high - one childhood death in this area is high. As health minister I spoke to Alan Ruben on many occasions and I was aware of Kidsafe, of the Child Accident Prevention Foundation, and the good work they do. I have also spoken to the Royal Lifesaving Society on a recent occasion where my colleague, the member for Sanderson, was present. We had little kids in the pool teaching them to swim. I have a grand-daughter who is three and she has relations and others of about her age who come to my place very frequently - sometimes it is too frequent – and they use the pool. I believe I have a great responsibility on my shoulders notwithstanding anything in any statute books, because that responsibility first and foremost is with the parent; that is me. I have no problem about the high levels of fencing around my pool, and I do not care whether there is an act or not; that will be the case. I would suggest to you that 80% of the people out there are like that. You could probably test this in Katherine where there are no by-laws. If you went to Katherine and had a look you would probably find that there are high levels of adherence to a code, notwithstanding there is no by-law on it.
That is my contribution. I applaud the Chief Minister’s venturing into this area in the brave and cavalier way she has. I hope that it does bear results for her. I would hope that there are no drownings from 1 January. I would hope that this act is able to prevent children from drowning anywhere in the Territory. Given that the act does not apply across the Territory, it differentiates and lowers the bar - at least in my case - and that it seems to be legislation on the run, sadly, I believe that might not be the case.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, today I support of the Swimming Pool Fencing Bill 2002 and Swimming Pool Fencing (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2002. I am very pleased to be afforded the opportunity to speak in support of these bills because it is an area that I have had a keen interest in for quite a number of years.
As a matter of fact, I have at home a story from the NT News dated 19 December 1998 which is about Kidsafe imploring people to be careful around water features in the yard. There is a picture accompanying this article which shows my daughter, then aged three, standing at the self-closing gate of our family backyard swimming pool, with her reaching for the pool gate latch.
My position on the need for uniform pool fencing legislation was first made known to my constituents some six years ago when I campaigned for a position on the Darwin City Council. I remember one of the most often-asked questions when doorknocking was what was my stance in regard to pool fencing. My stance then was the same as it is now; it has not changed over that time. My position has always been supportive of pool fencing. Then, as now, the vast majority of people who raised this issue with me were likewise supportive of pool fencing legislation.
I acknowledge there were some who were against pool fencing for various reasons. However, they, too, were appalled at the tragic loss of young life in our backyard pools and spas. I balanced their views with mine, and I found that there was no conflict in the desired outcome we all sought for the community. How we got there was where the conflict resided. As a result, my strength of conviction did not diminish in regard to what I considered was my greater responsibility to the overall health and safety of the community, but it was tempered with the understanding that a lot of ratepayers had installed their pools as per the existing code, and some accommodation had to be found so they did not face a penalty of one form or another.
In 1994, some members may remember, the member for Katherine gave a statement in this House on the matter of community and family importance, and that was safety of children in our community. The member noted early in his statement that, at that time, 1994, a child in the Northern Territory was four times more likely to die as the result of an accident than a child interstate. Compassionately, he noted no price could be put on the pain and anxiety suffered by many of these children and their families, and acknowledged that some children would be left incapacitated and scarred for life.
I sincerely believe all members of our Assembly share the member for Katherine’s compassion. He also referred to a campaign by Kidsafe at that time to demonstrate that drowning in backyard pools is the greatest cause of death of toddlers in Australia. He went on to say that, tragically, the Northern Territory has Australia’s highest reported death rate of toddler-aged children in backyard pools. In the previous two years - this was from 1994 - seven Territory children had lost their lives in backyard swimming pools. A number of others had required hospitalisation, including full life support in intensive care. The incidence of pool accidents, the member for Katherine stated, was an issue of major concern to the Northern Territory government.
As I said, those comments were made in 1994, and I restate those comments not for any political gain, but to indicate to the Assembly that the tragedy of children drowning in our urban backyards was a recognised concern last decade and it has remained a significant concern, with even more of our loved ones perishing because we, as a community, have failed to enact suitable and effective strategies.
The member for Katherine, in 1994, finalised his ministerial statement with these closing observations:
- We must remember that the onus is on the owners of pools … to protect children in and around water. Pool
owners must ensure their pools are safe from unauthorised access and this responsibility must be further
entrenched among pool owners in the Territory. Kidsafe encourages pool owners to surround their pool
with isolation or separation fencing and a self-closing gate that meets Australian Standards. It also encourages
parents to have their children taught to swim at a young age, to have knowledge of first aid procedures and
to supervise children closely whilst they are near water. Given the active lifestyle of Territorians, it is essential
that children are taught to respect water, especially around pools and natural waterways.
I would contend that the member for Katherine’s speech on water safety and pool fencing struck a resonant tone in the community. I base this observation on the petition placed before the Assembly by the member for Port Darwin in May 1995. Signed by 3039 citizens of the Northern Territory, the petition requested the Assembly to legislate to ensure that all new and existing domestic swimming pools and spas were adequately fenced to prevent children from drowning. The petitioners were concerned that, over the three years before the tabling of the petition, nine children lost their lives as a result of drowning in domestic swimming pools and spa baths in the Northern Territory. You can see it on the rise since 1994 in those figures alone.
In May 1994, people by the name of Carey, Chapman and Gaffy published a paper in the Australian Journal of Public Health entitled ‘Children’s Lives or Garden Aesthetics: A case study in public health advocacy’. The paper dealt with how the public debates around the 1990 Swimming Pools Act in New South Wales was conducted, including the calling in of emotive points of argument in order to sway the debate one way or the other. The authors of this paper identified five main areas of argument in the pool fencing debate. They were: why pool drownings occur; the facts of fencing and non-fencing; expert views, community support; the role of state in prevention; and who are we/they? The ‘we’ being a defender of the innocent and voiceless, unashamedly emotional about the preventable tragedy of child drownings; and ‘they’ were identified as being against ‘big brother’ government. ‘They’ regard the other party as emotional, illogical and hysterical. We have seen here in our public debate on water safety and pool fencing in the Northern Territory the same areas of argument over the years.
On 21 October 1999, the then member for Port Darwin stood here and complained vigorously about the Darwin City Council and the stand it took over the midnight demolition of that grand old Darwin landmark, the Darwin Hotel. He maintained that, as the council could not even provide a footpath for him in Larrakeyah, they had little credibility to have a position in regards to town planning. The member for Port Darwin went on to say that the Darwin City Council had vandalised what he considered a magnificent landmark building, the Sentinel, in which he purchased a retirement unit. The member based the assessment that the Darwin City Council were vandals because of their pool fencing requirements, which he stated were beyond the pale. The member said that the architect designed structures, both external and internal within the grounds, have been overtaken by ill-conceived, unreasonable fencing requirements. The pool area had effectively been debased, he claimed.
The member for Port Darwin went on to claim this act of so-called vandalism was not an isolated example. He claimed a local constituent in Cullen Bay had a beautiful home with lawn running down to the waters edge, unfenced. But with the laws as set down by the city council, the same constituent wanted to put a plunge pool on the front lawn and he could, provided he fenced it. The member for Port Darwin appeared to consider that this was unreasonable, as no fencing was required for the marina, but fencing was required for the plunge pool under the same law. The member for Port Darwin finished off his broadside against the Darwin City Council with a blast at the council’s desire to be in charge of town planning by saying:
- This is a great illustration of their inability to deal in a sensible and pragmatic way with issues that impact on
the amenity of life of ordinary folk who have the misfortune to fall within their area of responsibility.
The member for Port Darwin’s argument can clearly be seen to fall into the classification of the role of the state in prevention - an argument that supports the view that our homes are our castles, and a sanctuary from big brother government; that a universal fencing requirement will needlessly hurt those with no children, especially pensioners; and that the fencing of pools is a capricious folly when other waterways remain accessible. We have heard another case of that argument put before us by the previous speaker.
The inconsistency of this argument is that every facet of our modern lives is governed by loss of individual liberty in the interests of society’s wellbeing. Speed is restricted on our city and town streets, and unqualified amateurs are not allowed to make electrical repairs in their homes. The importation of dangerous toys is controlled and, in many other areas, a sophisticated and altruistic society imposes restrictions on itself when innocent lives might otherwise be lost by everyone doing their own thing. In the swimming pool safety debate, there would be no problem if the adult pool owners were the only ones whose lives were at stake. But they never are.
In 1995, a rural MLA commenced an adjournment debate with this introduction:
- … I intend tonight to say a few words on a very sad subject. It has not been sad for me in my own life, but it has
been sad for many other parents with small children. I refer to the subject, which seems to be with us constantly,
of little children drowning in swimming pools and spas.
This MLA made the point that, with the proliferation of pools in our environment, we also saw an increase in child drownings. The MLA maintained that fencing was only half the problem, that the other half was one of parental supervision. Children drown because of parental negligence - bad parenting. Put simply, the parents of young children were to blame for their children’s deaths. However, I find it hard to sustain this type of argument. No parent or carer can watch a child every minute of the day; this is just not possible. I find it inconceivable that any rational thinking person believes that a parent at home looking after a child does not have to go to the toilet, prepare a meal, answer the phone or the door. The times when a person is occupied on the mundane interruptions at home, is long enough for a child to drown.
We have seen in the NT News some bitter Letters to the Editor highlighting a theme which is inherent in all civil legislation as it applies to children’s welfare: that a child’s life is solely the responsibility of its parents. Such a view holds that, if the child drowns it is, indeed, a sad and tragic event, but it is the fault of the child’s parents. Most enlightened society, however, provide guarantees for the safety of innocent children, irrespective of the attitude, activities, inattention or any other role of the adult themselves.
Since the member for Katherine’s speech in 1994 on children drowning, we have witnessed incidence of drowning and near-drowning in children in the NT remain the highest in Australia, and our rates have been among the highest world-wide. Young children in the NT appear to be at greatest risk, with rates of drowning and near-drowning nearly three times higher than the rest of Australia.
I see the Kidsafe report of 1994, to which the member for Katherine referred, as defining commentary on how the Northern Territory could address the awful tragedy of accidental drownings, not only in our backyard pools but also in the waterways throughout the Territory. Clearly, the Martin government is of a similar view. Our approach to improving the survivability of children when they are in and around the bodies of water is: the introduction of swimming pool fencing legislation to Australian Standards, which is the subject of the bill we are debating; an early registration incentive scheme with the cash bonus; interest-free five-year loans to help fund upgrades; a government subsidised water awareness program for children under five; and the establishment of a Water Safety Advisory Council to advise government on broader water safety issues.
With the five-point plan that I have just focussed on, I find it incredible that some members of the opposition are calling for even stronger and more restrictive fencing requirements - only the fencing requirements, not addressing the other areas of this plan. Some members of the opposition are calling for two hectare properties to be fenced, for all pools in the Territory to be fenced. I am keen to hear what the member for Goyder has to say on that one. I believe that the plan, as it stands, to build this Territory legislation is well balanced to suit the needs of the broader community. However, members of the opposition are calling for the legislation to be extended to cover all swimming pools …
Mr Maley: No, they are not.
Mr KIELY: Well, they are. You will hear that the member for Drysdale called just on that. I believe that, as a unified party on this position, you need to address that. You need to all come out and support the member for Drysdale in his lambasting of our laws not going far enough, and him saying that all pools, regardless of the size of the block, should be fenced. Then the member for Greatorex said the same - that this is watering it down. I would like to see the member for Goyder stand up here and say whether he does agree and support the position of all members of his party, or is it another case of one rule inside, one rule outside. I will leave that to the member for Goyder to address.
This is a good community law. This law is not steeped in any political ideology. I firmly believe that, under this legislation, we will have a better educated society that will realise the dangers of swimming pools and the need for close parental supervision. I would also like to thank those many members of the community who have contacted me and given support for our government’s actions in addressing the tragic situation of children drowning. I would particularly like to acknowledge the role of Sue Parry from Royal Life Saving and Felicity Creed and Rosemary Paice from Kidsafe. I would also like to acknowledge the hard work of all of our departmental officers in the researching and drafting of this comprehensive law. I would particularly like to single out our ministerial advisors. As a team, they have provided our community with a mature, objective approach to the issue that contains measures that are perceivably acceptable to the people who are required to comply with them.
Nothing we can do in the Assembly, under any conceivable circumstances, will prevent future childhood drownings in pools. They will happen, just as children are killed in safety seats in cars. No one can stop it, but we can do our best to provide a system of barriers that will cause delay when children try to get into swimming pools. Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I will make a few comments with regard to this legislation, so that the government has a clear understanding of where the opposition stands on this issue.
The first thing I would say, in case I forget, is to commend the effort that has obviously been made by officers to bring forward legislation in some form that addresses the issues it seeks to. There has obviously been an enormous amount of work done at the officer level. The fact that a briefing paper was circulated this morning - which obviously is a PowerPoint presentation in easy to understand language - as to what is involved in this legislation is helpful on the one hand, but it also points out one of the difficulties with this legislation; that is, it is extremely difficult to read. Maybe others are more aware than me - and the member for Sanderson obviously puts himself forward as an expert on this, and he may be. But certainly, if one tries to address the issues of existing pools in various jurisdictions in the Northern Territory, and then consider new pools, it is extremely difficult. The PowerPoint presentation is helpful to the average person who, undoubtedly, will eventually have to grapple with this issue.
But it does point out one of the reasons the opposition is uncomfortable with this legislation; that is, the education program for the general public has not happened. You can say that you feel the pulse of Territorians, that Territorians all want this. That is your view as a government. My view is entirely different to that. My view is that the vast majority of Territorians are, firstly, tragically upset and affected when a child is drowned, particularly in a neighbourhood environment. But the average Territorian also does not only need those occasions to search their own consciences to whether or not they themselves are doing enough for, not only their own children, but for their neighbour’s children on a day-by-day basis. I have great faith in Territorians’ basic and intuitive want to protect our children. I do not believe that overriding legislation is going to solve that particular issue at all.
The other thing that is interesting about this legislation is that it is indicative of a new government and how it would react to a child drowning, for example, or some other similar issue. That is this: it is very easy to say, ‘because we are the government at a Territory level, we will take the problem, and we will fix the problem’. The real test of experience in government is when to hold and when to stop, and when to say: ‘There are limits in our powers’. Whilst we may not be entirely satisfied with what another level of government is doing, the right approach is to work with, to educate, to help resource that level of government to achieve the end that you both desire. The easy and inexperienced approach, I believe, is to just come in with overriding legislation that takes that level of government out of the game. That is what has happened in this case.
That is also what points to a big difference between a Labor and a CLP philosophy. You will, of course, criticise the CLP philosophy that has been one of saying that we believe, as far as possible, that the Territory should be a low regulatory regime. We believe that one of the things that people enjoy about the Northern Territory is the fact that it is unencumbered from the burden of government legislation and, as far as possible, we will be cautious in how we achieve that end.
Also, there are some issues that rightly belong at various levels of government. The Commonwealth government takes a strong approach on issues that it believes rightly belongs at their level, and equally, rightly belongs at state level. It is the responsibility of a state government to decide what rightly belongs at their level, and what should belong at local government level. To do otherwise is to erode those three levels of government, and I believe this is one instance where the bill fails on two counts. One, it fails because the Chief Minister said that she would introduce uniform legislation right across the Northern Territory - it fails absolutely on that issue. Second, it fails in terms of recognising the responsibilities of local and Territory government because, if it is right to override local government on this issue, I look forward to the Territory government taking dog control away from local governments because people are killed in dog attacks. That is a problem that will be with us for some time, and maybe the government can come up with overriding legislation on that front.
I come from a jurisdiction in Palmerston that has the strongest fencing by-laws in the Northern Territory. Do you know why? Because that council has introduced those by-laws itself. That council is accountable to the electorate. The aldermen of that council are elected by the people and they stand for those by-laws.
This legislation, as I understand it, will mean that for new pool owners in Palmerston, under this new regime, will have their by-laws weakened because they can now have fencing which does not meet the standard. I see the minister’s advisors are shaking their heads. That is why we need to go into committee, because I am looking to be educated on that and any number of other points. However, in the case of Palmerston, the by-laws that will apply to people in Palmerston are stronger than those that apply in other areas in the Northern Territory. The rules that are applied now for all new pool owners in places such as Palmerston, as I understand this legislation, is weaker. We also have the clear example of, as we read the legislation, in the case of the member for Drysdale and residents of Darwin, their by-laws have been weakened.
We have a situation where the Chief Minister has decided - and that is why she keeps calling for the opposition’s point of view on this issue - that this is a polarising issue for Territorians, that she can win points politically on this issue. That is why she has been calling for the opposition’s view.
The opposition’s view is this: everyone looks to the safety of our children. Everyone wants good fencing laws in the Northern Territory. Certainly, in the case of some councils, those fencing laws are excellent. It is the duty of the Northern Territory government where it feels that more support and better by-laws are required, to work with those councils to achieve the changes it wants. It is not the right or responsibility of the Northern Territory government to introduce legislation which is inconsistent, does not meet the objectives that it sets itself, and also interferes with the authority of the councils. That is the position of the CLP.
No doubt this legislation will be passed, but the CLP does not believe it will be workable. I believe you are going to have enormous problems with this legislation. There are a number of questions that we need to ask in the committee stages to have clarification of the minister’s understanding. I do not believe that the legislation itself addresses the major issues, although I am pleased to see the government has come forward with subsidised water awareness programs. That is a good initiative and I look forward to seeing that.
It is unfortunate that this whole debate has centred, essentially, on a fight with Darwin City Council. Again, having been Chief Minister, I understand how compelling it is to pick those fights but, in this instance, I believe the right approach would have been to work with Darwin City Council and other councils to see where they needed support to meet the parameters that the Northern Territory government has set.
What has happened at the end of the day, is that the Chief Minister and the government has not met the parameters it set itself; the legislation is faulty in its interpretation and it is flawed in its application. The member for Nelson and others have pointed out that, if you wanted to go about some change, this would have been probably the most cumbersome method you could have picked. You could have done it through the building code, the Development Consent Authority or some other simple mechanism which could have still kept the integrity of the council involvement there.
What we will find with this legislation is that many of the councils will very quickly step away from a role which, I believe, they have played admirably. Others such as Litchfield Shire, the member for Sanderson may feel, are negligent. I believe that Litchfield Shire Council is accountable to its own electorate. It is close to its constituents and, if those constituents feel that change is needed, that will soon resonate within those council chambers, and change will eventually occur.
The real issue at the heart of my opposition is this: we believe that Territorians themselves do not need the Northern Territory government to tell them to feel for the safety of children. We believe Territorians are strong spirited and independent people. We believe that the government has responsibility, not only for bringing forward legislation where it is needed, but when it does, to bring it forward in a way that is workable and structured properly. We also believe it requires a government that knows when to hold its hand and realise its limitations.
With those few comments, Madam Speaker, I look forward to having some other issues cleared up in the committee stages.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I place on the record my comments and observations in relation to the proposed introduction of the Swimming Pool Fences Bill (Serial 106). By way of a general comment, in a previous life as a legal practitioner, I was involved in several Coronial inquiries. One was in relation to the unfortunate death of a young person in a pool. There is absolutely no doubt it was a complete tragedy. Anybody who listened to the evidence as it unfolded was affected, and anyone who read the transcript would have been affected and quite moved by what was said. I have also been involved in Coronials involving Aboriginal people who have died in custody, as well as in car accidents. In each and every Coronial involving the death of a human being, particularly young people, is a tragedy which evokes the same expressions of empathy and sympathy for the family for the enormous loss they must suffer.
It is difficult to talk objectively about legislation of this sort, when so much has been couched in emotional terms, and having regard to what I have seen and witnessed. What I am trying to do - and during the committee stage I have a number of questions I am going to put to the minister – is deal with the mechanics of the legislation from a practical perspective. But any civilised community, as I said, must feel an enormous amount of empathy for a family who has lost a child in any circumstances; in particular, a drowning. There is absolutely no doubt that anything the community can do to minimise the inherent risk of a child drowning, particularly in today’s society, should be looked at closely and seriously considered. Where appropriate, the government has the onus to step in and put in place parameters to make that environment safer.
I have my suspicions about the real motivation behind this particular legislation. There is certainly some suspicion about why the Labour government sees this as a significant step in the right direction. There has been a real attempt to politicise the issue a little: that is getting the message out to the community, getting the headlines, sending the media releases to the press, having the secret briefings - massage, massage - getting the Chief Minister to put her mug in the paper, and trying to get the right message out. I am worried that if you are really serious about dealing with the issue, there are a number of other options which should, could and must be considered before we talk about blanket legislation for the Northern Territory.
The demographics of the Territory are such that it is impossible to say that one size fits all. It is impossible to say that one law, which can affect the people living in those various demographics such as metropolitan Darwin, the rural area, stations, remote communities – it is impossible to really have one solution that satisfies all the concerns and problems which are encountered in those small micro-communities.
To the government’s and the minister’s credit, there are a number of exemptions contained in the legislation. It is a two-edged sword in a sense. Having exemptions, of course, complicates to a degree the legislation, but it also goes some way in adjusting the provisions and has a regard to the kaleidoscope of different communities. The example is the fairly significant exemption for people living in my electorate. I can say that that is welcomed. I do oppose the implementation of strict swimming pool legislation, from a Northern Territory government perspective, on the people who live in the Litchfield Shire on their five, 10, 20 and larger acre properties. It really is a matter which falls to be dealt with in that particular area by, of course, the Litchfield Shire Council.
However, credit where credit is due, having regard to the exemptions which have been incorporated into the legislation. There is, effectively, no doubt in my mind that there will be some anomalies and injustices. It is simply too big a task for a centralised government to put into place a piece of legislation which will satisfy all the desires, needs and concerns of the various communities in the Northern Territory. Community government is, of course, closer to the people. Those people in those towns and communities, elect members to council. Those members, before their electorate, of course, articulate the concerns which they say are paramount and they will address. Of course, that is precisely what they do.
You will see that, in some areas in the Northern Territory, there are not any by-laws that govern a number of subject matters and, in other areas it is a little more regulated. In the Litchfield Shire, the shire has a motto of ‘community effort being essential’ and the Litchfield Shire Council rates are significantly less than those of honourable members who live in town and in other parts of the Territory. The Litchfield Shire Council had the vision when it was initially started, to stick to the basics: roads, rubbish and recreation. There are fantastic reserves, good roads always being done up and, of course, the rubbish dumps are being properly dealt with. There are no garbage collection systems. All of this is because this is what the people wanted; this is what they voted their councils into power to enact on their behalf, because council is close to the people, it really has its finger on the pulse. The member for Nelson, in his nearly a decade as the shire President would, I expect, amplify some of the things I just touched upon and confirm those.
Traditionally, the role of local government includes swimming pool registration and licensing. That becomes a two form tradition – it is either the local council that deals with it or it is contained in the building code equivalents across Australia. So legislation for legislation’s sake from a centralised authority does not seem to be the vehicle which many other jurisdictions have used. There are a number of issues which I intend to raise at the committee stage and perhaps the minister who, I could just put on the transcript has left the Chamber during the course of this important piece of legislation …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker. The member is referring to the presence of a member in the Chamber. He has a habit of doing that; he did it yesterday …
Madam SPEAKER: We do not refer to anyone who is not in the Chamber. We should all know that by now.
Mr MALEY: I withdraw that comment that the minister had left the Chamber during the course …
Mr KIELY: Oh Madam Speaker, point of order.
Madam SPEAKER: He withdrew the comment.
Mr MALEY: I withdraw it.
On another slightly different note, the second-reading speech which was delivered in this parliament on 8 October by the Minister for Community Development, contained the inevitable - well, it seems, the two regular method of issue of any Labor party decision: there is the inevitable five- or six-point plan followed by ‘Let us have a committee or a steering committee to decide whether we should have a committee’. In any event, one of the things which is contained in the plan, and is an excellent initiative, is a water awareness program for children under five. It is one of the matters they talked about in the Coronial that I was involved in. It is about education, ultimately. You have to really sheet it home, not only to the children, but also the parents of the children who are at risk, by sending the message that having a child involves remaining ever vigilant and taking responsibility.
From a philosophical perspective it seems that this current generation of Territorians is quickly becoming the most regulated. This current generation of Territorians seems to not enjoy the trust which their parents and grandparents enjoyed. The government is intent on regulating, more and more, every aspect of their lives. If you add up the type of licenses which an average person is required to keep and maintain we have …
Mr Kiely: Fishing licenses - AFANT wants them.
Mr MALEY: I beg your pardon?
Mr Kiely: Fishing licenses. Doesn’t the committee you belong to want that?
Mr MALEY: Well, that is an interesting interjection. If the Labor government intends to introduce fishing licences to the Northern Territory, I will tell you that will be the end of you guys.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order. This is not relevant to the debate.
Mr MALEY: Anyway, I just picked up on that interjection about the plan to introduced fishing licences.
Madam SPEAKER: I know you did. We can do without that.
Mr MALEY: What I am saying is that it is really a matter for local government who are close to the issue. It is about trusting people, local people, to vote in the people into their local government councils who then articulate the issues that are of concern to them. So with that, I can wind up my general comments and look forward to moving into the committee stage where there are some points of clarification I will be taking to the minister and asking him some very specific questions about the legislation.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, as all of the members in the opposition have already said, we support the need for good pool fencing here in the Northern Territory. Nobody says otherwise. It is just the method about which you are doing this.
My personal belief is that Darwin City Council has been doing a reasonably good job of it over the years. I believe they do need more resources and perhaps it was an option for government to resource Darwin City Council adequately so that they could go ahead with better enforcement of the legislation that they have in their by-laws. My personal experience in the last two years is that I have had a house built and put a pool in and had to go through the Darwin City Council process to have my pool registered; and that was not an easy process. Darwin City Council staff had to come around on a number of occasions. They are very vigilant when they know there is a pool being installed in a residence. They were particularly vigilant. I am well aware - I have the Australian Standards here - that the fencing around the pool that I have complies with the current Australian Standards. That was the standard that Darwin City Council was imposing upon me.
There are many, many properties here in Darwin that do comply to the Australian Standard, and I believe Darwin City Council has been doing a good job with that. There are properties more in the older suburbs which may not have adequate pool fencing, and it has been difficult for the council with the resources available to them, to get on top of that issue and have the staff to get out there in the community to enforce their by-laws. However, I believe that the council is the body that is quite capable of doing that difficult task and that the government should be resourcing council to do that. What I believe the government is now introducing with your own unit within the minister’s department, is going to be an extremely expensive process. Looking at the logistics - for example, I understand there are about 17 000 pools here in the Northern Territory - of the minister’s department over the next few years to get out and register those pools is going to be very, very difficult and very expensive for Territory taxpayers.
I would like to thank the minister and his staff for the briefing that I received; it was very beneficial. It has raised some issues that I will explore more in the committee stage, but I certainly learnt a great deal from it and I thank the minister and his staff for that.
Initially, I thought it would be a good thing if the government were able to take on board the registration data from, for example, Darwin City Council, Palmerston City Council, Alice Springs, and use that as a base line from where they kick off. However, I do understand that with the Darwin City Council, for example, that data is not in electronic format. It is in handwritten hard copy format which would make it very difficult for the government to be able to access, which is a shame as it will add to the workload required.
One of the questions I have for the minister is: does registration last forever for the property and does it transfer from one owner to the other without necessarily having to be rechecked? They are the questions that we need to establish. Once you have registered a pool at No 10 Brown Street, is that it? It just goes on ad infinitum for the next 50 years, or is there a regular checking mechanism behind the system?
I would like to thank the minister and his staff for taking on and providing us with an amendment to include the word ‘marina’ in clause 20. As you know, in the electorates of Port Darwin and Drysdale we have marinas and, with the addition of that word ‘marina’ it will put at ease some of the concerns of residents in the marina environments.
With regard to the sale of properties - and this comes back on to the amount of resources the minister’s department is going to need to run this program - as we know here in the Northern Territory, many people change their properties fairly frequently. It would not surprise me if there is an average of five years ownership or something similar on a property here in Darwin as it turns over. People come and go pretty quickly. As has already been mentioned, 30 days is a fairly standard settlement period.
I am concerned about the next six months as - now that we have established what the requirements are as we pass this legislation, as I am sure we will tonight - people over the next few months are going to need to make adjustments to their pool fencing. Some people are going to have major adjustments to make – very expensive costs to them – and, at the same time, because it is Christmas and the end of the year, many people are moving towards selling their property for one reason or another.
How is the minister’s department going to cope with bringing this legislation in on 1 January, enacting it, at the peak time of property changeover here in Darwin? We are going to have some very upset constituents out there as property sales, I suspect, are going to be held up.
In closing with these comments before we go into committee, I do believe that Darwin City Council has been doing a reasonable job, the standard that they require has been more than adequate. They needed a bit more money to provide them with the resources to do that. They had a system that was well set up and it just needed a bit more resourcing.
The new system that is coming in is going to be much more expensive per pool to enforce which will affect Territory taxpayers. Given that the government’s budget is very tight because of the expenses it is facing in many areas, this is an added burden that could have been done more cheaply; if, for example, councils had been given some resources to enable them to do a good job with their work. I applaud the work that I understand the government is going to do with regard to the education of the community on the issue of teaching children to swim, as well as resuscitation skills for parents and carers.
This brings me to the point that many have raised with me. Surprisingly, many of them have been parents of young children. I have had comments over the last 12 months that this has been an issue, from constituents who are very upset at the government move to bring in this legislation. They prefer the status quo and, surprisingly, many people with young children, believe that parents are very much involved in this; the need to be responsible. For example, if I had young children I would certainly make sure that my pool was well and truly fenced and I would probably - in fact I am quite sure - want my whole yard to be well and truly fenced. The way life is now, with traffic and strange people wandering the streets, I would want to know, for my own wellbeing and peace of mind, that my child was well and truly locked in on my premises, without the opportunity to wander down the street to somebody’s swimming pool where the gate of the fence may have inadvertently been left open. I have heard many comments from parents who feel strongly that the onus is on them to be vigilant and responsible in this regard. I would recommend that they fence their yards, as well.
With regard to the standards of pool fencing, if you had perimeter fencing that was well and truly functional with self-closing gates for cars and pedestrians, this would be a good choice for some people. If, for example, you do not have children, you do not need to have such a high level of security for your pool, but you must have a good perimeter fence which works and provide adequate closure. There are places where gates are left open, and that should not be occurring. Things should be based on need, rather than be overly prescriptive.
One of the things I will be interested in pursuing or raising in committee is the difference in the size of blocks. If you are on a block of two hectares or more, you do not have to have a pool fence. Personally, I do not understand why there is this difference. I look forward to hearing that reason. Then again, I quite like the concept of perimeter fencing on normal urban blocks as well, so it will be interesting to hear why two hectares makes that difference. I look forward to hearing from the minister during the committee process.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I support the Swimming Pool Fencing Bill 2002 and …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: I could say something, but I will not. Okay.
I am going to take a public health approach to this. I heard the member for Greatorex begin his speech and his remarks saying that swimming pool fencing is, more or less, one measure that can be taken to reduce swimming pool deaths of young children, but there are others. Then he launched into what he had to say, and a lot of it was technical, detail, raising questions, and trying to pull apart the technical parts.
However, I would just like to start with the big picture. The big picture - the one that you cannot see. This is based on reliable evidence, and I would like to quote from an article in the Medical Journal of Australia published in December 2001 by Dr Karen Edmond, who is probably known to the member for Greatorex as a paediatrician who was, at that time, with Territory Health Services; Dr John Condon from Menzies School of Health Research who is an epidemiologist; as well as researchers from the Centre of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of Newcastle. I will quote:
- In Australia, childhood drownings are second only to road trauma as a cause of injury and death in children
younger than 15 years. Encouragingly, the overall incidence of childhood drowning in Australia appears to be
decreasing. However, drowning death rates are higher in the Northern Territory than the rest of Australia.
In this same article, according to these authors, the average annual incidence of drowning and near-drowning between 1994 and 1997 for children aged 0 to 4 years in the Northern Territory, was 67.82 per 100 000. This was significantly higher than for Australia as a whole, which was 24.45 per 100 000. So, if the member for Greatorex wants to do his sum, it is a difference of about two-and-a-half times. That is very, very significant. Why is that? I guess you could put forward a whole range of reasons, but I would like to move through the public health argument. In this article, the authors further state in their discussion that:
- Rates in the Northern Territory are amongst the highest recorded world-wide.
I will say it again: ‘Rates in the Northern Territory …’, this is of drowning in this age group, ‘… are amongst the highest recorded world-wide’. They also state that:
- All the Northern Territory swimming pool drowning deaths reported in this study occurred in pools with
non-Australian Standard fencing …
So, there are some fairly clear statements about the level of drownings in the Northern Territory and also, specifically, about drownings associated with swimming pools.
In the same edition of the Medical Journal of Australia, an editorial piece written by Dr Robert Pitt, Queensland paediatrician, and Dr Danny Cass, who is director of trauma at Westmead, states:
Child-resistant fencing … the pool with access limited by self-closing gates has a protective effect. Queensland
and New South Wales introduced uniform pool fencing legislation in the early 1990s and the current pool drowning
rate, although still high, is less than half the pre-fencing rate.
That is a very positive measure. I will say it again: ‘Queensland and New South Wales introduced uniformed pool fencing legislation in the early 1990s and the current pool drowning rate, although still high, is less than half the pre-fencing rate’.
So, we have a major and tragic problem relating to childhood drowning that stands out over double the Australian average - indeed, amongst the highest in the world. We also have compelling and reliable evidence that pool fencing can effectively and significantly reduce childhood drowning, although it is not the only one, as a member for Greatorex pointed out. This is why this government is taking action in relation to pool fencing and water safety.
I notice the Leader of the Opposition and others have talked about the role of councils and, yes, I commend the Palmerston City Council and the Alice Springs Town Council for taking action. But it appeared to me, and to a lot of others and most people, that the Darwin City Council - I guess which is for the major population centre in the Territory - was paralysed on this issue; they could not move forward. They were asked to move forward, and yet they could not move forward.
Also, it interests me that, as has probably been said earlier in this debate, when the member for Greatorex was an alderman on the Alice Springs Town Council it appears to me that he was a champion for pool fencing. Yet, now we have all this equivocation. It is hard to really know where he stands. I would ask the member for Greatorex to reflect, sometime when he has a few moments by himself out of the public limelight and not on the floor of parliament: what has actually happened to your views between 23 September 1991 and 2002? What has happened in that intervening decade that you were such a positive advocate for pool fencing, and now you are just equivocating? It is really hard to know where you are right now, and I am a little disappointed in that. Maybe you should be applying the mirror test to yourself.
This legislation is supported by a number of measures to improve water safety for children in the Northern Territory, namely: firstly, introduction of uniform swimming pool fencing legislation throughout the Northern Territory, which is what we are considering here; an early registration scheme with a cash bonus; interest-free five-year loan to help upgrades; a government-funded water awareness program for children under five; and the establishment of a Water Safety Advisory Council to advise government on broader water safety issues.
This legislation and the issue of childhood drowning has sparked a great deal of debate in our community. Indeed, as I have doorknocked my electorate, a number of constituents have raised the issue with me, in a variety of ways. I would just like to outline the four main areas that people have raised. Firstly, mostly in relation to the safety of their own pool. Often, people say: ‘I have tight security on my pool. I have perimeter fencing. I no longer have children. Why should it be a problem?’ Well, I guess if it was not a problem, there would not be the incidence, if you like, of childhood drowning in the Northern Territory. Others have raised issues related to a perceived loss of amenity of their pool or spa areas through fencing. I appreciate that argument. Still others have raised the issue of parental discipline and responsibility. That is a very important issue, but we, as a community and a parliament, have a responsibility even to those children whose parents might be to some extent, negligent and not properly looking after their interests. We have to look after the interests of those children too. And others raised the issue of cost.
All of these are important issues and, as the legislation has developed, I have made a special point of making sure these concerns – the concerns of my constituents, the voters of Johnston - were a major part of the deliberation, so that they were fed into the decision-making process and addressed. I believe that these concerns have been addressed in the legislation before us today. It is a fact of life; we are not going to make everyone happy by this legislation. There are going to be some people who are going to be unhappy with it for whatever reason. The thing I am picking up from the community is that, mostly, people are happy with the way things have happened. Even people who may have been diametrically opposed to it at one stage, because of the way that this government has approached the issue, are now quite satisfied with the process, and they have given our government a lot of plaudits along the way.
Barring some exceptions in large rural size blocks and for some above ground pools, swimming pools in the Territory will need to be registered. This will be at no cost to owners of existing pools and spas. In the case of investment properties, the landlord will need to bring the fencing up to the Australian Standard with a change of tenants. In the case of other pool owners, the requirement to bring the fencing up to the Australian Standard only occurs when the property is sold. I believe that the support package developed by the government through the early registration incentive scheme, or ERIS, is generous and it will encourage pool owners to bring their pool up to the Australian Standards. There will be information offered to the public in the media and through the pool fencing information line. The formation of the Water Safety Advisory Council is another important step, particularly support for swimming lessons for children under five.
This whole issue of pool safety and swimming pool fencing is an important issue. I believe the government has effectively addressed a serious public health issue. Before closing, I compliment the minister because, I believe, in overseeing the process he has tried to address a lot of those concerns. He is bringing forward, I believe, very sensible legislation. Let us face it, members opposite have also said: ‘We have a big Territory, it is not all the same, it varies from place to place’. We have tried to accommodate those differences. We have tried to accommodate the concerns that are being put forward to us by the community and, at the end of the day, the minister, in future, in retirement, or in his future life - I am not saying he is retiring in the near future - will be able to look back on his political career and look at this legislation and know that this legislation saved lives. Let us not beat about the bush here. When the member for Greatorex started off with: ‘What is the definition of this and what is the definition of that?’, I interjected. I said: ‘Well, what is the definition of death?’ What is the cost of a child’s life? I believe the minister, if he looked back on his political career, and even now, he can be proud, he can be assured that this legislation will save toddlers’ lives.
Just to finish off, I would like to give a quote. It is from a favourite book of mine by Don Watson. It is actually a favourite book of a lot of people at present. It is Book of the Year, and is a portrait of Paul Keating, and it is called Recollections of a Bleeding Heart. We should bear this in mind when we move into the committee stage, when we start getting into the technicalities and the arguments about the technicality; He says on page 476:
- In the political culture, there are people of energy, imagination and enlightenment. And yet more often, you hear
the voice of those for whom life is a tragic negative, an endless repetition of cynical laughs and groans. It shows
in the empty, tortuous language such as ‘You will be advised in terms of the outcome in due course’ or in the time it
took to do something.
Madam Speaker, I am proud that our government is doing something because, if our government was not here, and the other side was there, nothing would be done. We are doing it. This is a government of energy, imagination and enlightenment. It is up to the opposition in this committee stage to show that they are constructive, and not just a mob of people for whom life is a tragic negative and an endless repetition of cynical laughs and groans.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Speaker, I will briefly speak on the matter of pool fencing in the Northern Territory. I have made some notes while I listened to everyone debate this issue and I keep coming back to the fact that the member for Johnston eloquently summarised. What is the issue that we are talking about? It seems to me that the main drift coming from the opposition is that it is about lifestyle. The issue of lifestyle, in this instance, I have no problem with but the lifestyle issues surrounding pool fencing has many different meanings. I would argue that the issue of lifestyle in this case is the value of one person’s life being saved.
That is what we are talking about; that is what we are discussing here today. The semantics about the legislation and the mechanics of it - that is fine; I have no problems with people addressing the mechanics of the legislation, how it is going to be performed, and the particular points raised today by different members. What I do have, though, is difficulty with politicising what this issue is. The issue is very simple. For a very long period of time in the Northern Territory people have drowned unnecessarily due to safety issues surrounding swimming pools.
The Martin Labor government has come in and has taken on an issue that has not been addressed properly in the past by CLP governments. We have said we are going to attempt to satisfy the needs of the community, and incorporate people’s lifestyles, where they know they can still enjoy the use of their swimming pools but, at the same time, minimise the damage of deaths - and not necessarily deaths, but certainly other injuries occurring in swimming pools.
I am proud to support this bill today. I listened to some of the issues raised by different members of the opposition. It came across again and again, a major theme coming out - after 26 years of being in power, on a variety of issues that we have heard this year: that the CLP government in the last days of their reign were tired, lazy and they lacked vision, and they did not want to accept the hard issues. It was all about: ‘Well, we have identified the difficult things, the areas that are going to be controversial in the Northern Territory, and we do not want to address those because we want to get elected again’.
This issue has been attacked in a very sensitive way, but also in a very imaginative way. This document here that we have seen today called Water Safety and Swimming Pools - I have had the opportunity to read this in the last couple of days and it is brilliant. I will be mailing this out to every swimming pool owner in my area. When I say I will be mailing this to every swimming pool owner in my area, I will be also visiting them and giving them this document. I will be saying to them: this perfectly illustrates what pool fencing is all about, and in particular, the five-point water safety plan.
I will run through the five points: the introduction of the uniform swimming pool fencing legislation throughout the Northern Territory; early registration incentive scheme with a cash bonus; interest-free five-year loans to help fund upgrades; a government subsidised water awareness program of children under five; and the establishment of a Water Safety Advisory Council to advise government on broader water safety issues.
Now, I will run through some of those points. The introduction of a uniform swimming pool fencing legislation throughout the Northern, yes, this is a first attempt. We believe in the regime that we are introducing. If concerns are raised by the opposition or Independent members, or other community members, we will address those. However, at the moment we believe in this legislation, and we are supporting it 100%.
The early registration incentive scheme with cash bonus is to address the issues people in financial difficulty, and this is a fantastic idea. I have been sitting in members’ meetings when we have discussed this issue of how we are going to address this for people who are in difficult financial circumstances. This was overwhelmingly supported by every member and I am proud to say that it has been incorporated in the legislation.
Interest-free five-year loans to help fund upgrades is another initiative designed to support people in hardship, remembering, of course, that people in financial difficulty are the exception. The majority of people who own pools and spas are in a financially strong position - not everyone, but certainly many of them. We have identified that there are those who are in a difficult financial existence, and we will give them support.
What I do not understand is the arguments of the members for Greatorex, Port Darwin and Goyder. They drag in issues that say: ‘You are attacking people’s lifestyles and their rights to enjoy the way they live’. But we are not. What we are saying is we all respect pool owners and their opportunity to enjoy the amenities that they have in their homes. However, we are not making a political issue out of it. We understand that certain members of the opposition want to drag it out and make it a big issue and possibly drag this on and on and on and, hopefully, get some votes out of it. We do not want to deal with that. The reality is we are introducing pool legislation to help minimise injuries to people through accidents involving pools.
The other important initiative that have undertaken is, of course - and it has been identified in this House - is that this is not the only way to address drownings or other serious injuries caused by swimming pools. What we have identified is a government subsidy for a water awareness program for children under five. This is a fantastic initiative, and there will be many, many parents who will take advantage of this opportunity. We have seen the ads with the famous - is it Johnny Lawrence, the swimming pool …
Dr Burns: Laurie Lawrence.
Mr BONSON: Laurie Lawrence. I have seen him on TV many different times talking about the idea of training people to swim from an early age. This was an important initiative to ensure that people do not suffer through drowning or serious injuries caused by swimming pool and spa accidents. I am very proud that the government subsidised a water awareness program for children under five, and I look forward to it working.
The establishment of a Water Safety Advisory Council to advise government on broader water safety issues. Again, this shows that the Northern Territory Labor government under Clare Martin, is willing to listen to other bodies, and set up other bodies that will advise the minister and this government on directions to take in the future. I look forward to finding out what their advice will be over a period of time.
In regard to registration - and I will not keep members in this House for much longer - of swimming pools and spas, we know it is estimated there is approximately 17 000 to 18 000 swimming pools and spas in the Northern Territory. However, from the 1 January 2002, all new swimming pools will be required to register and be fenced to comply with the relevant Australian Standards. All existing swimming pool owners will be required to register their swimming pools with the inspectorate within 18 months from the 1 January 2003. So, we are giving people a period of time, which is 18 months, to ensure that their pools are properly registered. The application process will be straightforward and there will be no cost to register for existing swimming pools and spas. The word that we want to get out there is ‘straightforward’. A lot of time and effort has been put in by many public servants and, certainly the government, to come up with the plan that was understandable and quite easily accessed. I consider we have made a fantastic effort.
Finally, I want to put on record the information line. A pool fencing information line has been established. The number is 1300 301 059. The information line operates from 8.30 am to 4.30 pm, Monday to Friday, the cost of a local call from anywhere in the Northern Territory, normal charges apply if using a mobile phone. Over 500 calls have been received since this line was establish.
When this issue was first raised, we heard a deafening silence from the opposition. This was at the time when emotions were obviously running quite high because of a number of sad events. However, we took action.
I remember sitting down at the markets and people coming up to me who were swimming pool owners. They were in fear of what was coming. When we explained to them that no decisions had been made, but we were looking a broad range of possible ways of dealing with this matter, people calmed down and they were willing to wait and see. Now, we have produced a document …
Dr Burns: I calmed a few down myself.
Mr BONSON: Yes, you have calmed a few down yourself. Certainly, Chris Burns had one guy who was actually going to move into his electorate and vote for him.
Dr Burns: That is right.
Mr BONSON: Well, that is a personal joke between me and the member for Johnston.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I will wrap this up because I know it has been a long and drawn-out debate. I want to put on record that I am disgusted at the way that some people have handled this issue by making it a political issue. This should be an issue about lifestyles, yes, but it is about minimising the number of deaths. Deal with the mechanics of the legislation. If you have anything that is relevant, I am sure the minister will pick this up and address it in the proper manner.
Mr AH KIT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for their contributions. In the main, the comments have been quite positive and very supportive. There were some very sobering moments.
The member for Drysdale mentioned in his comments that the opposition had a right to be concerned, critical commentators. I accept that, and I certainly hope that that is the spirit in which we will go to the committee stages. It will be a challenge, shortly, to try and paint the bigger picture for members of the opposition and the member for Nelson, in that this legislation has uniformity, it is about common sense, it has flexibility, and it is conforming to the Australian Standards.
All members, no doubt, acknowledge the terrible tragedy of pool drownings. There is tragic loss of life, very frequently this is the death of a toddler. There is terrible trauma for other family members. There is also the incidence of permanent injury among survivors through oxygen deprivation. The incidence of drowning in the Northern Territory is the worst in Australia and we just heard my colleague, Dr Burns, the Minister for Tourism, quote from the Medical Journal of Australia that it is the worst in the world. That type of reputation is not something that we can be proud of.
At the same time, we also have the weakest regime in regard to pool fencing. This unacceptable and tragic situation has continued well after other states have moved to adopt the established Australian Standards in this area. This bill is designed to provide time for parents and other carers. As the member for Sanderson commented in his contribution to this debate, the legislative requirement for childhood restraints in cars cannot totally eliminate the incidence of child deaths in car accidents. The legislation alone cannot totally eliminate the tragedy of child drownings, but it is a step that this Assembly must take.
I would like to pick up on some of the points raised by members during their contributions to the second-reading debate. All of these points have been covered by my colleagues; I will just reiterate on a couple of the points that seem to crop up. Some members indicated that they wanted fencing to apply to all pools regardless of the size of the block. This was certainly a strong point raised by the member for Greatorex in his contribution to the debate. The member for Nelson supported this position. I do not think it is a position that the member for Goyder supports. The fact is that, at some point, a decision needs to be made concerning the relative risk. The government has considered these issues and been convinced by the argument that two hectare and above should not be covered. Many of our rural blocks have dams, flooding creeks and other hazards. The two hectare block was taken as the most practical demarcation.
The member for Greatorex claimed that this legislation would weaken current council regimes. This is clearly not the case. I would have expected a better analysis from the member who purports to be the shadow minister in this important area. The member for Greatorex has also claimed that he could not find where the legislation required registration prior to construction of a new pool. He should read clause 10. This is yet another demonstration of his inadequate analysis and lack of understanding of this vital legislation. The member for Greatorex also started to talk about splasher pools and similar. Under the Australian Standards, a pool that is left in place with 300 mm of water is a drowning hazard. We want people to be responsible with these pools. If they are supervised while in use, emptied after use and stored appropriately, there should not be any problem. The same standard applies in other states.
The members for Greatorex and Nelson both claimed that local government should carry this legislation.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I did not state that local government should have carriage of this.
Madam SPEAKER: If I can just say that it is very hard for me to, in fact, determine what you said and what you did not. But you can explain that later if you wish to through an explanation speech.
Mr AH KIT: The government disagrees, and so did the most vigorous analysis of this issue. carried out by a working group of LGANT, Kidsafe and NT government agencies following the five tragic drownings in 1996. That working group recommended uniform, Territory-wide legislation administered by the Northern Territory government. I want to come back to LGANT, because all members of this House should understand what LGANT is - it is the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory - and its membership. All councils are represented on LGANT.
The member for Nelson raised an issue in regard to mesh covers on spas. He has also raised this in briefings on this legislation. I understand the point the honourable member is making. We have looked at this carefully, and our advice is that the attempt to define in this way will cause more problems than it will solve. However, I assure the member that mesh covers can be solid.
The member for Nelson also raised the matter of exemptions to Crown land in the matter of various caretakers and other officers who might live on that land. The exemption of the Crown is a normal provision in such legislation, intended to ensure that the legislation does not have any unintended consequences; for example, a requirement to fence boundaries of Manton Dam and Darwin River Dam. Obviously, in every case the member for Nelson raised, the permission of the land owner is required before any structure is put in place. The competent authority in each case will be aware of this legislation and its intent, and I have no doubt they will ensure that all pools will be fenced.
The legislation will introduce uniform standards throughout the Northern Territory for the first time. The legislation does this in a very measured way that will facilitate the community adopting the standards. The legislation provides a generous cash rebate to assist current pool owners upgrade to the Australian Standards. The legislation also provides for interest-free loans to assist owner occupiers to upgrade to the Australian Standards.
The legislation also provides a generous extended period for current pool owners to register their pool. At the choice of the pool owner, the legislation permits an owner occupier to only upgrade the pool at the time of sale of the property. Investment properties will be required to upgrade the pool at change of tenancy. Given the comparatively high rate of property transactions in the Territory, these provisions, combined with a generous cash rebate, are expected to result in the full adoption of Australian Standards over time. The legislation provides a greater amount of flexibility in regard to the registration of pools located in non-standard situations. The legislation provides for two levels of appeal against decisions that are made. It must be said that the legislation provides a great amount of flexibility, generous assistance for current pool owners, and is a long overdue move to adopt the Australian Standards in this area. I believe all members support the objectives of this legislation.
Despite this general level of support, some members have made comments in regard to specific provisions of the bill. In general, these comments amount to quibbling about the detail of the legislation, not its overall thrust. Some of these comments are simply based on poor information. The member for Nelson has commented on what he claims is unnecessary complication in the bill in regard to the registration process.
Three councils have advised my department that they are unable to readily provide a certain listing of swimming pools that are currently registered in their council areas. It is essential that the number of swimming pools currently installed at small premises and the standard of any swimming pool barrier surrounding the pool, is known with precision. There would be potential for legal action if a property transfer was prevented with an inappropriate statutory restriction placed on the title as a result of a mistake arising from a council record. The gaps and uncertainty in some council records is a major issue that needs to be addressed by this legislation.
The member for Nelson’s proposed amendments would seriously diminish the good outcomes that this legislation will deliver, and the government will not support them. Government has considered these issues in great detail. We recognised that this legislation requires adequate resourcing to be effective. It is estimated that there are about 18 000 pools in the Northern Territory. There is an average of about 450 property transactions per month. The government appreciates the workload that is involved, and that property transactions should not be slowed down by this important piece of legislation. In addition, the member for Nelson should consider the additional administrative and legal burden that his proposals will place on the real estate industry. I can assure the member for Nelson that, in our consultation with the industry, this additional administrative burden is not one that the real estate industry wants to inherit.
Madam Speaker, I will conclude by saying that this is good legislation. It addresses a very serious issue and it does it in a well-balanced manner. The balance that has been achieved in this bill has been reflected in the public commentary since the announcement of the government’s five-point water safety package. I thank honourable members for their comments in support of the bill.
Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.
In committee:
Swimming Pool Fencing Bill (Serial 106):
Clauses 1 and 2, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 3:
Dr LIM: In regard to clause 3, minister, you heard the member for Nelson ask earlier what happens to properties that are under the ownership of the Crown, statutory corporation, council, or the Jabiru Town Development Authority. I recalled that the Alice Springs Town Council did own a house that was occupied by the then Town Clerk. I know that house is sold now; but in the event that that occurs again, and that house has a swimming pool, where does that come into it? Does it apply that, because the council owns that house, it is on council-owned property, therefore the swimming pool is exempted?
Mr AH KIT: It is a property of the council and, therefore, it is exempt.
Dr LIM: Well, minister, if that is the case, then really it is inconsistent. It is a standard house, in a residential area, on a normal block that is 800 m2 to 1400 m2. It is a small premises, therefore, everybody else has to have their pool fenced with an appropriate fence, according to your legislation. From your answer, the town council does not have to put an appropriate, complying fence, around the pool where the Town Clerk resides.
Mr AH KIT: What I said in my second-reading reply was that this is about common sense and responsibility.
Dr Lim: Precisely.
Mr AH KIT: Precisely. What I will also say is that, if you are genuine about these concerns you raise as we go through the committee stages, that is fine. But if you want to nitpick and play funny buggers, then we do not know where you are standing. We have a situation, in this case, where we say under clause 3 that if it is exempt, then that is what is applicable. As I said earlier, the member for Nelson also raised the matter of exemptions to Crown land, and the matter of various caretakers and other officers who might live on that land. The exemption of the Crown is a normal provision in such legislation, intended to ensure that the legislation does not have any unintended consequences; for example, a requirement to fence boundaries of Manton Dam and Darwin River Dam.
Now, one would think, with the example that you just gave with the Alice Springs Town Council, that they would have a fair amount of responsibility about themselves in respect to what they have done with regard to their by-laws, and that they would be responsible enough to ensure that pool has a fence around it, conforming to the requirements of the bill that we are introducing here this afternoon.
Dr LIM: Obviously, the minister does not appreciate the necessity to be uniform with this legislation. A house in the suburbs is a house, no matter how you define it. A swimming pool in a backyard is a swimming pool, whether the house belongs to the council, me, or to you. Now, under your legislation you have to fence it, I have to fence it, but the council is exempt.
I live next door to the town council house; my child and your child is at risk in that pool. But you say to the council: ‘Don’t worry about it, you are exempt’. Now, can you see the inconsistency that you are creating, minister: whereas I have to fence my pool so that the Town Clerk’s child does not drown in my pool; and you have to fence your pool so that the Town Clerk’s child does not drown in your pool. Now, where is the consistency there?
Mr AH KIT: The question of public liability issues - and you raised this the other day in the briefing - would be a consideration that the government or a council would have to take into account if it gave permission to allow swimming pools in these situations. Therefore, liability for these matters rests with the government or the council, as the case may be.
In the example you are using: are you telling me that the Alice Springs Town Council is going to be irresponsible in respect of the public liability commitments that they would have in regards to an employee who is living in one of their houses that has a pool in the backyard? I think not.
Dr LIM: Minister, I am not asking whether the council is responsible or not responsible. I am saying you are establishing a set of laws where all parties should be equal under the law. You are saying now: ‘We will let the council, a trustworthy organisation who is responsible, to fence a pool according to its desires. However, you, Mr Citizen, you are irresponsible, we have to make you do it under this law’. I cannot see the equity in that - hang on, let me finish. You are talking about swimming pools and the need to provide protection for our children. This is about saving lives, not about public liability; not about how much money I can get for the child that I have lost. That is not the issue; the issue is about saving lives. Yet, here you are saying to me that the town council does not have to fence its pool. You have not convinced me so far, minister, that this legislation is appropriate.
Ms MARTIN: The issue here, member for Greatorex, is the fact that you have to have that uniformity. If it was going to apply to the Crown or, equally to local government, then we would have to fence Lake Alexander, and potentially, Manton Dam. That is why that clause 3 is there. The issue of public liability very clearly, if in that circumstance a council house had a pool, would be addressed. But this is to do with uniformity.
Mr WOOD: Look, that was the bit that confused me. I have a difficulty with that, when you stated that you would have to fence off Manton Dam. One is, it is a large premises, and two, I thought there was an exemption for creeks and dams anyway. So, really we are talking about pools, because that has always been the argument. I can give you an example. Say, the caretakers house at Manton Dam - it is a separate piece of land that is only a quarter of an acre, and he has a pool there. I know what you are saying about the government would be up for public liability, but I wonder whether anyone else would be up for public liability, in theory, if I was careless with my pool at home and did not fence it.
Someone could argue that I have left a pool at my place not adequately protected and the ordinary person may be up for public liability. I thought that for uniformity, it shows the government is in step with its own concepts and philosophy. That would be important, because you could send out the wrong message. You might not do it in practice but to show it in the act, it appears as though we are telling everybody else out there, but we are not including ourselves in that legislation. That is probably my concern.
Mr AH KIT: I want to come back to the point that was raised by the member for Greatorex. If he is addressing the fact that if we are bringing in one law, it is for everyone. So do I take that, and understand that to be what you echoed earlier, in that swimming pool fencing legislation should be applicable to all blocks that are more than two hectares in size, and this applies to cattle stations etcetera?
Mr DUNHAM: Only if you want to use the word ‘uniformity’. Only if you want to say ‘uniform’, which is what ...
Mr WOOD: Minister, it can be uniform under the small premises part of your act. That is what I am saying. We could argue the exemptions are not the exemptions. But the area that swimming pools are not exempt is under the small premises section. So if the government owns a house that fits that criteria, isn’t it saying here that they are exempt from what everyone else in small premises is required to do? That is the non-uniformity, you might say, of what you have done.
Dr LIM: The point I am making is just reinforcing what the member for Nelson just said. The minister has written in clause 3 about the council and other statutory bodies, including the Crown. I am asking them to stay specific with this; explain how you can deal with single residences, in small premises, with a swimming pool, that does not have to be fenced. How can you say that to a council and statutory body, yet you say a different thing to you and I?
Mr AH KIT: Member for Greatorex, can I inform you and the member for Nelson, that this is a provision to cater for situations where an inconsistency arises. It is a standard provision.
Mr Dunham: Oh, Manton Dam?
Mr AH KIT: It is a standard provision in respect of the exemptions; in this case, the Crown land.
Mr BALDWIN: Just to clarify that, does the exemption apply to all government employee housing throughout the Northern Territory?
Mr AH KIT: I am advised only if it is on Crown land.
Mr BALDWIN: Just following that point, all government employee housing that is owned by the government, therefore it is Crown land, is then exempt. Is that correct?
Mr AH KIT: It is, but there would be an expectation of government and by myself as minister that, as I said just a while ago, those departments, government employees, CEOs, ministers, would all understand the intent of this legislation and will need to comply. It is not in their interest to have pools on government housing blocks wherever in the Northern Territory that do not comply with our own legislation. It stands to reason; it is common sense.
Mr BALDWIN: So, in finishing my point on this matter, you have clarified that government owned employee housing is exempt by law under this proposal, and you also said that this is uniform legislation. So I ask you, minister: do you believe that the uniformity exists if you are asking the public to fence their pool under two hectares, but the government does not have to?
Mr AH KIT: Uniformity in this regard, which is really important …
Mr Baldwin: By law?
Mr AH KIT: Hang on. Uniformity is about bringing in this bill to create a law that will apply to those 18 000 swimming pools in the Northern Territory. Now, what you are looking for is uniformity in how the details apply, and that is not what you are going to receive. What you have to understand is you blokes did nothing, nothing at all. We said we were going to do this. The Chief Minister made her announcement and we are moving forward. We are now in a situation where we have heard speakers opposite talk about the intent on this legislation. They do not have any problems with that.
So, we are moving down that path, but the uniformity is there, and is, I thought, explicit in that there is no common uniform legislation that is applicable throughout the Northern Territory. You understand that Palmerston has a different regime, Alice Springs Town Council has a different regime, that Darwin has a different regime, that Katherine and Tennant Creek do not have any regimes. So uniformity, fellas, if you can get educated, is in the sense of doing something and bringing in legislation that everyone has to comply with.
Dr LIM: I want to stick to the issue. You are also the Minister for Housing. There is a swimming pool on Territory Housing premises in the suburbs. The same pool is on Crown land. Can you explain whether that swimming pool has to be fenced? Can you please explain whether the swimming pool in the Territory Housing block has to be fenced?
Mr AH KIT: In response to your question, member for Greatorex, under clause 3(1):
- This act does not apply to or in relation to a swimming pool that is situated on an area of land that is occupied
by the Crown, a statutory corporation, a council, the Jabiru Town Development Authority.
I ask the member for Greatorex: if you wish this to apply to council property, where is your amendment?
Mr Dunham: He is merely clarifying what the story is.
Dr LIM: Where is my amendment? No, no, no, no …
Mr AH KIT: Where is your amendment? Do you want this? Do you want this to apply to council?
Dr LIM: I will answer your question second if you like.
Mr AH KIT: Because if you do, I put it to you, put an amendment. Because you can go down in history as the member for Greatorex, wanting to have this made applicable to the Alice Springs Town Council. And they will love you forever.
Mr Dunham: We just assumed uniform meant everybody, mate. We are now finding out that half the people do not have to do it.
Mr WOOD: Minister, I understand what you said. What harm would it do if it was not there? I would qualify also, what you previously said. This was raised at the briefing and, I suppose, we got an answer that basically said it should be there. I thought maybe it is there because of some uniform requirement in every act for it to be there. Obviously, from listening today, I do not know whether that is the case, and that is why it is being questioned now. So I simply ask: if it was not in the act, what difference would it make?
Mr AH KIT: I explained it before …
Mr WOOD: Uh, uh.
Mr AH KIT: … and I pointed out that under clause 3(2) in regards to the application of the act, is the usual provision to cater for situations where an inconsistency arises. That is my explanation to you. Right? It is a standard provision.
Mr DUNHAM: Plenty of acts bind the Crown. Lots of acts bind the Crown.
Mr AH KIT: I beg your pardon?
Mr DUNHAM: Plenty of acts bind the Crown, and this should too.
Mr AH KIT: You are a bit hard to understand.
Mr MALEY: Minister, it is disgraceful that you can pass legislation binding every other corporate entity and human being in the Northern Territory but, for some reason, you have exempted yourself being the Crown. It is disgraceful that you impose obligations upon the ordinary citizens and yet provide a specific exemption for you. Then, in the same breath you say: ‘Oh, no need to include the Crown because, within the spirit of the legislation, they will comply’. Well, that is simply not good enough. It goes against the trend, and it really is the hallmark of some sort of tyranny.
This act should bind the Crown and, if you are quite genuinely of the belief that the Crown is going to comply in those limited situations, then why isn’t the Crown bound by the very specific terms of this legislation? What you are doing here is really saying: ‘Do what I say, not do what I do’.
Ms MARTIN: This clause 3 of the act is a general section in all acts that we have dealt with. What I can say is that any occupant who was in such a house - take Housing Commission; there are very few pools, as we understand, in Housing Commission houses. But …
Mr DUNHAM: No, not under your definition there aren’t. There are lots.
Ms MARTIN: Just listen. An occupant would need to seek permission from the Crown or council, to be able to install a pool. That permission would not be given unless that pool fence was up to Australian Standards. It would not be given. So that is an absolute assurance from this government, and that is what will happen.
Dr LIM: Well, Chief Minister, let me say to you that I can be in a Territory Housing home in the suburbs, and I can go down to the supermarket and buy myself a blow-up, you-beaut vinyl wading pool that is 400 mm deep and 5 m2 in area for my backyard. I do not have to have permission from Territory Housing - I do not. Do I have to put a fence around that, because it is deeper that 300 mm of water? The minister has not been able to answer that question at all before, and I ask him to respond to that now. Do we have to do it?
Mr AH KIT: You did not ask me that question before.
Dr LIM: I asked: Territory Housing!
Mr AH KIT: .You did not give an explanation of the pool that you bought at K-Mart or Woolworths or wherever you got the best price.
Mr Dunham: It is your act!
Dr Lim: It does not matter what type of pool it is; whatever pool you get. Whatever pool it is, it does not matter.
Mr AH KIT: Well, I would have answered the question if you had asked me, but you did not ask me. So you have a pool. You went down to K-Mart, Big W or Woolworths – I have been able to get at some of these and have a look at them.
Dr Lim: Yes, I have read those brochures too, and I know what you are talking about.
Mr AH KIT: Hang on, and you will get your answer. I thought we would discuss this when we got to it through the committee stages, but we might as well deal with it now.
Dr Lim: We are in the committee stages now.
Mr AH KIT: Yes. As we work through the bill. Still stuck on clause 3.
Dr Lim: We are working through the bill. I am referring to the third one.
Mr AH KIT: Anyway, if you purchased a pool from either of those places - and I have to point out to you we recommend that you contact your local council for swimming pool safety fencing regulations. On the next one, it has …
Dr Lim: Same thing.
Mr Dunham: How deep is it, mate?
Mr AH KIT: Hang on, we will come to that. They all refer to getting in touch with your local council for rules and regulations on all large pools before filling. ‘Check with your local water authority’. So it is written there.
What you have is a situation, if the pool is above 300 mm and it is holding 300 mm of water - right? - then that is a pool. That is classified as a pool if it holds more than 300 mm of water. So, if you were in a Housing Commission house and you use that for yourself or your children, then one would expect, to take away the potential dangers of drowning, that you would empty that out, store it away, put it in a safe place and use it whenever your kids want to have a bit of a wade in the pool again.
If it is bigger than that, then you have complications. I would expect that - and we would expect - responsibility comes to the fore and the same thing would happen. If, however, your pool was starting to get up a bit higher and it had a pump and filter and all the rest of the equipment of the bigger pools and inground pools, then you would have to have that fenced. That is what we are proposing here in the law. I would think that anyone who is leaving their small wading pool out, which has 300 mm in it or more depth, would be highly irresponsible …
Mr Dunham: But it is not against the law. They may be irresponsible, but it is not against the law. It does not offend your act.
Mr AH KIT: It is! It says here it is against the law if it is holding water - more than 300 mm of water - it is classified as a pool.
Mr DUNHAM: But it is on an exempt property, you goose. Of course, it is a pool; we know it is a pool. It is on an exempt property. We know it is a pool; we are just asking you why it is allowed to be there.
Mr AH KIT: Well, I am getting confused. One is talking about Housing Commission houses and another one is talking about Crown land. Maybe if we can get some direct communication and questions and answers, it will allay the confusion. The exemption only applies to those premises occupied by the Crown.
Dr LIM: Minister, let me just give an example of the by-laws that have a higher standard than your legislation has. The Alice Springs Town Council by-laws on private swimming pools, clause 2, Crown to be bound: ‘These by-laws bind the Crown in the right of the Territory’. A similar thing applies in the Darwin City Council by-laws.
Notwithstanding all that, minister, will you take this amendment, if I put it to you, for clause 3? I will read the whole amendment to you:
- Notwithstanding anything contained in (1), this act does apply to swimming pools on property that is occupied by
the Crown, a statutory corporation, a council or the Jabiru Town Development Authority where that property is
solely used as a residential building.
Dr LIM: Yes, I can give you a copy of that.
Mr AH KIT: If that copy can be made available, then I will give it due consideration.
Dr LIM: Well, can we defer this until we make a decision? Or would you like to wait until …
Mr AH KIT: Yes, can we come back to it?
Consideration of clause 3 postponed.
Clause 4:
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 29.1 which amends the definition of ‘residential building’ in clause 4. The amendment is necessary to make it quite clear for the purposes of this act, the building referred to is a building that is solely or principally used for residential purposes; that is, the building is the principal place of residence of the person or persons. It is not intended that the proposed legislation would apply to swimming pools situated at commercial properties such as hotels, motels or backpacker accommodation.
The amendment now makes it quite clear that the legislation does not apply to hotels and motels, but could apply to backpacker accommodation or bed and breakfast accommodation where the owner of the premises lives on the premises; that is, where the premises are their principal place of residence. The amendment became necessary when it was found that the Macquarie Dictionary defines ‘residential’ as including ‘(of a hotel etc) catering for guests who stay permanently or for extended periods’. It was considered, therefore, that the original definition of ‘residential buildings’ would not exclude hotels and motels from the application of the proposed act. Therefore, we are required to amend the definition to definitely exclude hotels and motels from the application of the act.
Dr LIM: I know of a block of 15 units owned by one owner, who rents it out on short-term, one week to one month occupancy, that has a swimming pool for the use of the occupants. It is not a house; it is a block of units, of 15 separate apartments. It is rented out on a commercial basis from one week, to one month, to three months duration. It has a swimming pool. It occupies a cul-de-sac in one of the suburbs. Is that block of units exempted?
Mr AH KIT: Member for Greatorex, the words say what they mean. If you have a different interpretation, and you want to go fishing for that, then you are quite entitled to do that. I will, if you wish, endeavour to get back to you shortly, once I seek a little more advice. But I have to be open and honest, I suppose, in saying that the drafting, the words of this bill, and the intent, I do not think is an exercise to go through now, seeking …
Mr Dunham: What, in committee? That is what we do.
Mr AH KIT: Hang on, hang on, let me finish. Seeking out and dredging through and coming up with all these examples of what if, what if, what if. We could be here for the next two days if that exercise was to continue. However, as I said, I will seek some advice and get back to you on that one.
Dr LIM: I am not being facetious or difficult, minister. When this was read out just now, I thought of a block of units behind the Jape complex in Millner, which is three storeys high, with six or nine units per level, and on ground level there is a swimming pool. Now, they are not holiday accommodation, but people go there for a month to three months. Must that pool be fenced? That is the first question.
Second question: right throughout your second-reading speech and your response, you talked about swimming pool fencing to protect children, to prevent children drowning. Here you are giving, essentially a residential complex for short-term residences, an exemption. Again, I see inconsistency in what you are trying to do and I am asking for some consistency.
Mr AH KIT: I have been advised that a block of units is a block of units is a block of units. Let us research our minds a little in terms of the motel and hotel accommodation around the Northern Territory. In almost every place I have been, especially in the capital cities, they are all fenced, they all have safety latches on them.
Mr Dunham: Why not prescribe it?
Mr AH KIT: I cannot see what you are trying to get at. Are you trying to create something that is not there?
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Deputy Chair, my question is why the minister has presented these exemptions? I am asking why these premises are exempt.
Mr AH KIT: Well, I thought I explained that they are residential. Sorry, they are commercial premises at which accommodation is provided for a fee or under a short-term lease for the purpose of holiday accommodation, and which the owner occupier has a responsibility to maintain.
Mr DUNHAM: I thought the basic purpose of the act was to prevent childhood drowning. I would have thought that holiday accommodation would have provided a reasonable risk. As you have said, minister, I do not think I have ever seen a place like that that does not have the fencing. The Daly Waters Pub has put in a pool and they have a fence. All I am saying is most of these places do it. Why would you exempt them when one would think that, if you are after ameliorating risk for small children, surely holiday accommodation would be in among the high risk groups?
Mr AH KIT: I am advised the purpose of the legislation is to deal with risk in residential premises.
Ms MARTIN: Can I just add to that? This is about residential premises and it is about finding the balance. This is why we have also said we will exempt above two hectare properties. It is finding that balance. I do not pretend that it is necessarily an easy decision for government where that balance is found, but I believe that the balance we found is an adequate and fair one. Under this legislation, the focus is very clearly on residential.
The onus for a commercial operator is there within the way they run their premises and they will deal with that appropriately because of their liability issues. Our focus in this legislation is about residential, and if you are going to make major complaints about this commercial, I hope you are going to make the same ones about exempting two hectares. I expect that to come from you, member for Goyder.
Mr DUNHAM: I am not sure who I should address this to, but the point I am trying to make is that, almost universally these premises fence their pools, which the minister has admitted to. I would suspect that they would be reasonably high risk. So, the pool at Mandorah and places like that where there is the potential for children to go unattended, or not be supervised for short periods of time, would be fairly high risk. While the Chief Minister is trying to say that the focus is on residential, I would have thought the focus is on the prevention of drowning. I would have thought that there is a risk of drowning at these particular premises and, given that most of them are this way anyway and most of them have taken steps, why would you exempt them? Why would you not include them?
Mr AH KIT: The decision is a decision on residential and that is what this government saw fit to decide on. So, I say to you once again: the decision is based on residential, as explained just a moment ago by the Chief Minister.
Dr LIM: All I can say to the minister is that you are not being consistent with your decision.
Mr MALEY: Minister, in relation to some of the definitions contained in clause 4, you talk about the definition of swimming pool at page 4 of the draft bill, just under the amendment which you just introduced to residential buildings. Why did you use the word ‘means,’ that exhaustive term, as opposed to ‘include’. You have ‘swimming pool means …’ blah, blah, blah, blah. That is the first part of my question: why exhaustive?
Secondly, why do you have …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Goyder, can we deal with the amendment and then move on to other sections? We are still on the amendment. Sorry, member for Goyder; you will have the opportunity to ask all of that but if we could deal with, so that this legislation is dealt with appropriately …
Mr MALEY: No problem. I thought we had dealt with it.
Mr WOOD: Just on what was being discussed before. The Chief Minister said that the main objective was to fence residential, but in the second reading it says:
- The main objective of this legislation is to ensure the requirements of the swimming pool fencing in the
Northern Territory are brought up to Australian Standards as soon as possible.
What we should be trying to do, Minister, is regardless of where it is, if it is in a block of units or the Holiday Inn, you are trying to bring that particular swimming pool up to the Australian Standards. I would agree with what your objective is. This is the second reading, and if there is some way that can occur for that block of flats, I would actually ask you to include those in. I am not trying to be a nuisance, I am just saying it makes sense to bring those pools into line with what your second-reading objective said.
Otherwise, if you are going to say it is only for residential, then I would argue those one hectare blocks of land should not be included.
Mr AH KIT: As I said, member for Nelson, the decision was based on residential. Whilst I understand the point you are making in regards to the zoning of those two hectare and below blocks, it is not what I believe the intent of this legislation is. That is, I believe that this legislation actually encompasses the residential aspects of those rural blocks from two hectares down.
In regards to the hotel/motel areas, we have included those to ensure that they conform. I have said that we will come back and have a look at it, and I will seek some further advice on that. But I can report in respect of the amendments to clause 3.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Can I just say then that we are deferring the amendment, 29.1, is that what you are saying?
Ms Martin: No.
Dr LIM: Madam Deputy Chair, if I may, may I?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: You may, but the will not hear you while they are talking.
Dr LIM: It appears to me that the minister is asking that we suspend clause 4 as well, for the time being, and go back to clause 3.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, we have had enough debate. If they have a differing position, well we have heard what that position is. However, as I said, the decision was based on residential. We are quite happy to stay with that. If it needs to be put to the vote, then so be it. But in regards to the amendment to clause 3, I am quite happy to accommodate that.
Dr LIM: May I speak to clause 4 now. Let us deal with clause 4 first, minister, okay? What you said earlier was that you were not certain and you were going to seek some advice on clause 4. Now, you have turned around and said: ‘No, that is it’, you are going to stick by these words and not consider anything further. Are you seeking advice or are you not?
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I just said, no, we have had enough debate about it. I have said that if agree to disagree then let us take the vote on it. I am quite happy to accommodate your amendment to clause 3, and then move forward.
Mr WOOD: You also said that you would review it. Would you be happy to review this in the February sittings? If that is what you said earlier. I am happy to support the motion if there is a guarantee you could review it in the next sittings, because there is a concern there. It would be just nice to …
Mr AH KIT: I do not know whether I quite said that we would be reviewing it in February, but common sense is applicable, in that we will be monitoring the implementation of this legislation as of 1 January. We will be keeping an eye on how things are moving forward and we will be moving to correct some of the situations that could occur. We will need to iron out the bugs, as normal with any new legislation. So, I will be able to come back and provide a report in February at our sittings.
Dr LIM: Well, I am glad to hear that the minister has admitted there are bugs within his legislation, even at this early stage of our discussion. I look forward to looking at this in February, as you just promised.
Ms MARTIN: Look, the point is clearly made that, as with any legislation, of course, you will be reviewing it. The whole focus of this is to clear up a situation that has not been tackled by a previous administration, year after year after year. Certainly the focus …
Mr Reed: Do not try to fob off it at this stage, Clare.
Ms MARTIN: I beg your pardon?
Mr Reed: Don’t try to fob it off to someone else at this stage. It is your legislation.
Ms MARTIN: You can call me Chief Minister or member for Fannie Bay, thank you. I am making the point very clearly that this legislation is about tackling the situation we find in our suburban areas. That is where the drownings have occurred and that is what we are tackling with a very comprehensive range of measures. Did we ever hear any initiative like this from the previous government? Not a word. All we get now is simply nitpicking. I recognise a point was made by the member for Greatorex about clause 3, and we certainly accept your amendment because, very clearly this has to apply to all suburban houses, in terms of public housing and private. This is about residential housing in our suburbs, and that is where the focus for this bill is.
Dr LIM: I find it curious that the Chief Minister gets up and says: ‘This is about looking after people who are living in the suburbs’. Well, the block of 15 units owned by a single owner, rented out on short-term basis …
Ms Martin: Is it registered as a hotel or a motel? No.
Dr LIM: … are all in a residential area. What is the inconsistency there? I see a block of units owned by a person for short-term lease, for hotel or holiday accommodation; I see another block of units strata titled, and I see a single house. They are side by side. You have inconsistency in your legislation.
Ms MARTIN: Oh, rubbish!
Mr MALEY: Minister, just a point of clarification. When you said that you would accommodate the proposed amendment to clause 3, did you mean accommodate as in take it on board and consider it, or accommodate and acquiesce to it and the government will support it?
Ms MARTIN: I just said that; I just said it.
Mr MALEY: I try to switch off to you. I am talking to the minister.
Mr AH KIT: No, it is supported. Accommodate in terms of accommodating the proposal put forward. When I say accommodate, I am accepting it. It will be accommodated and included.
Ms CARTER: Minister, on this issue of commercial properties, what about a B & B? We have a number of bed and breakfasts now within the Darwin suburban area.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, as I read out in the third paragraph in my notes, it is not intended that the proposed legislation would apply to swimming pools situated at commercial properties such as hotels, motels or backpacker accommodation.
Ms CARTER: But would that include what we know as a bed and breakfast, as well?
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, if I can just finish off, thanks. The amendment now makes it quite clear that the legislation does not apply to hotels and motels but could apply to backpacker accommodation or bed and breakfast accommodation where the owner of the premises lives on the premises; that is, where the premises is the principal place of residence.
Consideration of clause 4 and amendment postponed.
Reconsideration of clause 3:
Mr AH KIT: As I said, I had accepted the amendment …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Minister, if will resume your seat, I will get the member for Greatorex to move that amendment.
Dr LIM: Madam Deputy Chair, I move the following amendment to clause 3:
- Insert after clause 3(2) the following new subclause:
- (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in (1), this act does apply to swimming pools on property that is
occupied by the Crown, a statutory corporation, a council or the Jabiru Town Development Authority
where that property is solely used as a residential building.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Reconsideration of clause 4:
Dr LIM: Madam Deputy Chair, we are still on clause 4, aren’t we?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Yes.
Dr LIM: Good. That is what I wanted clarification on.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: I was just going to indicate that to the member for Goyder who had flagged a question previously.
Mr MALEY: Madam Acting Chair, my question to the minister is a fairly simple question. In the definition of ‘swimming pool’ at page 4 of the bill, you used the word ‘means’ as opposed to ‘includes’, and exhaustive - meaning that definition is exhaustive. First of all, why did you decide to have a exhaustive definition as opposed to leaving it a little broader than that?
Second, you go on to say that the first paragraph of that definition ‘is capable of …’ blah, blah, blah ‘… of the swimming pool’. So, you have a word, like defining ‘dog’ means ‘an animal which is a dog’. You have used the word you are trying to define to help explain what you mean by the word you are trying to define. So I am wondering why you have done that, and do you agree that it creates some confusion?
Mr AH KIT: When you pick up on the interpretation you, of all people, would understand the process this goes through before it comes to this stage. I have to tell you the words that are used are designed to achieve the purpose of this bill which we seek for this legislation. So it might not be words that fit with your understanding, interpretation, or vocabulary - legal or otherwise.
Dr LIM: Perhaps we can make a suggestion, minister, in an amicable way that somehow we can agree to delete the words ‘of the swimming pool’ and it will still make perfectly good sense and retain the intent of your legislation.
Mr AH KIT: No. It makes perfectly good sense now as it stands. You have not argued why it does not, so I am not going to accept that.
Dr LIM: Earlier, I raised the issue about the supermarket vinyl specials and the minister read out about the ads that he saw - from K-Mart and Target ads - where there is a little clause at the bottom of the picture of the swimming pool that, before installing or erecting the pool, you have to seek advice from your local council. The minister knows full well, if he had read the whole legislation, that the council will no longer have any rights because their by-laws are going to be repealed by this legislation. So that does not apply.
Minister, I ask again: how do you define the supermarket vinyl special that is pretty small, about 300 mm in depth, that can be filled in a backyard of your Territory Housing residence, can be taken indoors even because it is small enough to fit in the bathroom or on a tiled lounge floor. Do you define that as a swimming pool also?
Mr AH KIT: The definition of a pool is based on the Australian Standard, which has been in place for many years and subject to rigorous research, discussion and testing by industry. Splasher pools are included in the Australian Standards, but are defined as a structure that is filled to a depth of less than 300 mm and intended to be used by young children.
Whilst it may be unrealistic to expect users to erect permanent fencing around such pools, these pools should be filled with water only when they are to be used, and should always be emptied after use and left in such a way that water cannot accumulate in them. In addition to the danger that an unattended and unprotected pool presents, the water needs to be changed frequently, to prevent contamination with organic matter. Most packaging and advertising for paddling pools and the new range of portable or above-ground swimming pools, contain a warning to ‘contact your council for information on pool fencing laws’. As indicated, with these three brochures that I showed you earlier, from K-Mart, Big W, and Target.
With regard to what they say on those pamphlets, I have explained that we are moving with uniform legislation across the Territory. I have explained that LGANT has been represented ...
Mr Dunham: It is not uniform. It is residential.
Mr AH KIT: Hang on. You understand that they have representation on LGANT, they have worked through this. We have heard what the member for Sanderson said when, in 1994, the member for Katherine stood up in this Chamber and talked about the responsibilities that we have for swimming pool fencing requirements and legislation. We heard about the former member for Port Darwin standing up here, almost in the same position, talking about 3500 petitioners, and that the town or city councils were not big enough, mature enough, to handle the swimming pool fencing responsibilities. We have a situation now where we have decided that we will bring in Australian Standard swimming pool fencing legislation, that will bring us in line with the rest of the other states and territories, so that does not leave us being frowned upon, and it does not continue to leave us with a horrible record of child drownings, which is the worst, not only in Australia, but internationally.
Mr MALEY: Minister, in relation to clause 4, it is interesting you should talk about blindly adopting legislation from other jurisdictions. In your definition of owner, if you look at page 3, and once again, you have an exhaustive definition so you cannot go outside the scope of what is contained in the definition. You talk about land registered under the Land Titles Act; then go and talk about fee simple interest; then put in ‘or …’ – there is a disjunctive ‘or’ there – ‘… Crown Lands Act, Pastoral Lands Act, Special Purposes Leases Act …’etcetera.
Why, minister, have you excluded people who live on inalienable land or people who have an exclusive right to live on land pursuant to native title rights? You will notice that it is a type of interest in property, which is not predominant interstate, so the question is: why have you excluded those two types of ownership from your definition of ‘owner’? Of course, if you recall, 55% of the Territory is actually held under either native title or pursuant to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, which are not definitions of ‘ownership’ under this particular definition. So, this legislation then, will only apply to 45% of the Territory.
Mr AH KIT: ‘Owner,’ in relation to the premises, means the person recorded in the land register. It is there; it is self-explanatory. If you believe that that is not sufficient to satisfy you, then you are quite welcome to put up an amendment to include whatever you like, and then we can debate it to see whether that gets up or not. However, you raise it here and, as I said, these words are designed to achieve the intent and the purpose of the bill as we move through the committee stages to legislation.
We could spend a month of Sundays wanting to add to the interpretations lists, if that is what you want to do. But it is defined, it is concise and it is achieving the aims that we want to achieve.
Mr MALEY: Minister, it is your legislation. You have brought it to this parliament and you have considered it. You said it has taken an enormous amount of time to go over it. It is a simple question. On this interpretation of ‘owner’ - and I will just remind you of it - it means the person recorded in the land register under the Land Title Act as the person entitled to fee simple interest or under the Crown Lands Act, Pastoral Lands Act or Special Purposes Leases Act.
That means you have specifically excluded all of that land which is subject to - well, people live on it or occupy it by virtue of - the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act or the Native Title Act. In other words, just by the very definition of ‘owner’, this legislation only applies to about 45% of the Territory. Why did you do that?
Mr AH KIT: The definition of ‘owner’ is there to purport the legislation, the bill. There is nothing wrong. If you think there is something sinister in: ‘Oh, let us exclude all Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory because he is an indigenous minister and he is looking after the land councils’, and all that sort of stuff …
Mr MALEY: Do not play the race card; it is a genuine question. I was born here too and do not do it because I am whatever – I have asked you a quite genuine question. You have excluded most of the Territory …
Mr AH KIT: Listen here, my friend; you came into the briefing and you spent how long - 10 minutes. You have an amendment there? Put the amendment up and let us debate it. Let us debate it. You came in for 10 minutes, you found out that it was not going to cost your mob anything so you walked out – lazy!. But you come in here and you use your legal expertise - and that is fine - we can walk our way through …
Mr Maley: You are the minister.
Mr AH KIT: Of course I am, and I am very proud to be …
Mr Maley: Well, what is your intention?
Mr AH KIT: I am very proud to be. But if you want to - as I said earlier - nitpick and play games, then that is an indication to the Territory community that you are really not supportive of the intent of this legislation, and that you have adopted opposition to this because you never ever got around to - in your government days - doing anything about this because you had your head in the sand. I am reminded and advised that under what you are pointing out there and seeking, the fee simple interest in the premises, it is all encompassing – it is a catch-all, and that should …
Ms Martin: Yes, and that is the best legal advice.
Dr LIM: May I ask a question? Dwelling on the issue that the member for Goyder raised, the owner, I look at it from say Hermannsburg, Ntaria. The community of Ntaria is divided into small housing blocks. I assume that those housing blocks with a swimming pool will have to have the swimming pool fenced?
Mr Dunham: This is your fee simple answer, you just cannot …
Ms MARTIN: I did not hear what you said, sorry.
Dr LIM: Okay. Talking about the fee simple issue you just raised a little while ago. Take the community of Ntaria, or anywhere you like - Finke, wherever you like to use. There are houses there on small premises; they are all small blocks. Assume there is a house, with a family, and a swimming pool. It will apply?
Ms MARTIN: It will apply. That is a catch-all phrase: it would apply.
Dr LIM: But how? But there is nothing in there, within the definition of the ‘owner’, that brings that in.
Ms MARTIN: That is a catch-all phrase. The best legal advice is that it covers all those circumstances and applies in ownership across the Territory. Okay? This is not intended to exclude; this is intended to include.
Mr WOOD: I have heard statements made before that we might be nitpicking, but it is important that this bit of legislation is worked through correctly. I do support the principle of the bill but we have to look at some things, and some things have been raised today that I would not have raised in the briefing because I did not think of them. So, this is another opportunity to raise questions. Some important issues have just been raised. Take the town of Nguiu. The title of the land would be one big block, which would be ‘large premises’ under this act. I do not believe any Aboriginal person owns a small block of land on an individual title. It is a piece of land that is separated out for the sake of, that is the boundary. But I do not believe they have a separate title. I see a problem there that the big block of land is the whole of Bathurst Island, therefore, it is a large premise. How do you work out whether your law would apply to a swimming pool on a block of land in Nguiu? What would enforce that?
Mr Dunham: Your legal advice was wrong, Chief Minister.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Nelson, have you finished your question?
Mr WOOD: Sorry, I was just interrupted.
Mr AH KIT: The definition of premises, member for Nelson: (a) a parcel of land, or (b) if there is a swimming pool at common property, a unit or building block, each within the meaning of the Unit Titles Act. In respect of the Tiwis, as I said earlier, the fee simple interest in the premises is the catch-all. The best legal advice has given us that.
Mr Dunham: No, no, no, bad advice.
Dr Lim: It is not fee simple in Nguiu.
Mr AH KIT: Legal advice has given us that. Do you wish to dispute that?
Members interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: The premises, the parcel of land; this is defining the situation that you are talking about.
Mr WOOD: But isn’t the parcel of land, say, on Bathurst Island and other places, one big portion, and therefore a large premise? Therefore, this is not applicable. I see the advisor shaking of his head. Maybe I have it wrong, but it is an important thing to be explained.
Mr AH KIT: I have just had some advice from the Solicitor General and he has confirmed that the Aboriginal land under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act is fee simple. Right? And is registered under the Land Titles Act, thus the bill does apply to Aboriginal land. Okay?
Mr MALEY: Okay, I accept that.
Mr WOOD: The town of Nguiu; does it have separate titles of that land, for each house; or is it totally included in one big portion of Aboriginal land? In other words, are there small pieces of land that are little bits of Aboriginal land in it held under fee simple? Or is it one big piece of land held in fee simple?
Mr AH KIT: As I understand it, there is one title that is held in trust by the Tiwi Land Council for both Melville and Bathurst Islands.
Mr DUNHAM: So it is exempt?
Mr AH KIT: No, I just said: the bill does apply to Aboriginal land. Tom Pauling just confirmed that the Aboriginal land under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act is fee simple and is registered under the Land Titles Act, so it applies.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but the exemption for a registration and the requirement to fence a pool is for large premises, which are defined as over two hectares. Now, the whole of Bathurst Island is over two hectares. I am not trying to be smart. I will tell you why I am raising the issue: Nguiu has 1000 people and there is a fair …
Dr Burns: How many swimming pools?
Mr WOOD: Well, it may, or may not, that does not matter. We are not working on hypotheticals …
Dr Burns: We are working on risk.
Mr WOOD: We are working on risk, that is right. Now, what law would make sure that a swimming pool on a premises at Bathurst Island had to have a fence?
Ms Scrymgour: The council’s by-law.
Mr WOOD: No. The council does not have anything under this act. The council by-laws ...
Ms Scrymgour: TILG.
Mr WOOD: No, it does not. This takes over from councils now. The government has the law on fencing, not the council any more. So I want to make sure that the government’s law will do what you might have said the council will take over.
Ms Scrymgour: The one pool has fences. It has a fence.
Mr WOOD: That is right. But what in that act will make sure that occurs? I want it to occur.
Mr AH KIT: As I said, ‘premises’ defines premises as any parcel of land, not necessarily applying to the title concerns that you have - any parcel of land.
Dr LIM: Let me put this to you, minister, and I am trying to picture what the member for Nelson has raised. Assuming I have a 10 hectare block, it is a large parcel. On that I have three families living in three separate houses, and each house has a swimming pool.
Ms MARTIN: That is dealt with further into the act. Specifically.
Dr LIM: Now, the same situation applies to Nguiu. A large parcel of land, large premise with one, two, three or four swimming pools. One could be at the church, one could be in somebody’s house and one could be the council swimming pool. What are the requirements there?
Ms Stirling: They are in the act.
Ms MARTIN: The intention here is to adequately and accurately cover what we are dealing with. Whatever questions you are asking, we have given the answers clearly. We have given those answers clearly, and if what this is about is opposing the act, then simply say you want to oppose it. This is not …
Mr Dunham: Just trying to clarify it.
Ms MARTIN: No, this is not. This is a blocking attempt at the act. This is not about the intent of the act, this is about nitpicking, and that is truly what it is. We have the legal advice here. We have said that these definitions meet what we are intending to do. Let us move on and talk about the intent of this act and the detail of it that actually are the important parts of the act. This is nitpicking. If you want to oppose the act, be honest, stand here and say you oppose it.
This is not achieving anything. This is shooting in the breeze, by the member for Goyder, particularly, who thinks that lawyers have to come in here and nitpick. We have given you the answers …
Mr Maley: It is not that. It is about parliament and democracy and a bit of respect.
Ms MARTIN: We have given you the answers and we want to get to the detail of this bill, which are the important details. It is about protecting children’s lives. It is not nitpicking, it is about protecting children’s lives and something that a Country Liberal Party did not do after 27 years in power. So let us stop the nitpicking. Let us be honest. If the truth is that you want to oppose it, have some intestinal fortitude and stand up and oppose it.
Dr LIM: Madam Deputy Chair, I resent the remarks made by the Chief Minister. I want to try to deal with the issue. I can stand here proudly today and say that I was the alderman who brought the swimming pool by-laws into Alice Springs. I moved heaven and hell to get there, so do not accuse me of trying …
Ms Martin: You were the minister for local government - you could have done it then.
Dr Burns: Where are you now? That is the question I ask.
Dr LIM: Do not accuse me of trying to grandstand or whatever. I am trying to get it clear. I want to get it clear in my head, and if the explanations are not adequate, do not blame me. I am here to listen. It is your legislation, for goodness sake, so let us stay away from personalities and stay with the issue, okay?
If the intention is to protect our children, to prevent children from drowning, then surely the concerns - whether it be in Nguiu, Hermannsburg or wherever - if there are several pools on a large parcel of land, or a large premises as you define it in your interpretation, what are the mechanisms or what are the processes that are in place to ensure that our children are protected?
Let us talk about the issues, and stop talking about personalities. I want to know how you are going to implement your legislation, so that those pools are somehow secured, so that our children are not put at risk.
Mr AH KIT: Both the Chief Minister and I have given the opposition an answer, and especially the member for Greatorex.
Mr WOOD: I have said before I have nothing to do with the opposition and, if the opposition has some history or some legacies about it that the government did not like, well, that is well and good. However, it is important to raise the questions. There are a number of Aboriginal towns in the Northern Territory, large ones - Nguiu, Port Keats, Yirrkala, and other towns - which have, or do not have pools at the moment. They may or may not, I cannot tell you that. But if we are looking at legislation to protect children, especially in residential areas, all I am asking for is someone to tell me that this legislation will apply to those pools in those townships. Will they come under the same legislation? Show me where it says so in the act. I will be satisfied.
I will continue, but I think it is my job and I am not trying to nitpick. I am not trying to pick on Aboriginal communities or any other community, but I say it is important that someone who puts up a pool at Yirrkala, Port Keats, Nguiu, is required to put a fence up because they have a body of water more than 300 mm deep. As a politician in this House, I want to make sure those children’s lives are protected; it is not about anything else.
Mr STIRLING: The advice that (a) the fee simple interest in the premises covers all of the situations that both yourself and the member for Greatorex are raising comes from the Solicitor General himself. His name is Tom Pauling. Now, he is a bit of an authority on the law in the Northern Territory. We rely on his advice. That is the advice, that this covers those areas. If that is not good enough for you, we are very sorry, but he is the guy, the authority behind that advice.
Mr MALEY: In response to the Chief Minister’s comments; this is a parliament. Its primary role is to ensure that only good legislation passes through and is considered. I am very grateful for that CPA trip that you sent me on, because one of the fairly obvious comparisons which I drew when comparing us and other parliaments, is that they spend an enormous amount of time going through legislation. Certainly in the UK, it is the primary role, and they go through each and every paragraph, paragraph by paragraph, and it takes days, and they do it properly. For you to get angry and carry on and be rude and snide and pass notes, is inappropriate, appalling, and it shows a contempt for the people of the Territory and good law …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: A point of clarification there, member for Goyder. When you say ‘you,’ are you referring to me as the Chair? You should talk to me as the Chair.
Mr MALEY: I am talking through you, Madam Deputy Chair.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Right, so you are not referring to the Chair in that.
Ms Carter: Representative of the Speaker.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: You used the words, ‘when you get snide and nasty’.
Mr MALEY: No, no, regarding the comments from the member for Fannie Bay. It does not assist the whole process and it shows contempt for the people of the Territory, and for people who listen. You can jump up and make another political statement if you wish, but these are quite logical questions. The question which the member for Nelson …
Ms Martin: You are never much of a lawyer; you are not much of a politician.
Mr MALEY: … made and put to you are more than reasonable. If the very minister who is bringing this legislation into parliament does not have a good grasp on and cannot answer these fairly straightforward questions, how do you expect the average person living in the Northern Territory to pick up this legislation and, after trawling through it, draw those conclusions? These are reasonable questions which we in the opposition - and an Independent - are not only entitled to ask but, indeed, are duty bound to ask on behalf of Territory people.
Mr STIRLING: The member is quite right. However, when the opposition is given the answer that the advice on a particular clause in the act comes from the Solicitor General of the Northern Territory - where else do you go, guys? What do we need, a High Court to test this before it is even …
Ms Martin: Get three QCs or more?
Mr STIRLING: … legislation? It is the advice of the Solicitor General, a person - and a position rather than the person - that government relies on a lot of days of every week.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Deputy Chair, there are two issues here. The first issue we wanted to know was whether it applied on Aboriginal land?
Ms Martin: And I told you 15 minutes ago.
Mr DUNHAM: We understand it is definitely your intent that it does, and that Tom Pauling has given an opinion that fee simple includes inalienable freehold title under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act held in perpetuity.
The next question is: did the Solicitor General give the advice that this act applies in the circumstances described by the member for Nelson?
Ms Martin: Yes.
Mr DUNHAM: Not whether it is fee simple. We want to know whether this act is applicable at Nguiu?
Mr STIRLING: Exactly.
Mr DUNHAM: So Tom Pauling said it is?
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, the former minister of the CLP government should be aware that in this particular case that is being referred to by the member for Nelson, parcels of land on communities are divided into individual lots and are, therefore, covered by the act.
Mr Dunham: No, they are not.
Mr AH KIT: They are serviced land availability plans. Did you ever hear of those in Cabinet?
Mr Dunham: Yes, I know about them. I know exactly about them.
Mr AH KIT: Well, you know what I am talking about then.
Mr WOOD: What actually is the definition of a parcel of land then? Is it something that is registered?
Mr Dunham: Is it surveyed? Is it registered at the Land Titles Office? Does it have an identifiable lot number?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Nelson, if you have finished your question, resume your seat so it can be answered.
Mr AH KIT: Under the interpretation, ‘owner premises’ means ‘a parcel of land’ which, as I just said, the serviced land availability plans allows us to take those into consideration and fit those into that category as parcels of land.
Mr WOOD: Thank you minister, but in the legal definition of a parcel of land is that part of the legal definition? We are dealing with an act which is dealing with legality, and you are saying that land on those communities does …
Mr Dunham: It is a long shot, mate, if you think SLAP plans override the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. If Tom Pauling told you that, I am surprised.
Mr AH KIT: No.
Mr MALEY: Minister, the question is this: does the government intend to establish an office of the Swimming Pool Fencing Authority? You have the definition ‘authority’ here and you refer to it meaning a person appointed under clause 41. If you go to clause 41, it talks about a person being appointed to the Swimming Pool Fencing Authority. If you read that, a person appointed under clause 41 - sorry, I take that back. Clause 41 says:
- … may by notice … appoint a person to be the Swimming Pool Fencing Authority.
Why did you go down that path as opposed to establishing a separate statutory authority than ‘the authority’, as opposed to …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Goyder, your question is now based on clause 41, can we deal with it in clause 41?
Mr MALEY: Madam Deputy Chair, to understand the question, which relates to the definition of ‘authority’ contained in clause 4; if you read that it says: ‘means that person appointed under section 41’. So, it is probably appropriate that you have a look at clause 41, if you are following the debate. So my question is, why, when clause 41 reads words to the effect of it is appointing a person to be the authority, did the government go down the track of having a person as the authority, as opposed to a statutory entity …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Yes, but that goes to the question of clause 41, not clause 4, the description of authority.
Mr MALEY: With respect, it is directly related to the definition of authority contained in clause 4, which is what we are addressing. So it is not a smarty-ism. It is actually a genuine question.
Mr AH KIT: It is a statutory authority. Do you want to go through that now, and the administration of it?
Mr MALEY: You can give me a summary; that is all right. You do not have to go through in detail, but a summary of how it is structured.
Mr AH KIT: The Swimming Pool Fencing Authority allows the minister to appoint a person to be the Swimming Pool Fencing Authority by notice in the Gazette. The minister may also appoint, by notice in the Gazette, another person nominated by a council to be the Swimming Pool Fencing Authority for the council area - so that obviously addresses delegation - or another person to be the Swimming Pool Fencing Authority for an area specified in the notice.
This allows me to appoint more than one authority if required at some future date. I also may delegate the exercise of power or the performance of a function under this act to a council or a person appointed under subsection (2) for the area specified in the instrument of delegation. It also allows the person appointed as the authority under subsection (1) to help or assist if requested, or in an emergency, to provide an inspector to assist another authority appointed under subsection (2).
So what you are asking is why haven’t we established a separate authority, independent of government, standing on its own as a statutory authority? We have the point that was raised earlier, that we are going to be having 10 swimming pool fencing inspectors. We have allocated over $0.5m to this project in terms of the work that they have to do. We know that there is 18 000 swimming pools out there. We know, and it was explained, about the problems with trying to get hard copies of all that information from those councils, so we need to start with a clean slate. We also want to ensure that we do not provide a humbug situation for the real estate industry in the sales that need to be done after 1 January.
So, taking all of those into consideration, this was drafted in a way to ensure that we have the best inspectorate authority put in place to deal with this heavy workload that is going to place upon them, when the Swimming Pool Fencing Act takes place as of 1 January.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 7:
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 33.3. The clause that I would like inserted is proposed exactly to reduce what the minister just said: there is going to be a big workload, we are going to have 10 inspectors, we are going to spend over $0.5m - it would be getting up towards the $1m by the time we have finished - to register pools. When you consider that the object of this act is, according to the second reading:
- The main objective of this legislation is to ensure that requirements for swimming pool fencing in the
Northern Territory are brought up to Australian Standards as soon as possible.
How are we doing that? The theory is we do it by registration. But, no, registration only relates to bringing a pool up to this standard if you would like to avail yourself of the money because you do not have to bring your pool up to that standard until you sell it or rent it or, in fact, you build a new pool. What an ideal time to register it: at that point. Registration is not the main emphasis on this. Bringing it up to a standard is - and I applaud the way the government has done it. By creating this path of renting or selling or having a new pool, you are introducing what could be seen by many people as unpopular; you are doing it in a sensible manner.
What does registration mean? The incentive scheme - although I have some points about that later - within the first 18 months is great. The way you get that incentive scheme payment is to ring up and say: ‘I own a pool’ and you are automatically registered because they come around and look at your pool and say: ‘Yes, you can apply for some funds’.
On top of that, the councils do have a database. Now, it may not be the most perfect database, but they do have one. This clause does put the onus on the owner of a small premise because those people have to show they have a certificate, a permit, are registered or have provisional registration. If they do not have that, they are still caught by clause 7(1). So if they do not have this, they cannot prove they are not registered. If they think the council’s database is a bit wonky, the onus is still on people to be registered. If they are picked up in the random inspections, they will be. But at the same time, if they happen to leave town it will have to be checked; it will be picked up then. If they want to rent their property, it will be picked up then.
So registration is not a big deal, but it is made a big deal because we are going to have 10 registration inspectors that I do not believe you need, simply because you will have a database. I know the member for Port Darwin said it is written. I would say it would be a lot cheaper to have someone type that into a database than sending a lot of people round in motor cars. Palmerston has – I rang them - a pretty reasonable database, and so does Alice Springs. If you presume that all those pools that those councils have on their databases are automatically registered, you will save yourself a lot of hard work. It does not exclude people from having their pool registered because, if you have not been registered under that section, you have to; it says so there. That will be picked up by random checks.
This way saves you having to go around and knock on every door to check, and that will cause a lot of angst. I do raise this later, especially with clause 15 - that is why I have invited its defeat. You are just wasting your time. I believe my amendment is a sensible change. You will save the government and the taxpayer money, and you will still get what you want, because the pools do not have to come up to the Australian Standard until you put a new one in, sell it or rent it. That is the point at which it will happen; registration does not make any difference.
Registration is just creating a great big database which is handy, but you will get that when the person comes in, when the real estate people say: ‘Well, this person is now renting their house’. You check to see that the pool is up to standard and register it then. When you sell your house, register it then if it has not been registered already. You can register it and say: ‘Well, it is now up to the standard’. We have gone a convoluted way round of getting what is a great objective; and that is the objective to bring up swimming pool fences to the Australian Standard.
I am not putting this here as trying to put a blocker on this bill, I am just trying to make it simple, save a lot of money and still come up with the same objective. Registration has been given far too much emphasis. I do believe that you did come up with a sensible process. Again, the selling of a house, the renting of a house, the new pool, gets what you want, and at that point you register them. If you want to use registration for the cash incentive, terrific, I do not mind that. But that runs out after 18 months. So that is why I am putting it forward, and for no other reason.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, we need to draw a line in the sand. It was explained earlier that the databases that the councils have are not up to scratch. They are not as good as they are explained to you, from what we heard. You did not mention Darwin City Council, which has a lot of pools in their area of jurisdiction. Their member does not support it. Three councils have advised my department that they are unable to readily provide a certain list of swimming pools currently registered in their council area. If government is to effectively enforce the proposed legislation, it needs to know with precision and certainty, the number of swimming pools currently installed at small premises in the Northern Territory, and the standard of any swimming pool barrier surrounding the swimming pool. There would be potential for legal action against the government if a property transfer was prevented with an inappropriate statutory restriction placed on the title, as a result of a mistake arising from a council record. Therefore, it is essential that all existing swimming pools at small premises be registered under this legislation.
We have provided the scheme there to encourage people to come forward and to be responsible, and to be responsible citizens like those who have taken that responsibility to ensure that they have good swimming pool fencing around the pool on their property - whether it be in the rural area, or residential in the northern suburbs or whatever. For 18 months we are encouraging people to come forward to take the opportunity of that, so that they can at least, for their conscience and for the valuation in respect of their block, whether they want to sell it if they so desire or if they wish to keep it and retain it forever. That is a choice they need to make; whether they are above the two hectare properties.
However, we have to draw the line in the sand; we have to start from scratch. The only way we are going to get it organised properly is to have that one registration system. It is not a desire for our government to be running the responsibilities of swimming pools for the next 10 years. I am keen, in the next three to five years, if councils wish to accept that responsibility. As you know, I am working with councils to discuss the partnership agreements that we need to put into place. So it is not a matter of coming in with a big stick over the councils and taking over their responsibilities; it is about showing leadership as a responsible government, to ensure that we bring in a bill that we want to enact into legislation that starts from scratch, draws the line in the sand. That was the old days; let us not worry about the politics of how that got to that situation. Let us move forward and let us do it properly.
Mr WOOD: Minister, yes, while I can accept that, it is an expensive way to get where you wanted to get; and that is to bring pools up to that standard. You can forget the way I have put this clause through; you can do exactly what you are trying to do on clause 15 - well, partly on clause 15. You could just say: ‘We are not going to register pools until they are sold or until they are rented’. Eventually you will catch up with them all. To some extent, that is exactly what you are trying to do with clause 15, because people do not have to fence their pool at all under those by-laws, because there are no by-laws there at all.
All I am saying is that I would be very surprised if a municipality like Palmerston does not have a pretty reasonable database on pools at that council. It may not be perfect, but I would say it would be substantially perfect because they have not been running it for very long. They certainly have the most stringent swimming pool legislation of any council – I am not sure how it compares with Alice Springs. I would have thought that, although they will not be perfect, it would get a fairly good number of those pools into your database. As I said before, the clause that requires people to register is still there, so if you are doing spot checks, you would pick those people up because there is a requirement on the owner to have been registered.
I understand where you are coming from, but it is a very expensive way to achieve what you are trying to achieve.
Mr AH KIT: Member for Nelson, I note your comments and your concerns, and the reason why you put this amendment forward, but I made my position and the reasons why clear.
Ms CARTER: Madam Deputy Chair, just a comment on that point. I was speaking to a Darwin city alderman today who has a keen interest in this area, and I was advised that the vast majority of their records is a paper copy, and that it will be quite difficult to transcribe into a computer. But, of course, it could be done and I am sure it will be done at some point.
Minister, that is fine on that. With regard to clause 7 and registration, how long does registration last, and is it transferable from owner to owner once you have a pool registered?
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Deputy Chair! Sorry. We are only actually talking to this amendment at this stage, aren’t we? The member for Port Darwin is actually …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: That is right, we are talking to the amendment. When we have done with that amendment, you can then ask the question, if you do not mind.
Ms CARTER: Sorry, yes.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: A point of clarification to avoid any confusion. I am about to put the question in terms of the amendment which is …
Dr LIM: If I may intervene here? I do not know whether my comments are going to relate specifically to the amendment or not, but I would like to speak about clause 7. I felt inclined, as the Deputy Chief Minister, that we are talking about clause 7. We can incorporate the amendment and my comments to it and go from there. Are you happy with that?
Mr WOOD: You have to get a ruling from the Chair on that. That is not for me.
Dr LIM: My issue is quite simple …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Greatorex, do you want to talk to the amendment or do you want to talk to the clause, because if you want to talk to the clause only, we can deal with your question after the amendment. But if it is both, then talk now. Sorry?
Dr LIM: It is about registration.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: But is it about the words in the amendment, or is it a broader question on registration?
Dr LIM: It is. The word ‘registration’ is in the amendment as well, and I want to talk about the registration.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Greatorex, my ruling is that you are not talking specifically to the words in the amendment, so you will have your chance on registration once we deal with the amendment.
We are dealing with the amendment which is Schedule No 33 from Mr Wood.
Amendment negatived.
Ms CARTER: Minister, with regard to section 7, how long does registration last? If it lasts for some considerable time, can it be transferred from owner to owner of a premises?
Mr AH KIT: Once the pool is registered, it is registered forever. Okay? Only on transfer, it continues. If you sell your house, you have your compliance certificate, everything is above board. Just that first registration applies to the new swimming pools’ registration where that would be $100.
Ms CARTER: So therefore, minister, the registration relates to the property as opposed to the name of the owner?
Mr AH KIT: That is right. That is correct.
Dr LIM: A bit further on that, a swimming pool is currently registered with the Darwin City Council or Palmerston City Council and is complying under their by-laws. When the pool owner applies to the government for registration of a swimming pool because it has a compliance certificate, it can stay there as it is until there is a change of ownership of the property or the residence with the swimming pool becomes a tenanted property. In other words, as long as it belongs to that one particular owner, that non-compliant pool can be non-compliant, according to this legislation, for all time.
Minister, what is the point of having a legislation that that does nothing. Here you have a swimming pool that has a non-compliant fence according to your legislation, it is registered with you in your database, remains in the database for all time. Because the pool belongs to the same family for the next three generations, you have a pool with a non-compliant fence for the next 100 years.
Mr Dunham: Why register it?
Dr LIM: Is it registered – yes? I am waiting for a response to my question.
Mr AH KIT: The bill taken in its entirety is based on ensuring, member for Greatorex, that we reach the standards. That is what we are after here; to ensure that the Australian Standards apply.
The member for Nelson put the case that Palmerston has great records and that is good. I believe him. But if we are to go to a situation of excluding them from what I am attempting to do here tonight in this bill and this legislation, then it is not starting from scratch; drawing that line in the sand and showing that it is uniform and moving forward together so that we do get ourselves away from this terrible record of child drownings in the Northern Territory. I suppose I making the analogy this is applicable to the situation. You are putting to me now, in terms of them wishing to stay on the records of the Palmerston Town Council rather than to come across and register with our …
Dr Lim: Authority.
Mr AH KIT: Authority, yes.
Dr LIM: Well if I may re-explain myself, minister? On 1 January 2003, this legislation comes into force. On 31 December 2002, living in Darwin, I have a swimming pool that is compliant with the Darwin City Council by-laws. Your legislation is built on premise that perhaps the Darwin City Council by-laws are not adequate, are deficient, and you want to raise the standard of pool fencing. However, as I am registered as having a compliant pool fence with the Darwin City Council within the Darwin City Council by-laws, on 1 January 2003 when I apply for registration with the Northern Territory Swimming Pools Authority or whatever you call it, theoretically my pool is a registered, compliant pool under this act, and it will need to be upgraded to your standards at a time I sell or rent my property. If I choose not to sell, if I choose to live in this property until my untimely death or whatever, my pool fence does not have to be compliant with your legislation because it is already compliant to the existing Darwin City Council by-laws until 31 December. Am I correct?
Mr AH KIT: Registration will be encouraged, as the Chief Minister mentioned earlier.
Dr Lim: I will be registered by 1 January with you.
Mr AH KIT: It will be begin next week in earnest, and the government will also have an extensive education program and a cash bonus system, as I explained, to encourage people to come in and register and take advantage of that early registration incentive scheme.
The registration process also acknowledges that the pool owner satisfies the current council by-laws. So I cannot see what point you are tying to make here.
Dr LIM: If I may explain that, minister? My point is that you are suggesting that your legislation is going to fix the deficiencies that are in the Darwin City Council by-laws. That is why you have this legislation, otherwise you would not be fixing Darwin at all. If you think Darwin City Council by-laws are sufficient, are adequate, then you would not be passing this legislation to fix it. So you do not find the Darwin City Council by-laws efficient.
You also said if I am registered with a compliant pool, according to Darwin City Council by-laws then, on 1 January 2003 when I apply to your authority for registration, I will automatically be registered as having a compliant pool fence. Yet, it may not be, because it might not be the ASA that you are talking about because the Darwin City Council by-laws might not be up to the ASA standard. That is what you are suggesting.
Now I have a swimming pool that does not comply with your ASA standard but, because I have chosen not to rent or sell my property, I am not compelled to upgrade my fence.
Mr AH KIT: I wish you could give me a better example. I am sorry, I just find it hard trying to follow you. Let us go through this. You are saying if you are on the Darwin City Council records …
Dr LIM: Let me try again, minister. I have a property in Darwin, a three-bedroom house on a suburban block and a swimming pool in my backyard. I went to the city council and said: ‘I have a pool in my backyard, I have a pool fence of these dimensions’, and Darwin City Council signs off. It might be only 1 m high, or whatever …
Mr AH KIT: But they registered you.
Dr LIM: But they registered me, okay? It complies with the Darwin City Council by-laws.
Next year, when your legislation is in force, I apply to the authority for registration and the process, according to this legislation, is yes, I will be ticked off as compliant ….
Mr Wood: No, non-compliant.
Dr LIM: Legal, non-compliant. You ticked me off because you are saying I have been registered with the Darwin City Council as having a compliant swimming pool fence. Next year, under your authority, when I apply for registration, you say: ‘Yes, you have already had a compliant pool with the Darwin City Council’.
Ms MARTIN: I am understanding what the member is saying. You are registered, you have a pool that comes up to the existing Darwin City Council by-laws which means that it might be up to Australian Standard, or it might not be. You might have a perimeter fencing situation. You will then accept that you close those gates, but if you are a renter and you continue rent, then you cannot be forced to change. If you own and do not sell, you cannot be forced to change, but you lose out in the incentive bonus to put that pool fencing up to standard, and that then becomes your responsibility. We are not going after you.
Dr LIM: No, that’s right, okay, so what the Chief Minister said, agrees with my point, that yes, I do not have to spend any more money on my fence if I plan to live in the house for the next 30 years. I do not have to, and it is fine.
So, now, throughout the suburbs of Darwin, potentially you could have a hotchpotch of swimming pool fences, those that comply with the legislation and those that do not . Am I right in that?
Mr WOOD: It is exactly my point. Then why have registration? Why have it, except for the incentive scheme?
Ms MARTIN: The whole point of registration is to understand what is out there in the marketplace, so that we are able to monitor, because even though the member for Greatorex says he is renting his house and he will rent it forever, that is probably not the case. Once that change of tenant happens, then the pool has to come up to Australian Standard and, if the member for Greatorex decides to sell the house, then that will again have to come up to Australian Standards.
So, registration is that line in the sand. We will understand what is there, and we then know where there are pools. The person who is the owner of the pool then has the comfort of knowing their pool is up to Australian Standard. The registration is key, particularly when government is talking about a cash bonus, and an interest-free loan scheme, we have to understand what we are dealing with. But we are not going to take a big stick and tell somebody that they must do that if they are going to keep renting the same premises, or if they are not going to sell those premises. However, you do miss out on the bonus.
Let me say one of the things I made very clear, and one that, as I have walked the streets of Darwin has distressed me most - and it is distressful - is that many people have pools with perimeter fences where those perimeter fences are not closed. One thing this government is very committed to: we will check that your fence, if it is a perimeter fence, member for Greatorex, in your theoretical case, that front gate will be closed and it will meet the current standards.
But we are trying to say, as a community, we recognise the importance of having that barrier. It is not 100% barrier against little children drowning in pools, but it is effective and research and experience around Australia has found that it is effective. So what we are saying, as a community, is: ‘Let us embrace this’. We are saying that you do not have to, but we are offering you a cash bonus and a loans incentive to do that. So, there is an element of goodwill in here, but if, like the member for Greatorex, and his theoretical circumstance then you can do that. But I will say in the theoretical circumstance, if we come round as the authority, as an inspector, and find that your front gate is not closed, then you will be fined. Unequivocally, you will be fined.
Dr LIM: Well, that is good. I hear what the Chief Minister is saying, that if a person decides not to upgrade their fence once they are already compliant under the registration system, then they can do so for as long as they choose, or until they have to change a tenant or sell the property. They can hang on to it, especially if they live there for the next 30 years. The pool fence will be non-compliant in the sense that it is not up to ASA standards, but it is still registered. So the question then comes back. Really, the database is for no other purpose at all except that you have got a database there. Are you going to then send inspectors around the Territory checking out on all those fences that are not up to your legislative standards?
Mr AH KIT: We have answered all of your questions, so ...
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Nelson, are you going to move your amendment.
Mr WOOD: No, just on the same area, a question of clarification. You are saying, minister, that the council’s databases are not really up to the standard you require. However, you tend to give that opinion because, in your last section which is clause 62(3) and (4), you have basically given yourself the power to take the records from a council that came into existence before the commencement day, or held on that day. They have to be made available to the authority for inspection, for the purposes of administration and enforcement of the act. Those two clauses have come in because, I would have presumed, that you believed that those municipalities had good records. If you did not want those records and you were going to start from scratch, why bother to put those in the act in the first place?
Mr AH KIT: Well, we are starting from scratch and, as I said, we are drawing that line in the sand. But the councils have been included and we have had consultations with them. They do not have a problem with that. But we will be starting from scratch. If there are any bits of information on their registration systems that they would like to pass over to us, given that we are taking on this big responsibility, then there is a spirit of cooperation and they are quite happy to pass that stuff on to us.
Dr LIM: Another question, if I may?
Ms Martin: Is it related to this clause?
Dr LIM: Yes, it is about registration. Another hypothetical: I own a house in the centre of town. It is a very big block, but still less than two hectares. I have a swimming pool that currently is registered with the Darwin City Council. I propose to sell the block on 10 January next year, and I know that the purchaser is going to knock the whole lot down and build a new you-beaut hotel on that block of land. But my conveyancer tells me that I cannot sell that block with a swimming pool on 10 January
Ms MARTIN: Empty the swimming pool and then sell it - empty the swimming pool!
Dr LIM: Hang on, if I empty the swimming pool ... The Chief Minister interjects with: ‘Empty the swimming pool’. Okay. All right, let me develop this a bit more for you, Chief Minister, before you end up in too many interjections.
I propose to sell the block with a swimming pool with a non-compliant fence, to somebody who wants to buy it to build a hotel. The Chief Minister now says on 9 January I can empty the swimming pool and it would be compliant, because there is no water, it is not a risk. There is still no fence, or a non-compliant fence around the swimming pool. On 10 January the deal is signed, I get my $10m, I run. The new purchaser comes along and he fills the pool.
Mr Ah Kit: No, you said he was going to knock it over, bulldoze it and build another block.
Dr LIM: Hang on, let me finish. He has bought the block of land, the conveyancing has already occurred. He has decided that he will not build a hotel, but live in that house, and he fills up the pool. Now, what do you do, minister? Do you go back and say: ‘Hang on, mate, you cannot fill that pool up?’ He bought it, clearly ...
Mr Ah Kit: If he paid you $10m for it he should not be too worried about the penalties, the fine.
Dr LIM: It is not a swimming pool …
Mr Kiely: The lease changed hands as a house.
Dr LIM: No, seriously, maybe the $10m might be a stupid figures to raise. What I am saying is that there is a person who has owned a house with a swimming pool. He has filled it up, he is using it. What do you say to that man?
Mr KIELY: Yes, I would like to respond to that. If the house has been sold, then it has been sold. Regardless of the intent to knock it down or do what else; the person buying the house would have to change it to comply with the legislation. Just because his intention might be stated as building a hotel or doing anything else on it, the whole intention, once he buys it, he has to comply, and that is all there is to it.
Dr LIM: Thank you, the minister for Sanderson.
Mr AH KIT: Let me respond to your question, if I could, Madam Chair.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Greatorex, do you want to hear from the minister?
Dr LIM: Okay, good. So you are responding now, not the member for Sanderson.
Mr Kiely: Well maybe if you asked realistic questions instead of wasting everyone’s time …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Sanderson, can we have some order, please?
Mr AH KIT: The Chief Minister did not advise that you could empty the swimming pool.
Dr Lim: She did, by interjection.
Mr AH KIT: Yes, that is realistic. If it is below 300 mm then it is not classified as a pool. But don’t leave the water in there too long, getting a bit murky, because then the environmental health people would be onto you, knocking on your door.
But we have, as you notice in the bill, a Swimming Pool Fencing Authority that you could put a special case to. I am quite sure that they, with the flexibility I mentioned earlier, will consider your case on its merit and make a decision one way or another to clear up your particular case in respect to the circumstances in the situation. So, that is one of the roles of the Swimming Pool Fencing Authority - to apply that flexibility, as in the briefing with the member for Nelson explaining about some properties may just be a bit less than 2 hectares. They are more than welcome to make an application on a special case situation to the Swimming Pool Fencing Authority, and that case will be considered on its merits.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 33. 2 without any comment.
Motion negatived.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Dr LIM: Minister, I ask for an explanation. It appears when I read clause 8 that it is similar to clause 7 and I do not understand the need for that. Can you explain that for me, please? Clause 8 appears to say the same things as clause 7 and I wonder why it is there.
Mr AH KIT: In regards to clause 8, this amendment also relies on proposed amendment 33.1 being supported. As amendment 33.1 was not supported, then it is not necessary to insert …
Dr LIM: No, just looking at clause 8 per se as printed in your bill …
Mr AH KIT: Clause 7, sorry.
Dr LIM: No, clause 8. The intention of clause 8 appears to be the same as the intention of clause 7 except clause 7 is more detailed. I just do not understand the rationale …
Mr AH KIT: Yes, and this was raised at the briefing by the member for Nelson, about clause 7 and 8 being very similar. The question was put: can they be amalgamated into one? What I am saying to you is, clause 7 states that all existing swimming pools at small premises must be registered. Section 8 states that the owners of all existing swimming pools at small premises must apply to register before 18 months after the day the act commences.
Because the penalty in section 7(1)(2) duplicates the reference to the 18 month period - but this is a drafting style for an act which is the province of Parliamentary Counsel, and the time they were given to draft the bill. That is the explanation there; they are similar. But from the Parliamentary Counsel, this is their drafting style and they are the experts in this area, I am so advised by them and so is my department. So, that is the explanation I give.
Dr LIM: I am happy with that; I just needed an explanation because I could not understand it.
Mr WOOD: I am not sure how to handle this because we wiped out section 1(a), it was defeated. I would still like to argue the case for the amendment 2(b).
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: So you are referring to clause 8 on your Schedule No. 33; it is amendment 33.3 referring to section 2(b).
Mr WOOD: Yes, because by virtue of the fate of 1(a) …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: The others are irrelevant.
Mr WOOD: That is right. The reason I put that in was the argument that where a council does not come under Schedule 2, I see no reason why the pool should be registered. You also have clause 15 which says you can have a pool registered which does not even have an enclosure, so you would have to ask: what is the point?
All I have tried to do with that is have a section of the act which comes under where a council has no existing by-laws, try to make it sensible enough that you would not bother to go around and register them. I do not see any point in registering a pool in a council area that had no existing by-laws unless those people want to avail themselves of the incentive program. That is why I would like to retain that amendment.
Ms MARTIN: The purpose is that we want all pools registered. Where there are existing by-laws, they can meet those standards, but where there are no by-laws, they have to come up to Australian Standards. There is an incentive scheme in place to help them do that. The point is to understand what pools are there and what standard of fencing they have. That is a very clear intention of the act.
Mr WOOD: I understand that, Chief Minister, but part of this is not the reality of the situation which I mentioned before, where we now have a division between one hectare and two hectares. In my electorate, we will now have people who have to register their blocks for no reason because there is no requirement to do anything with that pool. If they wish to receive the incentive, for sure, they can …
Ms Martin: Register.
Mr WOOD: Register, that is right. However, you are now going to have people on one side of the road who will have an inspector coming around saying: ‘We would like to look at your pool’, and on the other side, they are going to say: ‘We are not going to look at your pool’. Yet, in practical terms, it makes no difference except a piece a paper. All you will do is make people pretty cranky, wanting to know why you are coming around to look at their pool in Howard Springs. If you had to explain to them that you just want to put them on the database, I do not think they are going to be really happy.
I was just trying to introduce what I thought was a sensible amendment specifically for areas where councils had no by-laws before.
Mr AH KIT: I understand what the member for Nelson’s point is, but do you want this applied to two hectares and beyond? We are drawing the line, I explained earlier, at two hectares and above - dams, flooded creeks in the Wet Season, whatever. We had to put that demarcation line somewhere, and that is what we have done. Do we go the other way and bring it back to one hectare, half hectare quarter hectare – where do we stop if we go that way?
Government has taken the decision to say that for two hectares and below, we are going to apply this; two hectares and above, they have a choice if they wish to register and take advantage of the incentive scheme. The purpose of the legislation, as the Chief Minister said, is to capture all swimming pools at small premises in the Northern Territory. Therefore, it is important that the intent of the proposed legislation be applied consistently throughout the Territory. The amendment is not supported.
Mr WOOD: Minister, you asked me a question about whether I agree that it should be in two hectare subdivisions. The letter I wrote to you with a copy of all the surveys said that I felt the best way was to apply the rule – not the registration, the rule – to all blocks that you have to come up to the standard at point of sale and renting or when you bought a new pool. Because that would bring, slowly, all the pools in two and one hectare blocks up to the requirements. But we are not talking about that; we are talking about the registering of pools.
If you wanted to go out and register all the pools in the whole of the Litchfield Shire, you would have a war on your hands. That is what I was trying to say: you do not have to go around and inspect every pool. You will pick up exactly what the objective of this act is - to bring pool fencing up to the Australian Standard - without the registration. They have to come to that point. It seems to me a waste of space to be trying to register pools in an area that had no by-laws in the first place. You will pick them up. With or without registration you will still get there. The registration makes absolutely no difference in the Nelson electorate. If you applied it to the two hectares, it would be the same - you would have gradually got people’s swimming pools up to the standard.
I did not advocate the split, the government has decided that will be the split. I am saying now that you have a problem with the split because in Howard River Park and in Whitewood Park, on one side of the road, you will have people required to register - and they have 100 m frontages. On the other side of the road, with the same 100 m frontages that do not have the same depth, they do not have to be registered. You have created a problem. You either exempt all of Litchfield Shire totally or you bring all of Litchfield Shire into the one rule. I would not have included registration, that is for sure. So I have a problem that I think this act has highlighted. I am not going to be going round telling people that they have to register their pools, I will just be ducking.
Ms MARTIN: I can assure the member for Nelson that he does not have to do that. That is what we will have an incentive scheme in for. If you live in a block that is two hectares or more, you can register your pool, you can take advantage of the cash bonus and the interest-free scheme. This is then an individual decision to be made. There are always differences, and government had to draw the line somewhere. We did with the two hectare, and those differences exist in ordinary blocks. If you walk down any street, some people rent, some people own, some people are in Housing Commission houses. In every street in Darwin there is differences. Those differences, I would have thought, were celebrated in the rural area. I believe that we should put this amendment.
Mr WOOD: I am not whingeing about that. I am just saying it has created a problem, and the registration to me is just irrelevant to get what you want in those smaller blocks. It does not make any sense.
Ms MARTIN: Well, government disagrees for very good reasons.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9:
Dr LIM: Addressing clause 10 …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Greatorex, do I take it that you are okay with clause 9? If you are, we will move that and then go to clause 10.
Dr LIM: No problems.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Dr LIM: Addressing clause 10, minister, and looking at 10(a), when I read through the context of it I do not quite follow and I wonder if you could explain that.
- The order of small premises at which a new swimming pool is being constructed or installed, or is constructed
or installed, must apply under section 11 for registration of the swimming pool –
You addressed that earlier during your reply closing debate, that in fact somebody has to apply for construction. But clause 10(a) tells me that you do not have to apply before construction. In fact, if I read it correctly - and I believe the syntax is quite in error - you have to apply within the four weeks of commencement. In others, you can apply on the 28th day after you have constructed the pool, or after you have commenced construction of the pool.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Deputy Chair! I do not understand what the question was; he has just made a statement. So I …
Dr LIM: No, the question is: the minister in his reply closing debate, when I said that the legislation was weaker than the by-laws that are in existence in at least Darwin and Palmerston City Councils, because those two councils insist that you have to apply for a construction permit prior to construction, said: ‘Well, you are wrong, because you have to do this too under clause 10’.
Now, coming to clause 10, it does not say that. What it says is:
- The order of small premises at which a new swimming pool is being constructed or installed, or is constructed
or installed, must apply under section 11 for registration of the swimming pool –
I take that to mean that, as long as you apply within 28 days of the date of the commencement of the construction of a swimming pool. I am asking the minister: am I right or I wrong? If I am right, then what he said about having to apply for a construction permit is incorrect.
Mr AH KIT: Member for Greatorex, if you look at the bill before us, I am advised that there is a comma missing, which makes it read, under 10(a):
- before, four weeks after commencement day, or the commencing of the construction or installation of the swimming
pool at the premises, whichever is later ...
So that reads differently if you include the comma. That is what I am advised, the comma was a typo error from the drafting.
Dr LIM: Well minister, just give me a second to read the syntax of the English. Well, minister if I may address this to you then? That confirms my suspicion that one does not have to apply for a construction permit. One has to apply within 28 days of the commencement of construction, and that is precisely my point. I see your advisor shaking his head vigorously over there, but let me read this for you again. I will leave the preamble out and go to clause (a):
- before, four weeks after commencement day, or the commencement of the construction or installation of the swimming
pool at the premises, whichever is later ...
So the later you are, the more okay you are. In order words, what I am saying again, it confirms you do not have to apply for a construction permit. Right or wrong?
Mr AH KIT: Wrong.
Dr LIM: Why? Tell me why.
Mr AH KIT: Where did you get the construction permit from? South Australia. It is not done here, it is not in this bill. Let me explain: ‘… before, four weeks after commencement day …’ of the bill, ‘… or the commencement of the construction of installation …’. You have four weeks either way to go and register your pool and take advantage of the early registration incentive scheme. It is simple. What sort of pool is going to take three months to build? We are talking about residential, we are talking about a pool in somebody’s yard. These blokes knock them up in a couple of weeks - a week in some cases. So we are trying to be fair. If you think I am too prescriptive in having four weeks and you would like to put it to six, well put up an amendment. But that is the intent of it, and its intention is meaningful.
Dr LIM: If I may, I will explain myself a bit clearer if I can, minister. Two days ago, I decided to build a pool, and I have a block up here in Darwin. I start digging a hole in the backyard …
Mr Kiely: Did you buy it on TA?
Dr LIM: Well, we are in committee, we can have some fun and hilarity, but the member for Sanderson is really just a bit of a - I will not say any swear words, it would be a waste of time anyway …
Mr Kiely: Get on with it!
Dr LIM: I will get on with it if I have sensible interjections. If I am going to have inane ludicrous, stupid interjections, then I have the right to respond.
Mr Stirling: Get on with it!
Dr LIM: You, Deputy Chief Minister, are probably giving a very, very bad example.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Deputy Chair! Can the member for Greatorex get on with his question, rather than his hypotheses? If he does not have a direct question, I am going to put the clause.
Mr MALEY: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Deputy Chair. That is not a point of order. The committee stage process enables members to ask questions about the interpretation, the application of legislation, quite generally, and that is reasonable question and he is wrong.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: There is no point of order.
Dr LIM: I have put hypotheses because that is a way of giving the minister a practical example to which he can respond. That is the question; the question is a hypothetical case.
Clause 10(a) says that I have to apply for registration within 28 days of my having a pool or the commencement of construction of a pool. All right? Four weeks from commencement of the legislation, or the commencement of the pool. So I do not have four weeks leeway from the time of construction to the time of applying for registration? Is that what you are saying?
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Deputy Chair. This is repetitive questioning and I would ask that the clause be put. I move that clause 10 be put.
Motion agreed to.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Is it the wish of the committee …
Mr Stirling: If you cannot understand English, you can …
Dr Lim: Well then, teach me! You are that good a teacher, are you?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Order! I am speaking. Please respect the Chair.
Dr Lim: Well, he interjected first.
Mr Stirling: Throw him out.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Please respect the Chair.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Mr MALEY: Madam Deputy Chair, my question is to the minister in relation to clause 11. Just one simple question. Clause 11(2) talks about a fee:
- An application under subsection (1) is to be made in the approved form and is to be accompanied by the gazetted
fee, if any.
Why have you decided to use the mechanism of a gazette to set this fee, as opposed to a regulation? Keeping in mind that if it was set in the regulations, it is something which would fall to be considered by the Subordinate Legislation and Publications Committee and at least, in one way, it would be caught under the umbrella of parliamentary process. This particular …
Ms Martin: This is the parliamentary process.
Mr MALEY: I will pick up the interjection. That is actually quite true, what you said; this is the parliamentary process. But to set the fee, when the next government, or in 20 years time the government would technically, according to this, just issue another Gazette, and that would increase the fee or decrease it.
Ms Martin: If you put it in the regulations you could just change it like that.
Mr MALEY: But the regulations come before a committee called the Subordinate Legislation and Publications Committee and that is made up of members of parliament including Madam Deputy Chair …
Mr AH KIT: Gazetted, it allows us the flexibility.
Mr MALEY: That is true. But you realise you are circumventing the safeguards of parliament by using the gazettal process as opposed to regulation?
Mr AH KIT: Mm.
Mr MALEY: Yes, okay.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 14, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 15:
Mr WOOD: I seek a point of clarification here, Madam Deputy Chair. Just to speed things along, because those previous clauses were defeated clause 15 would be irrelevant; clause 21 would be irrelevant; clause 23 would be irrelevant; clause 49 would be irrelevant; clause 55 would be irrelevant; and I think clause 57 would be irrelevant; because they all relate to clause 15 being defeated. Clause 15 relied on clause 8 and clause 7 existing.
On a point of clarification, may I combine those clauses – I am not sure whether this is the correct way, but should I invite defeat of all those amendments? Is that what I should do, or should we go through them one by one?
Mr STIRLING: No, you may invite defeat.
Mr WOOD: Do I need to repeat those to make it clear? Madam Deputy Chair, I suppose …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: The advice is yes, it is probably to invite defeat on all those clauses.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I invite defeat on clauses 15, 21, 23, 49, 55 and 57.
Ms MARTIN: May I make a point? We are talking about inviting defeat on clauses; they are actually amendments to existing clauses. The most appropriate thing to do is simply withdraw your amendments because they have not been put, so they can just be withdrawn.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I withdraw amendments to clauses 21, 23, 49, 55 and 57. I am not sure what you do with clause 15.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: The member is inviting defeat on clause 15?
Mr WOOD: I do not have anything to say expect that it is now irrelevant from my point of view. I am not sure whether the member for Greatorex would like to speak on it.
Dr LIM: I am not going to speak to the amendment that is proposed by the member for Nelson which is to invite defeat of clause 15. I am asking for an explanation. People think that I am being deliberately obtuse or difficult, but it might be just the way I read English, that being my second language. However, let me ask this question: having read clauses 13 and 14 which we have passed, about the registration of enclosure in accordance with Australian Standards and the registration of non-standard enclosures, clause 15 does not come across to me clearly enough.
The way I read clause 15, it says that:
- If the authority receives an application under section 11 in relation to a swimming pool that is situated at small
premises that are not situated in an area specified in the clause in Schedule 2 …
Which is in the back and applies to Darwin, Palmerston, Jabiru and Alice Springs:
- … the authority must, if the swimming pool cannot be registered under section 13 or 14, register the swimming
pool under this section as authorised under this section without enclosure.
In other words, any community that does not have any by-laws at the moment – of course, Darwin, Palmerston, Alice Springs and Jabiru have – if the pool does not have an ASA standard fencing or if the pool does not have any non-standard enclosure, under clause 15 it can be authorised without an enclosure. That means every swimming pool that is outside of Darwin, Palmerston, Alice Springs and Jabiru does not need to have a fence under clause 15. Am I right?
Mr AH KIT: Yes, your interpretation is right.
Dr LIM: Well, minister, if I am right, I really have a major problem with this whole legislation again. Let me explain to you why I have a difficulty.
Members interjecting.
Dr LIM: Please, let me explain to you why I have a difficulty. I do not know the size of housing blocks in Batchelor. Does Batchelor have by-laws for swimming pools?
Let us take Tennant Creek. Tennant Creek has no by-laws on swimming pool fencing. It has small premises. Does Tennant Creek, Katherine and Nhulunbuy come under clause 15? If they do, we are saying that in those communities, if not other communities, you do not have to fence a pool. Am I right?
Mr Stirling: You have to come up to Australian Standards.
Dr LIM: Hang on, let me ask the question. I am asking a legitimate question …
Ms MARTIN: No. As I have said before, clearly, that the registering is establishing what is there. If it is in Tennant Creek, then the pool is registered. Once they are registered, they can then apply for the bonus, the interest-free loan. When they are going to sell that house, that property, or if there is a change of rental, it will have to be up to standard. So that is where the incentive is. That is what we have explained before, and that is clearly what is there in this clause 15. So I think we should put clause 15.
Dr LIM: I beg your pardon, Chief Minister, I appreciate your explanation and I thank you for that.
Ms MARTIN: But we have said it before. I have said it a number of times before.
Dr LIM: Yes, and no. I was surprised. I am truly genuinely surprised that you would say to Territorians, people who live in Katherine, Tennant Creek and Nhulunbuy, that they do not have to have their pool fenced under clause 15.
Ms Martin: They will.
Dr LIM: They do not have to unless they sell, rent, or unless they choose to access the incentive scheme. If they choose not to do any of those, and they are significant communities in the Territory - Tennant Creek and Katherine - having thousands of people. So you are saying those pools do not have to be enclosed at all. Am I right?
Mr AH KIT: Let me make it quite clear. The legislation is not retrospective. No change is, therefore, required until change of ownership or tenancy - for about the 10th time!
Dr LIM: So I am right then, Tennant Creek, Katherine, Nhulunbuy …
Ms Martin: He said you were right.
Mr AH KIT: I told you you were right.
Ms MARTIN: We did it for your Darwin example, we will do it for the Tennant Creek example.
Mr HENDERON: I move clause 15.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that we move clause 15.
Mr WOOD: I was inviting defeat.
Ms MARTIN: No, you withdrew your amendment, so we are looking at the clause as printed.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, just clarifying; I thought you might have supported my amendment there for a minute.
Clauses 16 to 19, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 20:
Mr WOOD: As I said before, we did have a briefing on this. We have had two briefings, and the second briefing showed us some committee notes which basically said that a solid lid would also be a grille, if it was strong enough for a child not to fall through. At that briefing I said: ‘Well, if you are not willing to change, or to add in an additional definition in the clause, would you at least put it in the definitions of solid lid under the definitions?’ Neither has occurred. It was a sensible and practical improvement to clause 20(5) because, as you know, many people find that their spas are too cold if you cover them up completely. That is all it was about, we were just trying to have a sensible addition to that clause.
Mr AH KIT: I am confused. Sorry, Madam Deputy Chair. Weren’t you addressing clause 20?
Mr WOOD: Clause 20(5). Perhaps if I read it to you, minister:
- A swimming pool meets the preconditions for non-standard enclosure if the swimming pool is a spa pool that is
covered by a solid lid …
After that, I am asking that ‘or a grille with a mesh size that is small enough to prevent a child gaining access to the spa pool and’
- … that is able to be locked in place on top of the spa pool at all times when the spa pool is not in use.
It is purely trying to just make that a more sensible cover on a spa, especially in this part of the world.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, can I let the member of Nelson know - and for your own reference - my clause 20(2)(a), I thought, was the amendment that we would discuss first and deal with that. Member for Nelson, we are jumping the gun a bit.
Mr WOOD: Sorry …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: There is an amendment proposed in schedule No 29 by Mr Ah Kit, to clause 20(2)(a), so yours is …
Mr WOOD: So it does, my apologies, minister.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: … further down on the page.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, I move the amendment 29.2.
Clause 20 of the bill specifies the conditions that a swimming pool or swimming pool barrier must comply with to be approved as a non-standard enclosure. Clause 20(2) relates to swimming pools that are situated on the premises that have some frontage to a body of water such as a river, pond, lake, sea, etcetera, and access to the swimming pool from a residential building is restricted in accordance with the appropriate Australian Standard or a non-standard enclosure, while clause 20(2)(a) names a body of water as a pond, etcetera, which would capture a marina. The word ‘marina’ is added to the subclause to make it quite clear that the legislation applies to a swimming pool that is situated on premises that have some frontage to a marina.
Also, may I thank the member for Port Darwin for the suggestion to include this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Well, I would like to say everything in retrospect. I have said it all before.
Ms Martin: Making the legislation retrospective?
Mr WOOD: No, I made the comments out of turn. I was going to save Hansard having to write them all down again. The minister understood what I said previously?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: You will see the member for Nelson is referring to schedule No 33, Mr Wood, on the second page, clause 20, amendment 33.4. Its reference is subclause (5), after ‘lid’ insert.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, the amendment is not necessary, as a solid lid means a durable or robust lid of sufficient strength that would prevent a child from falling into the water and could include such materials as solid mesh or grid. Trying to further define what may be suitable in the legislation could put a risk other types of mesh that do not fit the precise description intended. The Swimming Pool Fencing Authority will have the flexibility to determine an appropriate solid lid. The amendment is not supported.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister, I wondered then, why that definition you gave could not have been in the definitions because that is really what I argued in the first place. You have given me a definition of a solid lid. To make sure there is no misinterpretation, surely that could be put into the definitions?
Mr AH KIT: Not necessarily, member for Nelson because, if we wanted to define everything possible, the book would be thicker than this box on the Table here. We have to be pretty smart about how we go about this. One of the beauties of this legislation is the flexibility. That is why we do not want to see a situation where people on blocks are running around chucking ARC mesh, whatever square inches, over pools and have dangerous sides there with all that sort of stuff. We have defined it there. It is not in the definitions but, if people wish to argue a special case, then please take it up with the Swimming Pool Fencing Authority.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I thought ARC mesh would be quite suitable in the rural area, in keeping with the landscape. But I take your point, minister, and I will leave it at that.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Dr LIM: Madam Deputy Chair, I do not have any problems unless other members in the Chamber now have problems, I do not have anything until clause 45, so it might help you.
Mr MALEY: I can indicate just by trying to speed the process up a little, there are some comments that I wish to make about part 5, that is from clause 41 on.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: So we will do clauses 23 to 40.
Mr Stirling: No, Richard has one before that.
Dr Lim: No, 45, I said.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: No, the member for Greatorex has already indicated to me. Member for Nelson, do you have any problem with clauses 23 to 40?
Mr WOOD: Yes, clause 34. That is the one I have an amendment for.
Clauses 23 to 33, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 34:
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move two amendments 33.7 and 33.8. They basically put into the financial assistance scheme section a clarification of what the government has said within its swimming pool safety plan information kit; that is requiring people if they want assistance to get that assistance on or before the 30 June 2004. I felt that, as it is, clause 34 does not really state what the government has been saying in public; that this financial scheme is really only there for 18 months. I do not know if this is the right time but it is possibly the only time - with the financial assistance scheme it might be worth asking for a clarification of what that financial assistance scheme really means, because it is not written in to this clause 34. I mentioned before that we need to ask: does this financial scheme cover a new fence around a new pool in the first 18 months? Can the person get money for a fence around a new pool that they build within the first 18 months?
Ms Martin: No.
Mr WOOD: A lot of people believe that. Second, can they get it for a fence on a pool that does not have an existing fence? Then what is the difference?
Ms MARTIN: One exists. The whole point of having an incentive scheme is for those who currently have a pool to bring them up to the Australian Standard. That is what it is about. If you do not have a fence at all and you put one in, it has to be up to the Australian Standard. If you have one that does not meet Australian Standards, then you can upgrade that particular fence.
If you are building a new pool, this law says it has to be up to that Australian Standard, so the incentive scheme only applies to those who have an existing pool that does not come up to that standard; which will be established by registration.
Mr WOOD: I will ask a silly question: if you do not have to be registered within 18 months, I will put my pool in in January and I will tell you about it next year. I will put a bit of a barbed wire fence around it and then say: ‘I need some money to upgrade my fence’. You have created a bit of a problem here. Personally, I feel you need to apply it to all new fences that are built …
Dr Burns: Locks only stop honest people.
Mr WOOD: I understand that, but I am saying that it would have been much easier to apply it to all new fences.
Mr Stirling: They would be prosecuted for putting in an illegal pool.
Mr AH KIT: It is not retrospective. That is what I said earlier. So you would not be able to get away with it.
Mr WOOD: I am not promoting people doing anything illegally. What I am saying is that it is less likely that people will try to get round the system if it applied to all new pools and fences in that period.
Ms MARTIN: The whole idea is you bring in a law that says that is what the new standard is, but it is not making it retrospective. What we are doing for those who have existing pools that do not have the fencing that is up to the required new standard, is offering incentives. There is a very distinct difference that we are trying to achieve here. There is a very big difference between having a new pool that you put in knowing what the requirements are, and one that you put in, meeting the standards of the time - and there are different ones across the Territory - and the incentive to bring them up to the new standard. Two very different things.
Mr AH KIT: Could I just explain that the amendment proposes an end date to the proposed financial assistance schemes under this legislation. This is not necessary, as the terms and conditions of the financial assistance scheme will be determined by the minister under subclause (2), which will include the time any scheme will remain open for application.
The provision allows the minister to approve a financial assistance scheme at any time, not just to 30 June 2004, as government has already announced. The early registration incentive scheme will commence operation with the commencement of the proposed legislation and will remain open for application for the initial 18-month period that swimming pool owners have to register their swimming pool. Removal of flexibility to enable an extension to, or to introduce other schemes as and when necessary at a time when we are starting out on this process, does not seem sensible. The amendment is not supported.
Mr WOOD: I take on board and accept what the Chief Minister has said. However, it has not been made clear and the word ‘upgrade’ in this context is about having a fence already. That is the problem. Upgrade from nothing: is that an upgrade or is that a new fence? I have had this plan out in the front of my electorate office and handed it out to a lot of people. A lot of people thought: ‘Well, I will not put a pool in until after 1 January, because then I can get my new pool fence’. To some extent, this was not clear. If you put a new pool in, it just said you cannot get money for your fence; a new pool after 1 January, you will not get incentive.
Mr AH KIT: No.
Mr WOOD: That is right, but that was not necessarily clear in this document and it could have been clarified a little better. That is all I am saying. I am not against your incentive scheme.
Amendments negatived.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clauses 35 to 39, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 40:
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Goyder, you indicated a desire to speak to clause 40.
Mr MALEY: The indication was from clause 41 on, so I intended taking it as a whole. Clause 40 is fine. Part 5, there are a couple of questions I wish to raise. Part 5 of the bill, that is after clause 41.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 to 47:
Mr MALEY: Madam Deputy Chair, can I seek an indication from you? This particular part is only relatively short, it is from clauses 41 to 47. Is it possible to ask questions of the minister dealing with the mechanics of those six clauses?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: The member for Greatorex has questions regarding clause 45 as well, so if we are going to do that for you, then we will afford the same courtesy to the member for Greatorex, if we are dealing with it as a section.
Dr LIM: I am happy to debate all of it together. If I can ask questions in between on clause 45, it would be fine.
Mr MALEY: Part 5 from clauses 41 to 47 deals with the administration and enforcement of the act, that is fairly obvious. I want to clarify and ask you a couple of questions. Clause 44 talks about the minister having a positive obligation to issue identity cards. Therefore, the 10 people you spoke about on that reading will be given identify cards. Is that the case?
Mr AH KIT: Yes.
Mr MALEY: Yes, and it follows if you have 10 people with identify cards and they are a separate unit within the department, they will have to have an identifiable uniform. Is that part of the process?
Mr AH KIT: Yes.
Mr MALEY: As well as an identifiable uniform, because they are, of course, pool inspectors, will they have an identifiable car - a car with some sort of badge or sticker on the side?
Mr HENDERSON: Point of order, Madam Deputy Chair! I do not see what on earth this has to do with the legislation in this clause, which is about identity cards. It has nothing to do with uniforms or cars.
Mr MALEY: I can talk to the point. If the member for Wanguri was listening, these questions relate to all seven clauses, and not just clause 44 which is where I started. I want to clarify and set the parameters of what the unit is going to look like.
Mr KIELY: Point of order, Madam Deputy Chair! I am a bit lost, jumping all over the place. Perhaps it might be best if we did go back doing clause by clause in this section rather than leaping all over because I am having trouble following the argument. I seek your indulgence.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: I have already ruled that we deal with the section as a whole, so if you had an objection at that stage …
Mr AH KIT: Yes. Can I ask the member for Goyder what is it you are trying to establish so that we can move this along.
Mr MALEY: Is it the case then that you will have these pool police with identity cards and uniforms, albeit not identified labelled vehicles? They have the power under clause 46 to obtain a search warrant. That being the case, they can go to a Justice of the Peace and take an oath and, if they can demonstrate that they have a reasonable ground to suspect that an offence is being committed; that is, there has been some sort of non-compliance …
Mr Elferink: Unlawful harbouring of a pool!
Mr MALEY: Well, whatever. A pool is perhaps not up to the standard they say it should be. Then they are given a search warrant. If you read clause 46(3), these uniformed men with identification badges …
Mr Kiely: Could be women.
Mr Bonson: People.
Ms Martin: They have to be men? No, it does not say that.
Mr MALEY: Under the Interpretations Act, of course, ‘man’ means male or female, but I will not labour the point - person. This individual then has the power to use reasonable force to enter the premises. That means he can kick down your door …
Dr Burns: Oh, I see, this is the pool police now. This is what you are getting at.
Mr Henderson: Do you support this legislation or not?
Mr MALEY: Minister, through this legislation, you have given people power to come to your home and break down your door. Is that not the case? They can use reasonable force to gain access to the premises and that means if the door is locked and they cannot get in, they can break down the gate, break down the door.
Mr AH KIT: Well, Madam Deputy Chair …
Ms Martin: I think the member for Goyder should take a Valium and settle down.
Mr AH KIT: This is the gentlest process that exists in any Northern Territory legislation that provides for inspector-type functions. I do not know why you are targetting that as a situation that is going to have inspectors going around heavy handed, muscling in and taking search warrants, and disrupting people’s lives in the community. That is not the intent …
Mr Maley: That is what it says.
Mr AH KIT: That is not the intent. For goodness sakes, the Power and Water Authority for many, many years, had people going out and walking into yards and reading the meters, and nobody has said anything. They have, mind you, designated motor cars.
Mr Elferink: That is called ‘tacit consent’.
Mr AH KIT: Sorry?
Mr Elferink: That is called ‘tacit consent’. That is something different.
Mr AH KIT: So what do you propose if somebody does not allow you in to inspect? Do you have a problem with somebody being away on leave; the person is on night shift, and that pool does not fit the Australian Standards if it has water in it, and there are kids in the neighbouring residential houses. What then do you do, if you have somebody who is not wanting you to come in, to allow you to check the pool to see whether that pool is safe and whether it complies?
I pick up on the earlier point from the member for Nelson. Are we to say to our people, our public servants: ‘Do not go near any of those two hectare blocks because they are mad and they will shoot you out there’. We are parliamentarians. We live in a democracy; we make laws; we debate laws; we debate legislation, bills. So are we going to be threatened by these sorts of things? I do not know. I do not think so. I say to you: there is nothing untoward in this section, and it is not the pool police; it is inspectors doing their job in ensuring that the community is complying with the standards that we are requesting.
Mr MALEY: I can answer that initial question. There is another option, of course, which has been used in other jurisdictions. If someone does not allow you access to their home, that itself is an offence and they are deemed not to have complied. Anyway, you have chosen a path of empowering a public servant, which is all a policeman is, of course, to go to your home and use reasonable force, which involves kicking the door in …
Ms Martin: No, it does not!
Mr MALEY: … so that is a choice you have made. These are, for the sake of this discussion, pool police. These people are pool police. Do you realise …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Deputy Chair! The member for Goyder is making statements. Now, if he has a question, put a question. Stop making statements, or I will put the clauses.
Mr Elferink: This is a debate and people are allowed to debate!
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: There has already been a discussion on that point of order. I am going to rule it out and explain that hypotheticals have been allowed throughout the committee stage and I am treating this as a hypothetical. Rather than reality, I am treating it as a hypothetical.
Mr MALEY: Minister, you realise the powers you have granted public servants, or these pool police, to use reasonable force …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Deputy Chair! The member for Goyder is being deliberately mischievous. They are not pool police; they are pool inspectors, like environmental health inspectors and other inspectors. If he is going to use provocative language, I am going to put these clauses. They are not pool police. They do not have the powers of police under the Police Administration Act, they are inspectors. If he cannot use the appropriate language and take this seriously, I am going to put the clauses.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Goyder, I would ask that you refrain from using provocative language, so that we can proceed in committee stage.
Mr MALEY: If I could just speak to that point of order. There is absolutely no way …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Goyder, I say to you, that you do not challenge the authority of the Chair. I have asked for you to refrain from using provocative language. Let that rest.
Mr MALEY: I cannot use the word ‘police’?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: That is right.
Mr MALEY: Okay. Minister, you would have to agree, you would understand that an individual given these powers to use reasonable force to enter your home, includes the power, if there is a savage dog on those premises, to poison your dog. They can poison or sedate your dog. Do you realise that that is part of the arsenal of tools that people can utilise when you have a warrant that says, you can use reasonable force to enter the premises?
Ms MARTIN: The member for Goyder has not been in this place that long but, if he looked in legislation that dealt with PowerWater employees or building inspectors, he would see exactly the same level of reasonable force used. It is a uniform term used, and it does not mean kicking down doors. I do not even know what fantasy land you want to inhabit, but learn a little more about legislation, and you probably find that the building inspectors had considerably more power than the pool inspectors will; the PowerWater employees have considerable more power. You probably find, if you go to the council by-laws, that the dog inspectors have a lot more.
So, stop getting into a state about this. This was described to you as very gentle, and that is what it is. It is a minimum requirement, and it is part of all laws that have to do with this. So this should be: I move that we put clause 46.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Just a moment members, I will clarify things. We are dealing with clauses 41 to 47.
Ms MARTIN: Okay, I move that clauses 41 to 47 be put.
Dr LIM: Before you do that, Chief Minister, I beg your indulgence. Chief Minister …
Mr Kiely: You agreed that they all get done together …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Please, can everyone resume their seat. Member for Greatorex, I ask that you withdraw.
Dr LIM: I withdraw that, but Chief Minister, I ask your indulgence.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Okay, now member for Greatorex, when I spoke first of all, I did point out to members, that the member for Greatorex had said that he wanted to deal with clause 45. Chief Minister, are you willing to allow the member for Greatorex to speak to clause 45?
Ms MARTIN: Certainly.
Dr LIM: I know it is late and it has been long hours but, obviously, this is an important piece of legislation we need to go through. At a briefing that I received in the minister’s office a couple of weeks ago, I raised the issue about clauses 45(2)(b) and (c). This relates to giving seven days notice to enter premises, and entry to occur seven days after, but not earlier than 24 hours after the notice is given. My comment then was that I thought it was unreasonably short, that even most landlords and other rightful entry type authorities would normally give seven days notice before they enter.
This is knocking on your door, giving you a letter of notice that you are going to come back, and within 24 hours you come back. Surely you could accord the home owner, or home occupier a bit more time than 24 hours. From a practical and an equitable point of view, I raised that, and I thought the minister’s office would have picked up on that comment. I would suggest you stretch it to seven days as would be normal.
Mr AH KIT: We disagree. Look, I gave a commitment that I will report back in February how the progress is going. I am not a minister who is perfect, as with yourself when you were a minister and all the legislation that you moved through that was so perfect, and it never had to be touched again. But we disagree and I move that we put the clauses.
Motion agreed to.
Clauses 41 to 47 agreed to.
Clauses 48 to 50, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clauses 51 to 54:
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Was there an objection there?
Dr LIM: The question is that things have been rushed through pretty quickly, and it appears that all the ministers are not prepared to entertain questions, even though they have been put reasonably.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Greatorex is there any clause within 50 to 54 that you would like to draw out?
Dr LIM: Not at the moment, thank you.
Clauses 51 to 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 agreed to.
Dr LIM: Madam Deputy Chair, may I offer a bit of an olive branch and suggest that you move from clauses 58 to 62.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: No.
Clause 58:
Ms CARTER: I was wondering if the minister could advise with regard to clause 58, the fence if a swimming pool is not able to be used. In the electorate that I represent there are quite a number of times when properties change hands which might, for example, have a single dwelling residence with a swimming pool on the property. However, when the property is sold the intent of the sale is to build, for example, a block of units. The question that has being put to me by a constituent is: what does he do in that instance? He knows that his block is being sold to build a block of units and his pool does not comply with regard to fencing. Obviously, he does not want to fence it prior to the sale.
Ms MARTIN: As of 1 January, you can register the pool and there is no fee for that. So it can be registered and he does not have to put a fence in. So you can just dismantle it, there is no problem. Just dismantle the pool.
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clauses 59 to 62, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2:
Mr AH KIT: I move amendment 29.3 which amends the reference to the name of the Alice Springs Council by omitting the word ‘city’ and substituting the word ‘town’. The bill incorrectly names the council as Alice Springs City Council. The amendment corrects the name of the council to Alice Springs Town Council, which is in keeping with the wishes of the community and the heritage and the history of the town of Alice Springs. That was overlooked, and my apologies to the lovely townsfolk of Alice Springs.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
Swimming Pool Fencing (Consequential Amendments) (Serial 107):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Bills reported; report adopted.
Mr AH KIT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr WOOD (Nelson): I wish to clarify a statement the minister made during the swimming pool debate that the members for Nelson and Greatorex said that legislation in Palmerston and Darwin was greater than what was being put through in the act. That is not correct. The minister might have picked that up from - I do not know what the government calls those pink sheets of paper that they have on the desk, but when I was delivering my Christmas greetings, I saw my name on one inferring that I had made a statement about the Palmerston and Alice Springs by-laws. So I do not know who put - I was not attempting to read them, I was just …
Mr Bonson interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Hang on. Whoever put those together has put my name down on something I did not say and I believe that is where the minister took his information from. I did not actually say that, but I would say whoever writes up those pink sheets, make sure you get it right.
TABLED PAPER
Treasurer’ s Annual Financial Statement 2001-02
Treasurer’ s Annual Financial Statement 2001-02
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, in accordance with section 9 of the Financial Management Act, I am pleased to table the 2001-02 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement, my first as Treasurer. The statement forms part of the 2001-02 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report and outlines the financial results of this government’s first year in office. You will notice that a corrigendum has been provided to the report that replaces page 140 in Part 9, Debt and Employee Liabilities. The printed version of figure 9.14 is missing both the chart and access descriptions. The chart shows the gross and nett debt balances since 1993, and the major influences affecting the debt.
Whilst the Financial Management Act was revised in August 2002 to reflect the move to the accrual output based framework, this report has been prepared in accordance with the act in place as at 30 June 2002. In addition, the 2001-02 report has been prepared in accordance with the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act, even though the act does not apply until 2002-03, as foreshadowed in the 2002-03 budget.
The focus under the new framework will be on the non-financial public sector. It includes the general government and public non-financial corporation sectors, but excludes the public financial corporations. Therefore, the analysis in this year’s report is largely based on the non-financial public sector.
In October last year, the Chief Minister delivered the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report, the first of this government. Although the report dealt with the previous government’s last financial year in office, it included a number of improvements to the format in line with this government’s commitment towards open and transparent financial reporting. In this year’s report, I have continued with these improvements and, as I have explained, included further additional information in line with the requirements of the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act.
As with the 2000-01 report, there is an expanded overview which provides analysis of the outcome against this government’s November 2001 mini-budget. Explanations of significant movements from the mini-budget to the actual outcome are provided for each agency, and an analysis of gross and nett debt and employee liabilities is also included. Also, for the first time accrual financial statements have been provided for general government, public non-financial corporations and non-financial public sector, and public financial corporations.
I move on to specific parts contained in the report. Parts 1 to 6 are the audited sections of the report, with parts 7 to 10 provided as supplementary information. Part 1 presents the nett transactions of government; that is, all transactions internal to government have been eliminated. Part 2 presents the gross outlays and receipts both by agency and aggregated into sectoral summary information. Schedule 2.7 within this part provides an explanation of the significant allocation movement from the time of the mini-budget to 30 June 2002. Parts 3 to 6 provide information on the Territory’s assets and liabilities in accordance with the former Financial Management Act. Parts 7 to 10 are unaudited and provide additional information on the government’s financial performance. Part 7 meets the Territory’s reporting obligations under the uniform presentation framework, and is prepared on a cash basis consistent with the mini-budget. The information provided on a uniform presentation framework basis has a whole-of-government focus that is broader than the public account information provided in Part 1.
Part 8 presents a set of accrual financial statements for general government, public non-financial corporations, total public non-financial sector and the public financial corporations. This information is not formally required to be included, but has been done so in accordance with the Fiscal Integrity Transparency Act, as I mentioned earlier. It is expected that these statements will form the basis of future financial reports.
In both Parts 7 and 8, two sets of schedules are presented. The first excludes the AustralAsia Railway Corporation and the second includes it. Information excluding the AustralAsia Railway Corporation has been provided as the materiality and timing of the railway-related transactions distort the Territory’s underlying position. Part 9 presents information on the Territory’s debts and liabilities with Part 10 providing assessment of the 2001-02 outcome against the fiscal strategy in place at the time of the mini-budget.
I turn to the outcome for the 2001-02 financial year. The assessment of the outcome is against the November mini-budget on a uniform presentation framework basis for the total public sector. This excludes the AustralAsia Railway Corporation for the reasons mentioned and the TIO, consistent with past practice. You are aware when this government first came to power we were informed by Treasury that the May 2001 budget handed down by the previous government was unsustainable. We brought in Professor Percy Allan to undertake a review of the Territory’s financial position and he confirmed Treasury’s advice. We then brought down the November mini-budget which reset the base for the key areas of health, education, law and order and incorporated the government’s election commitments, included budget improvement and revenue measures, and implemented a deficit reduction strategy. The result of these changes was a projected deficit for 2001-02 of a $126m. I am pleased to announce that the actual result for 2001-02 was a deficit of $83m, an improvement of $43m.
A deficit reduction strategy is beginning to take effect …
Mr Elferink: That’s because you ramped up debt by $110m. Up by $110m; that is why you are dropping it on the table on the last day of sittings. No Question Time for the rest of the year - nice trick.
Mr STIRLING: The member for Macdonnell needs to listen and find out how this occurred because it is something that you blokes could not achieve.
Current outlays were $10m less than projected in the mini-budget. However, the mini-budget included a carry over …
Mr Elferink: Open, honest, accountable.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member for Macdonnell does not want to here this but other members do, and I will keep going over it.
Mr Elferink: Well, if you wanted this to be public why are you dropping it at the last sitting day of the year?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Macdonnell, let us allow the minister to finish his speech.
Mr STIRLING: Current outlays were $10m less than projected …
Mr Elferink: No, I cannot get it out of the Table Office until it is tabled.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Macdonnell, you have been spoken to once.
Mr STIRLING: I will go back to start, I think, Madam Speaker. In accordance with section 9 of the Financial Management Act …
Mr Elferink: Oh, precious!
Mr STIRLING: I am prepared to go through it all.
The result of these changes was a projected deficit for 2001-02 of $126m. I am pleased to announce that the actual result for 2001-02 was a deficit of $83m, an improvement of $43m since the mini-budget and an indication that the deficit reduction strategy is beginning to take effect. Current outlays were $10m less than projected in the mini-budget. However, the mini-budget included a carry over of expenditure from 2000-01 of $17m. When this is removed, the outcome is a small underlying increase of $7m, largely related to additional expenditure obligations associated with additional Commonwealth funding. Capital outlays were $5m higher than anticipated in the mini-budget, and that reflects the decisions made by this government early in 2002 to increase capital spending as a result of accelerated progress on major capital works such as the hospital and the port, and our response to a downturn in the construction industry.
Revenue increased by $41m from the time of the mini-budget. The increases were the result of: additional grants received from the Commonwealth, some of which had matching expenditure obligations; higher stamp duty revenues from one-off conveyance related transactions; growth in the value of other items subject to stamp duties; and an increase in royalty revenue due to improving market conditions.
Gross debt as at 30 June 2002 was $2.4bn; an increase of $124m from $2.3m at the 30 June 2001. The Territory’s nett debt position as at 30 June 2002 was $1.7bn. However, a broader assessment of the government’s liabilities includes employee liabilities as well as nett debt. At 30 June 2002, employee liabilities totalled $1.7bn with superannuation representing $1.3bn or 79% of that amount. Nett debt plus employee liabilities was $3.4bn as at 30 June 2002. In the last three years, there have been significant increases in both nett debt and employee liabilities. These are associated with the Territory’s contribution to the railway, high deficits and a revaluation of the unfunded superannuation liability, in addition to the expected annual increase in the superannuation liability.
This government has committed to bring the budget back to surplus by 2004-05, which will result in a reduction in nett debt. Whilst the superannuation liability will continue to rise, the rate of growth will slow due to the government’s commitment to commence funding the liability from 2003-04.
This government took office and found the financial position of the Territory was not quite as it had been presented by the previous government. In response to this, we handed down the mini-budget, which implemented significant new initiatives, and set ourselves a difficult target of bringing the budget back to surplus by the end of our first term of government. We have had to make tough decisions to reduce the Territory’s unsustainable deficit which was ballooning out at around $126m under the previous government, coming off the back - for the member for Macdonnell’s information - of a deficit of $275m the year before. The longer these clowns were in office, the greater the debt grew.
It is pleasing to see that those decisions this government have made are beginning to pay off. I am incredibly pleased with the result of our first financial year, as we have not only met the target we set ourselves, but we came in under that target. God only knows what it would have been had the CLP remained in office! This contrasts markedly with our predecessors who failed to deliver an outcome for the bottom line at or within their initial budget targets for each year of their last term in office. We still have a long way to go to bring the Territory budget back into the black after years of irresponsible and unsustainable spending by the previous Country Liberal Party government.
Madam Speaker, I table my first Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report which incorporates the 2001-02 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement. I commend it to the House, as I commend the work of the former Treasurer, our Chief Minister. She established a great record as Treasurer in terms of fiscal restraint and the message that she sent to Cabinet and to her ministers, and she has made my job as Treasurer considerably easier than it may otherwise have been.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
NORTHERN TERRITORY ABORIGINAL SACRED SITES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 120)
(Serial 120)
Continued from 27 November 2002.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I rise to put the opposition’s position on this matter. The minister came into the House this week seeking to pass this matter on urgency. I have received a briefing in relation to this, and I understand the requirements for this to be passed on urgency. Nevertheless, it poses some issues that should be covered here today.
The issue that the minister raised in his second-reading speech is more than just the issue of certificates. He does assert that the act may, in these circumstances, fail in toto. Not only would the certificates, of course, be placed in jeopardy - these are the certificates allowing works to occur on sacred sites – but, naturally it leaves those sacred sites themselves, or their declaration as sacred sites, in jeopardy. Indeed, the whole of the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act is in jeopardy. Everything about sacred sites, as a consequence, is in jeopardy if the Northern Territory act is found to be invalid because of section 50(1) of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act.
I asked the question during the briefing, and I confess that I am still not entirely sure what the mechanism is. I would have presumed that, if a section of the act was to be found invalid, the rest of the act would stand. However, the advice I have received is that the whole act would collapse, and I will accept the word of a QC immediately and without reservation.
So that is the situation; this whole act could fail. Obviously, I asked what the consequences of this were, other than the obvious one, because I simply thought that the Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) Act could be invoked. It also has a sacred sites structure established in it. However, the existing sacred sites are not validated by the Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) Act and, as a consequence, I could imagine nothing but the most extraordinary situation occurring in the Northern Territory. Of course, as a consequence of that, I can well imagine that the government would be very keen, indeed, to protect their position through this - what is, on the face of it, a very simple amendment.
That is exactly what the minister has invited the House to do, and he has been quite clear in relation to the position of the Northern Territory government on it. Added to that, we do not sit again until February and, should a case come before the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory which does call this act into question, then it would be very difficult for the minister to respond legislatively before February. That, I imagine, is the need for the urgency in this case. Once again, the opposition accepts that need, and we indicate our support for these amendments because they are common sense and necessary. It would be a disaster of unimaginable proportions, if this was allowed to settle and the outcome that the minister hopes will not occur, actually occurs.
However, I go to page 7 of the second-reading speech, which the minister was kind enough to provide yesterday, and I would like to quote from that. The issue is over the risks:
- Madam Speaker, these wholesale risks are likely to be far more costly than compensation that may be due
under the provisions of this bill. Value of just terms compensation in relation to acquisitions of property
would be determined at law and in relation to the facts of individual cases.
Indeed, just terms is the issue that resides in section 50(1) of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act. In that subsection - similar to the Australian Constitution - should the government acquire property rights, as it questionably does through the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act, then there has to be a settlement on just terms. That is the area of risk that the minister has directly pointed to.
Regarding just terms, the settlement issue is what we are trying to solve here today. However, in the passage that I have just quoted, the minister effectively acknowledges that there may very well be compensation payable to a person who loses a property right. Now, section 44 of the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act states that there is no loss of proprietoral right but there may be a loss of another right with the expression of, or the declaration of, a sacred site. And that is where the grey area may very well exist. It may be the right to enjoy an amenity or some sort of right of access, or some other right, over the property in question.
We are talking about pastoral leases or freehold. As the minister quite clearly points out, the situation of pastoral leases and freeholds is that there may be a compensation process available. Indeed, he talks about the matters being dealt with at law. The reason I raise this issue is that unclear right, or some loss of right over land that I might hold freehold, for argument’s sake. If I then seek to go through a process of compensation, I understand from the minister’s statement - and I am not entirely clear on it and would ask him to clear it up - that compensation process would require an application to the courts.
Yesterday in this House, we debated at length the importance of staying away from litigation. What the government did then was say: ‘With native title and land rights claims, rather than go through a litigious process, what we would rather do is go through a process where we negotiate in the first instance. So we will go out and find all the people who have a possible claim and who may be able to establish a claim, and we will accept certain elements of that claim and we will negotiate that process out’.
Here we have a situation where, already, the first hurdle is being cleared by the property owners in question, so that they will be able to assert the right to make a claim very easily by virtue of the fact that they are already the possessors of the land, especially in a situation where there is freehold. If I suffer a loss as a result of the declaration of a sacred site on my freehold property, then I would expect that a compensation process would be available to me. It seems what the minister is saying is that I have to go through a litigious process.
What I am asking the minister to confirm for me here today - and I hope that he understands the full thrust of where I am going - is that I would like to see an equalisation of the rules, the policy; a standard, single policy which is consistent with the policy situation outlined by the government yesterday. What I am asking the minister consequently is this: will the minister go out and find every individual person and property owner who is affected by a sacred site being declared on their property, and go through a negotiation process for the purposes of determining what compensation, if any, is payable to them? Will that become part of government policy or will that not? If that does become part of government policy, then it is consistent with what was said yesterday. If it does not become part of government policy, then the minister needs to explain why there is a set of rules for people who are making claims under the Native Title Act, and under the Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) Act, and why there may be a different set of rules for people making claims under the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act.
There are large tracts of freehold land in the Northern Territory affected by this sort of thing. I would like to see the government take a step away from the litigious process consistent with their position - if that is going to be their position. I would like to know from the government this simple thing: are they going to be consistent in how they approach those claims made against them? It is not a difficult issue, but it is a very, very important one. It goes to the heart of the government’s policy in negotiating rather than litigating.
I do not know how much freehold and pastoral lease is affected, but I know of some large tracts of freehold which have been seriously affected by the declaration of sacred sites. I imagine the compensation package, especially in terms of development, may very well run into millions, possibly tens of millions of dollars. This is a fundamentally important issue, because the litigation bill will also be as high as the one that they were describing yesterday.
I would seek that assurance from the government. If they are not prepared to make that assurance, they should clearly demonstrate why they are not prepared to on this occasion. I look forward to the government’s response.
Mr AH KIT (Assisting the Chief Minister on Indigenous Affairs): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his comments, especially those that were supportive. He has a good understanding of the situation that was explained in my second-reading speech.
The government has, through moving this on urgency - and it is not something you want to do every day, or every sittings. As I said, we need to bring this act into line with the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act and to provide certainty. We have big projects; I mentioned those yesterday - Darwin to Alice Springs railway, Bradshaw Defence facility etcetera. The bill will provide certainty for certificates issued by the sites authority since 1989. It provides for just terms, compensation for any acquisition of property as a result of the operation of the NT Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act. However, we will negotiate with the potential compensation claimants. If we cannot reach an agreement, if we cannot settle, then the claimants will have an opportunity to take it to the courts.
Mr Elferink: Not far enough.
Mr AH KIT: The member for Macdonnell says: ‘Not far enough’. They had an opportunity to fix this; they stuck their heads in the sand. I come along and I am the minister responsible and I seek urgency to fix it, because once again, it is another thing that was put in the too-hard basket that was not dealt with by the CLP. You then sit over there in opposition and make all these comments.
I value the contribution, but our position has been made clear. I seek leave to move a motion for the third reading.
Madam SPEAKER: No, we have not done the second reading yet.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Chair, what I require from the minister is, basically, a clear yes or no on this issue. The standard that was set yesterday is that the government will go out and find those potential applicants or people seeking compensation or agreement, and they will come to a negotiated settlement. What is on offer here is: ‘Come and see us and we will talk about it and then we will possibly have to litigate’. What I need clearly from the government - he can say yes or no - is he prepared to go out and find and approach each person who is a potential litigant and enter into negotiations with them?
Mr AH KIT: No.
Mr ELFERINK: That is it.
Ms MARTIN: I would like to contribute briefly in these committee stages, because the whole point of bringing this amendment in on urgency is that the previous government never looked at this in a reasonable way and saw that they had to act. An act like this must comply with our self-government act. It must be stated within this act that any compensation is on just terms. That was never dealt with since the inception of the act in 1989 by the previous government. It is important for the validity of the act. Everything that has happened between 1989 and now - which includes massive projects for the Territory like the railway corridor - this gives certainty to.
All the issues being raised by the member for Macdonnell are simply red herrings. This is about certainty. This is about ensuring an act like this one, which is the NT Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act, is valid; so past actions and future actions are valid. Let me say very clearly in answer to the member for Macdonnell’s question: no, this is about certainty and responsible government. I appreciate his support, but do not start running down unnecessary corridors about this.
Mr Elferink: It is perfectly necessary for some acts, but not others. These are two sets of rules you are talking about, two different sets of rules.
Ms MARTIN: No, we are talking about lands acquisition acts have to – all the acts. We are currently having them reviewed to make sure that they do work within the terms of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act which defines all the acts that we discuss in this parliament. We have to make sure that these acts comply with our Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act and that acquisition on just terms is a key component of our self-government act.
Therefore, if we are going to look at the kind of issues raised by the member for Macdonnell - he stands here and says: ‘Well, are you going to go out and ask everyone who might seek compensation and ask them individually?’. What kind of rule is this? That is not how native title works. It is nothing.
Let us understand what this is about: it is on urgency because the NT Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act deals with things that are major projects for the Territory. The previous government did not deal with it year after year. This is about just terms. It is a simple thing, but it is about certainty. That is why we are doing it on urgency, so I thank you for your support.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I have to respond to what the Chief Minister said. I am not disputing that they are important projects. I am not disputing at any point or any stage the importance of this amendment to the act. That is why I have said that this government will enjoy the opposition’s support.
However, the issue is quite different. It has nothing to do with the validation of this act. It has to do with how this government is going to respond to exactly the same situation in different legislation. They have said consistently that they are planning to negotiate these issues out. They are prepared to negotiate with groups which may possibly have a claim, but will not negotiate with people who have an established claim.
Ms Martin: Nobody has an established claim. Which established claim? You are not understanding it.
Mr ELFERINK: For the sake of the Chief Minister, in the native title process, a claimant has to establish the right of claim in the first place. That is the first hurdle that a claimant has to get over. Under the NT Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act, there is no doubt as to who the owner of the property affected is; they are already over the first hurdle. They are closer to a resolution than an applicant under the Native Title Act. That is why a person affected by the NT Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act is closer to an outcome. Yet, the government is still not prepared to negotiate consistent with their policy statements in this Chamber yesterday.
Mr BURKE: The member for Macdonnell is seeking a simple answer, and that is that does the government intend to deal with …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Chairman! This question has already been answered with one word previously. The fact that I cannot reflect on the member’s presence in the Chamber; he could not be bothered to be here. The answer has already been given, I would urge we get on.
Mr AH KIT: And I gave my indication by remaining seated.
Mr CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order.
Mr BURKE: Mr Chairman, I would have thought that, at the very least, the member can get an answer to his question …
Mr Henderson: He did not ask a question; he made a statement.
Mr BURKE: I thought, actually, the minister provided the answer as he closed debate, and that is that these issues will be settled by negotiation in the first instance. That is the substance of the member’s question that, on the one hand we have an issue where the government does not intend to invoke litigation for native title claimants where we have a group of people - a large group of people in the Northern Territory, some of whom I know personally. One in the West MacDonnell Ranges is where a pastoralist has had a large section of the West MacDonnell Ranges excised because of sacred sites legislation.
The issue is clearly that, in this legislation, there are just terms compensation that will now be paid retrospectively. The principle of this government is that they will not seek legal means for native title claims on the one hand but, on the other hand, we have people who clearly have a compensable right recognised in your legislation. The member for Macdonnell is simply asking the government to be consistent in its approach. Do we have an approach of government for one group of people which means if you make a claim you can get a settlement and compensation or, for another group of people do you have to seek the comfort of the courts? That is a simple question and it does not require abuse; it simply requires an answer. Does the government intend to seek out these people, determine who are involved ...
Mr Ah Kit: It is retrospective.
Mr BURKE: The legislation says it is retrospective, but it also says that it will be decided at law. That is the question the member for Macdonnell is asking: will this be settled at law or will it be settled by negotiation and appropriate compensation, in the first instance? It seems to be the principle that government has decided for one group of Territorians. The member for Macdonnell is simply saying: does it apply to all? That is the question.
Ms MARTIN: To respond briefly to the former Chief Minister, who had two-and-a-half years as Chief Minister and many years as Attorney-General to bring what was an important amendment to this act into this House in the past, and did not. The previous government did have advice that this was needed and simply ignored it - it could have put in jeopardy the rights of many people – and chose not to do that.
If somebody has been issued with the site certificate on their land, they will not necessarily be the subject of an acquisition. You are jumping way ahead of where anything is. It would be up to any potential claimant to determine their own circumstances, and they can approach the government if necessary. But you are implying that there is a whole raft of Territorians. We will talk to people.
This is not necessarily about saying this amendment applies broadly. No, it does not. It is an important amendment to make sure that this act is valid. The implications that this act is not valid - this is what we are talking about - could mean an unravelling of the biggest Territory project we have ever seen. So, this is what it is about.
Mr BURKE: Chief Minister, I do not think you understand. Firstly, the opposition supports the legislation. We are talking about how the legislation will be implemented. The clear issue is that we know any number people in the Northern Territory who have had pastoral leases excised for the purpose of sacred sites legislation.
Your legislation now recognises that those people require just compensation. It is the process of how that compensation will be decided which is the question. Will those people be sought out and compensated outside of a legislative process, or do those people themselves have to begin the process and seek a legal outcome? On the one hand, you are dealing with one group of people who have not been identified under the way you are dealing with our parks; who have not even decided upon, identified or even lodged a claim; and you have decided that not only will the government seek them out, but they will negotiate outside the legal process. On the other hand, we have a group of people who are clearly recognised in your legislation as being disadvantaged and compensable. Why won’t you use the same process to deal with them?
Mr ELFERINK: I will just pick up on one comment by the Chief Minister. She said that she will talk to people. Can I get clarification that she plans to approach those people and negotiate with them, or …
Ms Martin: I did not say that.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, you did. I pick up on the interjection. The Chief Minister has just said: ‘We will talk to people’. I would like to know what that means.
Ms Scrymgour: We will do every day.
Mr ELFERINK: That is what I thought. It is going to be too hard.
Mr BURKE: Mr Chairman, we have the answer. The government does not want to participate. We can only interpret their response in the response that has been given, and that is the people affected by this legislation will have to seek comfort at law and through the legal process ...
Ms Martin: No, that is not what I said.
Mr BURKE: That is the intent of the legislation, and the non-response from the government confirms that.
Ms MARTIN: No, that question has been responded to and the Opposition Leader is being deliberately misleading of this parliament. If he had been here for more of the debate, he might have understood that.
Mr HENDERSON: Put it to the vote, Mr Chairman.
Bill agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr AH KIT (Assisting the Chief Minister on Indigenous Affairs): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, before we go into the third reading stage, the government has just made a farce of its ‘negotiate to avoid litigation’ policies outlined yesterday in this House. This government has said repeatedly when on this side of the House, even before it came into power, that they would negotiate claims against their public estate rather than litigate. Yet, at the first opportunity when they have a legislative program in this House, they suddenly realise what that actually means; they have to actually engage in a positive process.
They have chosen two pieces of federal legislation over which they have limited or no control, and to seek out potential applicants and negotiate with them to avoid the process of litigation. Yet, when they identify actual litigants in this process, they do not choose to negotiate, they immediately say: ‘Sorry too hard, sue us’. This is a breach of the government’s policy; of how the government is going to deal with these litigation processes. They have a particular axe to grind and, other than that, it is business as usual: ‘Unless you are making particular types of claims, we are not going to negotiate, go away, sue us’.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
TABLED PAPER
Ombudsman’s Report for Year Ending 30 June 2002
Ombudsman’s Report for Year Ending 30 June 2002
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I present the report of the Ombudsman for the financial year ending 30 June, and I move the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper – Ombudsman’s Report for Year Ending 30 June 2002
Note Paper – Ombudsman’s Report for Year Ending 30 June 2002
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report and I have leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Motion agreed to.
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday 18 February 2003 at 10 am or such other time and/or date as may be set by Madam Speaker pursuant to sessional order.
Motion agreed to.
TABLED PAPER
Public Accounts Committee Report 2001-02
Public Accounts Committee Report 2001-02
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I lay on the Table the Public Accounts Committee Report for 2001-02. The purpose of this report is to set out the committee’s activities for the year. It is not intended to be a political document. I would like to place on record the committee’s appreciation of the work of the previous Chair, the member for Johnston, Dr Chris Burns.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr McADAM: The member for Johnston leaves this committee having proved that he is a very strong and capable parliamentarian and, more importantly, a very decent, honest and fair person.
I would also like to place on record acknowledgement of the contribution of the member for Nelson to the committee. We have not always agreed, but on the whole the relationships have been professional and constructive. I hope this can continue in 2003 as, indeed, in respect to the members for Greatorex and Drysdale.
The establishment of the new Estimates Committee is a great achievement. After 27 years, it was clear that the Territory needed an enhanced scrutiny process. I personally, and the committee as a whole, should feel honoured to have been part of the first Estimates Committee in the Territory. The investigation into the previous government’s budget was a very serious one and, perhaps, one of the most significant committee inquiries in the Territory’s history. Contrary to some incorrect assertions, it was not set up or run to get the member for Katherine or anyone else. It was set up and run to get to the truth, and I believe that was achieved.
On occasions, it was a difficult and arduous process for all - the committee and the people who gave evidence. It is totally outside the scope of this report, or this committee for that matter, to reflect on the consequences, if any, of any of the evidence provided. It should be put on record, however, that any suggestion that public servants were intimidated, terminated or adversely affected because of the committee or its activities is false. I look forward to the Public Accounts Committee’s activities next year.
Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper - Public Accounts Committee Report 2001-02
Note Paper - Public Accounts Committee Report 2001-02
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be noted and seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.
Leave granted.
Motion agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is this time of year that we should all pass greetings on to each other, regardless of what side of the House you sit on or where you are; and regardless of the ups and downs we have had this year. I certainly wish you all a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year and hope that you have a safe holiday and come back next year all well.
I want to pass my thanks on to many people: all the staff of the Legislative Assembly - and I am sure that you would agree with me - particularly the Clerk and Deputy Clerk; Gaddy who looks after our Table Office so well; committee people who have had really a very busy year; all our admin staff and our drivers; Hansard who tend to make sense of the nonsense we sometimes say; and of course, I must thank in particular my two staff, Katie and Robyn who are a tremendous support to me and who certainly look after me very well.
I wish you all, and your families, a very merry Christmas. I will be very pleased to be having a break with my family who, as you all know, are so very supportive of me and look after me so very well. I wish all Territorians a safe and happy Christmas.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, first of all I would like to wish you a very merry Christmas and a very happy new year. At the same time, I would like to wish everybody, on both sides of the House and the Independent, who has given me a hard time sometimes in the past, a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. Certainly, to all our colleagues in this side of the House. Also to the staff of the Legislative Assembly, people who work really hard here during the year to support us and sometimes they have to put up with us. A special thank you and a very merry Christmas and a happy new year to the staff of Hansard which I have really given a hard time. I believe some have had to attend special Greek classes just to be able to pick up my accent.
However, I am very proud to have an accent. I am one of the 50 different nationalities in the Territory and I have to admit that I and the member for Greatorex represent the ethnic communities in the Northern Territory and we are real proud of our background. If we sometimes speak with an accent, not easily understood by the general public, so be it. After all, we all live together in a small town and we have learned very easily to understand each other, even if some of us have a very strong accent.
I would like to wish a merry Christmas to all the 5th floor, the 4th floor staff; everybody who works in this building and, certainly, many great wishes to my staff and my ministerial office. I would also like to wish a merry Christmas and a happy a new year to my electorate officer, Ms Victoria Pollifrone, who worked with me very closely for one year. Unfortunately, she has to leave the office and move to Adelaide because of family urgency. Victoria has been a valuable member of my team. She had never worked in a political office. She is the mother of two children and supported her husband in a small business. All of a sudden, she found herself an Electorate Officer for a minister, and she has done an excellent job. I have to admit that I will feel her loss because she has been absolutely fantastic: very good with the people in my electorate. I must admit I have had the best electorate newsletter in the whole Territory. Victoria is really professional with excellent desktop publishing skills - she is a talented artist. Apart from managing motherhood, she also finds time to sculpt and to paint beautiful pictures. Well done, Victoria. Merry Christmas to you and good luck wherever you go. I am sure that someone in Adelaide will utilise your skills, and I will miss you.
I would like to wish Merry Christmas to friends and members of the party, people who supported me through this year-and-a-half. It was a hard year. It was a year that we were thrust into the limelight. We went from candidates to members of parliament and, in a week, ministers. It was a really hard time. People talk about steep learning curves, but ours was vertical rather than steep.
It is the time of the year we follow the Christmas spirit, we are feeling really well and we have some ho, ho, ho from both sides of the House. Hopefully, we will see this Christmas spirit in the next few weeks.
At the same time, I would like to say I am very proud of some of the events that took place in my electorate. First of all, the Dripstone High School Science Shade House project. The Dripstone High School has been presented with the Territory Tidy Towns 2002 Young Achiever Award for long-term commitment to recycling, as well as a school presentation for Outstanding Environmental Initiative. These awards are recognition of the efforts of a group of Year 9 students at the school and their SOSE teacher, Miss Iolanthe Sutton. I was very pleased to be invited to officially launch the initiative of the school earlier this month. The project was designed to give students an opportunity to experience being active citizens in their community through the rehabilitation of the science shade house.
It has been so effective that students who had bad truancy records are now keen to attend classes. Over three terms, the students and other volunteers worked on cleaning up and repairing the shade house, establishing a market garden of Asian vegetables, painting and decorating the compound, setting up a fish breeding facility, and creating an ornamental garden. Fundraising for the project by the students included cake stalls, ice cups and lobbying members of the community for funds. They certainly lobbied me and they received some funds. They were also successful in applying for support from the Community Benefit Fund, and thank you very much to the minister for gaming for those funds.
This project is in the first phase of what will be an ongoing program being taught across both SOSE and science over the next few years to Grade 9 Dripstone students, although all students at the school will benefit from access to this new education facility. Students who participated in the project where Kathy Trevitt, Tiana Brown, Shari Hill, Nathan Cornell, Woyan Knox, Nathaniel Patterson, Thepphithak (Tom) Chuamnonsoong, Laetitia Chandler, Irene Hourdas, Kelly Bowden, Teneecia Leedie, Sera Sim, Matthew Lee, Hayley Fletcher, Pauline Kassman, Poppy Loizos, Jenna March, Des Hayes, Brenton Medbury, Jahzeel Molomolo, Jacob Milne, Maria Billiris, Josh Cubillo, Xavier Hayes and Darcy Taylor.
A large number of people mentored the group in many different ways and supported the project in kind. Most notable was Bob Sutton, Iolanthe Sutton’s father, who spent many weeks working with the students while visiting Darwin from interstate earlier this year.
Mr Deputy Speaker, on 15 November, I attended 25th anniversary celebration of the Casuarina Soccer Club in the Main Hall of Parliament House. I really enjoyed it, even though, for many years, I coached the Mindil Aces - as you probably remember, since we thrashed your team 19:1 recently and then we repeated it with about 15:0, as I recall. My ministerial colleagues, John Ah Kit and Paul Henderson were there celebrating with me.
The club was formed in 1977 by Portuguese and Timorese refugees who fled East Timor in the mid-1970s, together with other immigrant families living in Darwin. From these humble beginnings, the club has gone from strength to strength, and is now one of Darwin’s biggest, with around 60 senior players and more than 200 juniors. The club has been responsible for nurturing many talented players, some of whom have gone on to play in the national soccer league. Thanks to an enthusiastic membership and a hard-working committee, the Casuarina Soccer Club will, no doubt, continue to grow and develop. I hope I will be around to celebrate their golden jubilee in another 25 years.
I would like to remind the House that the most popular sport in the Territory is not AFL, basketball or netball, it is soccer. Soccer is played from Darwin to Borroloola, with excellent Aboriginal soccer players. I have seen them in action and I am very impressed. I am telling you the next soccer star is going to be an Aboriginal person from the Northern Territory. We all do our best. It was a great pleasure to see the players of Hellenic or Aboriginal descent doing very well, thank you very much, together and thrashing some of the other clubs - in some cases including my own Mindil Aces.
I was very pleased to support Chief Minister, Clare Martin, in the launch of the annual K-Mart Wishing Tree Appeal on Wednesday, 13 November, at Casuarina Square. The initiative is proudly supported by the Salvation Army and K-Mart, and this year the appeal’s theme is ‘Every gift brings a smile’, highlighting the tremendous difference that every gift donated will make to a child this Christmas. The appeal has become an important part of Christmas in Casuarina. To participate, simply take a present, wrap it and put it under the tree. It does not matter if you buy the present in Big W, K-Mart, Woolworths or anywhere else, just pick it up, wrap it, put on the tag, and I am pretty sure that the present will find its way to the appropriate kid. You only have to mark the card with the age and the sex of the kid, and a kid will be happy this Christmas. Congratulations to K-Mart and to everybody who is participating in this program. I believe, in the past 14 years, K-Mart has actually managed to distribute two million gifts nationally.
I have to admit I have a very soft spot for this program because, in the 1960s, I grew up in Greece. I remember very well, things were tough, they were not easy. My father was working from 6 am until 8 pm. I remember I saw my father very few times when I was six or seven-years-old. I always recall Christmas as particularly tough, especially when you were looking out the windows and could see, in the other houses, the Christmas trees with lights that were flickering on and off, while our house did not have a Christmas tree for the simple reason that we could not afford one. I remember very well that I did not receive my first Christmas present until I was seven-years-old. As a matter of fact, I recall I had to buy my own Christmas present, because I collected the money after singing Christmas carols, as the tradition dictates in Greece. I went and bought a small plastic truck and that was the biggest thing I had in my life; that was the first Christmas treat.
So I can understand how kids feel now if they do not receive a Christmas gift. I know it is very sad and you are wiping your eyes but, unfortunately, sometimes reality is harder than what is in the Hollywood movies. But I believe some of us shared the same experiences, growing up in really tough conditions. Some of us grew up on farms, in towns in Australia, and some of us grew up in other countries. Things are really easy for our kids today, but we still remember what happened in our early years.
In conclusion, once again I would like to wish everyone a merry Christmas and happy new year, and a great thank you, especially to the Hansard staff. I know they have a very difficult job, and I understand I now have my very own personal Hansard editor who is fluent in Greek and English …
Mr Stirling: They put them there as punishment.
Mr VATSKALIS: That is what my ‘Sir Humphrey’ says. A great thank you and a merry Christmas to the Chief Minister, the Deputy Chief Minister, all my friends and colleagues from both sides of the House and, certainly, everybody else who worked and supported us in these difficult 16 to 18 months in this House.
Ms MARTIN (Fannie Bay): Well, it is the last day of the parliamentary year and it has been a fairly volatile last three days. But I believe we managed to find a little Christmas cheer along the way - references to stars and those things, fading or otherwise …
Ms Carter: And ho, ho, ho.
Ms MARTIN: And a little ho, ho, ho. However, I would like to put on the record my thanks to Madam Speaker for her work this year, and her nurturing of our parliamentary process. To the Deputy Speaker and the Chair of Committees, thank you as well. To the Clerk, the Deputy Clerk and all who work in the Assembly - we sometimes take the smooth operation of the Assembly for granted, and yet there is considerable work and a lot of commitment that goes in, to make sure that our parliament works as effectively as it does. So, from Chief Minister, thanks to everyone.
To Hansard, who the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure just referred to - and certainly sometimes recording the words of the member for Casuarina can be challenging. Thank you, Hansard, for all the work you do. To the library staff, to security, to everyone who makes this building hum, thank you - and particularly security because it has not been an easy year.
My thanks also go to everyone who has worked with me over the year in my office on the 5th floor. It has been a challenging year and I know that they have worked very hard. Also, to the other officers who work on the 5th floor - we probably do not say it on a daily basis - thank you for all the work you do. We do not say it weekly, monthly or bi-yearly, but we can take this time of the year to say it in a grateful and formal sense: thank you to everyone who works with me, and that is right across the 5th floor.
Can I thank the hard work of my ministerial colleagues and my caucus colleagues because, again, it has been a challenging, but very rewarding year. I would like to thank those who have worked in my departments over the year: the Department of Chief Minister, the Treasury for most of the year certainly, and the ongoing work of Treasury, and the section of Arts and Museums within Community Development. I certainly treasured working with all those public servants over the year. I want to thank Treasury for the support they gave me as a learning Treasurer over the 15 months that I had the privilege of being the Territory’s first Labor Treasurer.
I would like to thank all our CEOs across all departments, particularly my own CEO in the Department of Chief Minister, for their support and hard work for the Territory; all the senior public servants who I know put in long hours; as well as the 14 300 public servants who worked right across the Territory for the benefit of Territorians. We, as a government, could not do it without them. So, my personal thanks and happy Christmas to them.
I would like to thank my electorate officer, Jessica, who does a great job. One of the disappointments, I suppose, of being Chief Minister is you do not get to spend as much time in your electorate office as you would like. However, I am determined to change that next year. But Jessica does a great job and I am very thankful for her work.
Last but not least, I would like to thank the people who probably suffer most in my life, and that is my family. I thank them for their tolerance and their patience over the year, for the times of having a snappy mother and partner at home. I can only say that we will continue our juggling act next year. When I talked earlier today about government and reviews, particularly, I mentioned family and the reviews that have to go on family. In my family it is on a daily basis: how we manage and negotiate. I would certainly like to thank my family for all the patience, love and affection they have shown this year.
I would like to wish everyone a happy Christmas and a safe and a prosperous new year. It will be coming in - how many days? - about 27 days I think. It would be wonderful to think that the Territory could get through a holiday without one fatality on the road, and I hope that we can achieve that.
One of the dreadful things about the Christmas period, and holiday periods generally, is when there are accidents and fatalities. It seems to be so unnecessary at a time when we are relaxing a little, celebrating Christmas and then the change of a year, that somebody should die on our roads. When I say a safe Christmas and new year, I mean that from the bottom of my heart.
So generally, thanks to everyone, and we will be back rearing to go for a new parliamentary year come February.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, I also wish everybody a very merry Christmas for this year. It is nearly 16 months since the last election, and these last 12 months of the year in opposition has been quite an enlightening experience, if I may say so.
I was most surprised to find out the volume of work that one has to do even in opposition, and maybe that reflects the way that we all service our own constituencies, meet the daily demands of shadow portfolios, and carry on other duties such as committee work. No doubt, the workload can be quite taxing at times.
Unfortunately, the more time you spend at work, the less time you spend at home. Our families deserve our greatest gratitude. My poor long-suffering wife, Sharon, probably spent more time on her own than with me throughout last year. It reminds me of a little tale I exchanged with the member for Port Darwin. I told her, after the last sittings, that I was going to be home in Alice Springs for two weeks. She thought that I was going to spend two weeks at home, in the home in Alice Springs. I said, ‘No, I have appointments’, and suddenly she realised that what I meant was, home, being in the community of Alice Springs, and not just being at home. That is the way life is, I suppose, working in Central Australia, with only a few of us representing our constituencies. I thank Sharon, my wife, for her faithfulness, loyalty and support for the work that I do here in the Assembly, in the committees and also in Alice Springs representing the CLP with my colleagues, the members for Araluen and Macdonnell.
We are blessed that one of our children has returned home to Alice Springs to live with us and has been with us for the last 18 months or so. That has been a great joy to us. Another is still away at university studying, and the oldest one has just recently remarried. As a family, there are lots of times when we vie for each other’s attention.
I would also like to express my appreciation to my electorate officer, Caroll Lyons and her little daughter, Cayce. Caroll has been with me now since before the last election, and has continued to improve in her skills. She is very, very uncomplaining of the workload that I put on her but, without her support in the electorate office and in the electorate itself, my workload would have been almost impossible. She is here this week in Darwin, for the electorate officers workshop, and I trust she enjoys herself up here and, hopefully, will enjoy herself a even more tomorrow at lunchtime. Backing Caroll up on occasions, as a locum, I would call the fill-in electorate officer, is Jim Goulding. Jim is a retiree in Alice Springs, whose background is in administration, and fills the role as the replacement electorate officer very well. Not this very minute, but this week he is manning my office in Alice Springs. He is also a very faithful branch member.
Talking about my branch, the previous chairman, Colin Saunders, retired at the last AGM and is now replaced by David Forrest. Both men have been very strong in their leadership of our branch. My branch, which was formerly the Greatorex branch, then became the Greatorex Macdonnell branch, and now is the Alice Springs branch. It is one of the strongest branches in the CLP and has been one of the leaders in achieving great progress for the Central Australian region. We look forward to working with the other branches of Araluen and Stuart to form a strong unit in Central Australia.
I would like to thank the Clerk and his staff, particularly Vicki Long and Naoko Kitazato who I have plagued incessantly this year with matters IT. They have been a great support for me and been very gentle in their ways with me. They could have just as easily have said: ‘No, you cannot have this or cannot have that’ and it would make my life more difficult seeing that I do push the edge on the use of IT in this job.
The ladies in Hansard, Helen Allmich, Sue Fitzpatrick and the others, you all do a very good job of Hansard. On reading what you provide for us, I am amazed by my own eloquence. I do not know how it comes together so well, but when I read it think: ‘No, I do not remember saying those things in that way’. But it turns out reasonably well, and the Parliamentary Record being a permanent record for all time, maybe some people a few hundred years from now might want to look back and say: ‘Geez, these people, back in those days talked funny, but they talked well’.
I would like to offer my appreciation to the people of Greatorex for the support that they have given me this year. Many people in Greatorex actually helped me hand out my newsletters which I deliver into the electorate at least four times a year. It has been a great help for me that I have such a large gang of people who will do some streets every three months. It shows a commitment that the electorate has for me. Likewise, I have to respond with loyal service to the electorate.
Alice Springs is very much Central Australia. We obviously have Barkly, Macdonnell and parts of Stuart. I like to spend some time in the bush to help out the member for Macdonnell if I can, and visit some Aboriginal communities. Sometimes, they see me as a racial minority just like they are, and have some sense of affinity and understanding of the hardships that they go through just about every day of their lives.
Merry Christmas to everybody in this Chamber, my colleagues in the CLP and also - I would not call them opponents - my fellow political members on the other side of the Chamber. I said last year that it is never easy to be feeling good about everybody at the end of the year after a whole year of argy-bargy, yelling at each other, and calling each other all sorts of names. However, sometimes one has to put that to one side, be a bit more objective, push aside all the hurt and anger that one tends to feel sometimes, and look at the good product that actually comes out of this Chamber at the end of the day. That is what it is all about; we are here to govern the Northern Territory and we try to do the best that we can. Sure, we see things from a different political perspective, and it is for those reasons that we argue the way we do.
I do not think it is the right thing to attribute bad motives to the other side. We all do things with the best of intentions. We all come to politics hoping to do the right thing by our communities and our societies, and as long as we can stay focussed on that, we can achieve many things. I would beseech all members that, when we debate, try to leave out as much of the personalities as we possibly can and deal with the issue. The issues are complex enough without having to drag in the frailties of humanity which we all have. If we do that, we detract from the issue at hand.
Be safe, everybody, for the Christmas and new year period. As the Chief Minister said, many people are travelling and that brings up the issue of safety, not so much just your personal safety in your own community but in motor vehicle accidents, drunken driving and all things like that. That is not the best way to celebrate the festive season.
To the ethnic communities of the Northern Territory, in particular the many Chinese groups that are here in the Top End and a smattering of them in Central Australia, I thank them for their support this year. They have been most supportive of my activities in all the festivities that I have been involved in organising, in particular the Chinese New Year festivities and the Moon Festival.
Next year, unfortunately, the Chinese New Year festival is going to be curtailed to the extent that each Chinese group will celebrate their own Chinese New Year festival. There will not be a combined Chinese New Year festival as we have had for the last three years. The Moon Festival seems to have taken on a greater prominence, and I look forward to another year organising the Moon Festival and celebrating that in even greater splendour than ever before.
All in all, merry Christmas and happy new year to everybody, and be safe.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will not be long tonight, but I will begin by wishing everyone in this honourable Assembly a merry Christmas, and I hope that everyone has a happy new year, of course. Naturally, that extends to their families and friends.
To begin with, I would like to wish all the staff at the Millner school a merry Christmas, especially Ron Argoon. I thank him for all the support he has given me during the year. All the staff and teachers do a great job at Millner school. There is Millner Preschool, with Mrs Cook, the principal, who does a fantastic job and I wish her a merry Christmas. There is the Lutheran Preschool, and there is the Ludmilla school with Helen Southam and staff, in particular Ingrid Clarke, Damien Zammit, and Donna Mincham who all do a fantastic job down there with all the other staff - merry Christmas and a happy new year.
To the Seniors Hall, who recently elected a committee, in particular, Maureen Hack, Audrey Grace, Bill Douglas, Aunty Mavis Tye and John Bonson and the rest of the gang - good luck, merry Christmas and a happy new year to all of you.
To the Jape family and to their businesses that are situated in Millner, merry Christmas. Of course, to the Mu family - Marty, Paulo, Victor, George and Mr Mu Senior - who own Happy Foodland Supermarket and have been proprietors of that shop since I was a boy, happy Christmas.
To Lois and Ian who run the Rapid Creek Markets on Sundays, merry Christmas. You do a fantastic job there with limited resources, but you manage to keep a huge number of stall owners happy.
I extend Christmas greeting a happy new year to some of the Millner residents: Willie and Karen Markos and family, the Grant family, Aunty Ruthy, Dominic, Dion, Nathan, Paddy and Peter and all your extended families; the Ah Sam family - Denise, Joe, Jason, Darren and children; the Sedens, another large family - in particular Paulie, Peter, David, Peter Senior, Dallas, Eden and all the other Sedens I do not have time to mention; the Parfitt and Fejo families, very well known local Darwin families of Larrakia descent - I hope you keep plugging along; and the Ah Mats, another large family of the Northern Territory.
Merry Christmas and a happy new year to the Bagot community and the president there, Darryl Cooktown; the administration officer, Natalie Haywood; the Palmerston Health Clinic, Joy and Val White, in the women’s shelter, and Don White, long-term members of the Bagot community for over 25 years; Mr Johnson, at the workshop, and his wife and sons; and to Lesley and Norm Hoffman and the staff in the community shop.
To all the families at the Minminarra community, I hope you have a great Christmas and an enjoyable new year. Also Aunty Mavis Tye, Shannon and Bubba, of course, I hope you have a good time there and a merry Christmas to you.
The Diamond and Zikos families who run Sabine Shopping Centre, merry Christmas to you and all your families. And to Michael McGregor and family, happy new year.
I would also like to thank and extend greetings to all the committee of the Darwin Football Club - Alison, Aunty Margie, Geoff Dupuy, Frank Ah Mat; the coaches - Paul Motlop, Chris Lewis; and all Darwin players. Also to the Rebels Baseball Club committee and president, Derek Lee, and all other players. To the Nightcliff Dragons, well done for winning the fourth premiership in a row: Kane Bonson, captain; Joey Romelo coach; the committee, Jackie and Stem Edwards, Patty Edwards and numerous others - well done, happy new year and merry Christmas to you all.
Also to the ALP Millner Branch, thank you for your support during the year and I hope you support me next year and we have a good time - just as good as we had this year. To ALP members across the Northern Territory, merry Christmas and happy new and I hope you keep working to keep the Australian Labor Party in government after the next 2 or 3 years. We thank you for all your support.
Merry Christmas and happy new year to all the staff in the Legislative Assembly: those who work in Hansard; in the Clerk’s office who deal with all matters at all different levels; the staff on the 5th floor, all the advisors and ministerial staff. You do a fantastic job behind the scenes, working many, many hours - best wishes to you and your families.
Of course, to the ministers and all my colleagues on the backbench, happy new year and merry Christmas. I know it has been a very exciting year and sometimes it has been very hard, but our solidarity during this period of time has been fantastic, and a party united can never be defeated.
I would like to also give special thanks to an odd-jobs man, who he gets everything done and supports every member to the best of his ability. That is Frank Moukaddem, who does a fantastic job, and best wishes to his family and wife and happy new year to them.
I would also like to thank my family of course, and wish them all a very merry Christmas and happy new year: my mother Rosanne and her husband Steve; my sister Nicole and husband Chris and nephew Cowan; brother Luke and niece Siana; Uncle Don and Aunty Vicky Bonson, Gregory, Annie, Bianca, Josie, Dookie and young Thomas; your partners and to any of your children I have forgotten to name as well; Uncle Kenny, Kane and Jacob and their families; Jason and John Bonson, senior and junior; Aunty Patsy, Dennis, Yvette and Liz and children; Joe, Rodney, Pacita and April and families; Aunty Pat; Ammo, Cyril, Chrissie and Donald, Uncle Ian and Aunty Betsy; Tony and Cecil, Hanna and Elliott Ankin; Aunty Lynette, Donna, Patricia, Sonya and partners and kids; Yasmin, Bianca, Trevor and Ali; Aunty Esther, Chelsea, Travis, Gary; Aunty Josie and David; and the De La Cruz family.
Like everyone in this House who gave thanks to their partners, I would like to give special thanks to my partner, Mona Lisa. She does a fantastic job of putting up with me. Whenever I go missing or am away for long hours, she is always forgiving. She is a pillar of strength who grounds me always, and makes sure I remain humble. She definitely brings me back to what it means to come into this place to represent people we are supposed to be representing, and all the good things that we love in our communities. I would like to thank her for giving me that support, being that strength behind me, and giving me encouragement to keep going. Also, of course, for making me laugh at all times.
Finally, if there is anyone else I missed out, merry Christmas, happy new year, and best wishes.
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to wish all members of the Assembly a safe and happy Christmas: the staff of the Assembly; Madam Speaker; the Clerk who does a great job ensuring the business of the House runs smoothly; the staff of Hansard; the Table Office - Mr Gadd, Stokesy and Sam, who certainly keep the procedures running smoothly in here as well. Gary and the drivers do a tremendous job looking after the ministers. Jenny, my electorate officer, looks after the office and the constituents whilst I am here in Darwin with ministerial duties. the staff of the ministerial office on the 5th floor with Jamie, Ron, Rob, Peter, Chrissie, Kate and recently, Mary has come into our office, are a great team and they pull together when the pressure is on.
The staff of DEET under Peter Plummer, the CEO, and all of the teachers, I know, with two weeks of school left, are looking forward to their break. Jennifer Prince has only recently gone across to Treasury. I already had enormous respect for the ability of Treasury, with the strategic thinking that they were able to bring to all manner of problems before government, they do a terrific job.
In short, I wish all Territorians a safe and happy Christmas and a safe return to their jobs in the new year. I want to wish Steve Bracks, the Victorian premier, and the Labor government of Victoria, all the very best in the lead-up to Christmas. They are just 48 hours away from the polls. The polls look good, but you never know until the day, and I hope it is an early Christmas present for the Victorian Labor Party under Premier Bracks.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to pay tribute to a number of people who in no small way have contributed immensely over the past year. First of all, I would like to extend my appreciation to Jerry McCarthy, president of the Barkly branch of the ALP. Jerry was elected earlier this year, and his tireless efforts in maintaining the branch in a very professional dedicated manner, is to be admired. Jerry’s contribution to the Barkly is underestimated. Quite apart from writing weekly columns in the local newspaper regarding educational issues, Jerry has been instrumental in getting the rodeo going after a long absence, and is always willing to volunteer in some capacity in respect to a whole host of other community events in the Barkly.
I would also like to say thanks to other members of the branch who give their time so unselfishly, particularly Sharon Kinraid, Pam Stein, Nigel Rush, Jan McCarthy, Elva Cross, Graham Thomas, Dennis Carrol, Heather Keokouer, Peter Callinan, Marty Strachan, Jan Hill, and of course, Alf Chittock, who is an inspiration to us all in the branch.
I would like to take this opportunity to extend a very special mention to three people. Firstly, Max Smith. Members may recall that during my maiden speech I spoke of Max. Max suffered horrific burns as a result of a bushfire at Kurundi Station some 18 months to two years ago and, as a result underwent prolonged hospitalisation for treatment. Max undertook a further period in the rehabilitation hospital in Adelaide, but I am really happy to say that he is out of hospital and slowly recovering. Max is a wonderful person and deserves the very best. Old mate, I hope to see you back in Tennant Creek real soon.
Another member of the local branch is Valerie Simpson. Valerie is presently in intensive care at a hospital in Melbourne. Val was attending a workshop on behalf of Batchelor College when she suddenly took ill some six weeks ago. I have been advised, however, that Val is slowly recovering. We know it will take time but, with the wonderful support of her husband, Peter, we hope to see them back in Tennant Creek in the not too distant future.
Yesterday in my adjournment, I spoke of a gentleman by the name of Theo Hendriks. Theo passed away on 9 November in Adelaide. As I mentioned yesterday, I will never forget the kindness, commitment and assistance he provided during the campaign - not only during the campaign, but to a whole host of people in the Tennant Creek community. Theo was always down at the local supermarket or at the Tennant Creek Show with his faithful companion, Pepe, selling raffle tickets. Theo will be missed by us all.
I would like to thank Graham Dingwall for his ongoing support in Borroloola. Graham is always on hand to provide support and to administer the occasional rocket when required. Also to Ahmet Latifoglu and Thelma Douglas from the same community - thank you very much for your kind support.
I extend my sincere appreciation to Norm and Karina Hart, Jackie Townsend, Gary Cronin, Carol and Dave Harris, Peter Fitzpatrick, Maria Pyro and Roy Hammer. All of these people are from Borroloola, and I thank them for their help and encouragement throughout the year.
I want to extend my sincere appreciation to Superintendent Steve Edgington and the local police officers in Tennant Creek for their immense effort in the local community to reduce the levels of crime and antisocial behaviour.
To Michael Dougal, the Chief Executive Officer of the Tennant Creek Town Council and the councillors, a special thanks for your commitment in working in partnership with the police and the community in developing the Safe Community strategy. Also to Mr Noel Hayes, the Chairperson, and councillors of the Yapakurlangu Regional Council for being very active participants and working towards some real outcomes in the Barkly.
I would particularly like to thank and express my sincere appreciation to Gail Dougal, my electorate officer, who has carried out her task in a very dedicated, caring and committed manner. Gail is a wonderful person; one in a million.
To all the staff in Parliament House, thank you for your professionalism and your commitment to your respective tasks. I would like to thank Clerk Ian McNeill, Dave Horton, Graham Gadd, Steven Stokes and Samantha Mannette. If I have missed out some people, please accept my apologies, but you can be assured that your support has been much appreciated.
Also to the Hansard staff, and I refer to Helen Allmich, Robyn Smith and Elizabeth Olajos. I thank you very much for your forbearance and your patience.
To my colleagues on both sides of the Chamber, I thank you as well.
I would also like to record my love and appreciation of my beautiful partner, Barb Shaw, for her ongoing support throughout the year.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I trust all will enjoy a peaceful Christmas, and a productive and successful 2003.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, well, it is the last sittings before Christmas - that sounds a bit like a novel, doesn’t it? I would like to wish all honourable members, their families and friends the very best for Christmas and the new year.
The Johnston electorate is a great area with great people. I suppose I keep on hammering this point, but I doorknock as much as I can, and I find it very pleasurable. It is good exercise for one thing and you get to meet a lot of different people. Some people invite you in and you sit down and have a drink of water, a cup of tea, or maybe even a beer sometimes. You hear what people are thinking about, what is concerning them, and you hear good news about their lives and how they came to the Territory. That is what makes the Territory great, that so often people just come up here for a bit of a trip, and they end up just staying, it is just such a great place. I thank the Johnston electorate for their support. It is getting a little bit harder, but I will be out there doorknocking as much as I can towards the end of this year and early next year, weather permitting.
I would like to pay special tribute to my electorate officer, Judy Herring. Not only does she have to put up with my absent mindedness and eccentricities and now my absence, but she takes it all in her stride, like a good bridge player. She is a bit of a mind reader, which helps. We deal with the public, and sometimes there is that one in a thousand that is a bit of a trial, but Judy has infinite patience and usually, we get a pretty good result for people. Often, what people want is an understanding ear and someone who can give them advice, and Judy does that very well. So Judy, thank you so much for all your assistance and support. I look forward to working with you next year.
The Johnston electorate has a number of schools. Casuarina Senior College is one, and I would like to thank Steve Sjoberg for his support and his advice. I believe Casuarina Senior College is a premier educational institution in the Territory, and they certainly turn out some fine graduates. Their council is also a very fine council.
Brian Bennett, a relative newcomer from Tasmania, is Principal of the Moil Primary School. Brian and his wife are really enjoying life in the Territory. Brian has brought a real spark of life into Moil Primary School. Leslie Wilcox is Principal of Jingili Primary School, along with Mim Regan at the preschool. It is a great school. Michelle Cody is at the Wagaman Primary School. All of these schools have great school councils of dedicated parents who come along, and I would like to wish them all a very happy Christmas and a successful new year.
In terms of the Assembly, I would like to extend seasons greetings to Madam Speaker. She has to sometimes put up with some bad behaviour, and maybe I am part of that syndrome. However, I hope that I do not give her too much grief. I respect her and her advice and, as she knows, I often seek her advice. She is someone with a lot of wisdom. Katie Tchia has to put up with us when we have our soirees. We are having one tonight, although I have only had a chance to have one wine, but I might go back and maybe have a beer for Christmas. They are great nights and, as I have in the past, I commend them to members because it is a way that we can meet informally and all become a bit more human that way. We have had some good nights.
To the Clerk, Ian McNeill: you have a very hard job, but I know that you are absolutely impartial and that you engender a lot of respect for the institution of parliament. Of course, also to Deputy Clerk, David Horton, and all the staff of the Assembly. I know Graham Gadd puts in some long hours, as do Steve and Sam, behind us there, in the Table Office. They keep the Assembly running smoothly and they also have a few good jokes.
I know the IT people are not directly underneath the Assembly, they are from outside. Quito Washington is a livewire and he loves to drink coffee and he is full of coffee beans. Quito is always helpful and he always manages to get me back on the network almost, or part of the way …
Mr Kiely: Sometimes, maybe.
Dr BURNS: Sometimes. But it is not the fault of Quito. He is a great bloke and a very interesting character with very interesting hobbies.
Hansard: well, Helen Allmich and the crew, I wonder how they do it. They get all the names right – 95%, 98% right. They seem to order what you say. As the member for Greatorex said, you read it and say: ‘Gee, that sounds pretty statesmanlike’, but it seemed pretty ordinary as you were saying it. I really appreciate the Hansard staff and the crucial job that they do.
Corporate Services led by Vicki Long: I know that is a hard job, particularly the IT stuff, but my thanks to Vicki. The few times I have called on her she has really helped me and I appreciate that.
Building Services led by Jan Bradley and Derek Stafford: they do a fantastic job and keep this great building, as big as it is, running smoothly.
The committee staff: I would particularly like to thank Terry Hanley and Ros Vogeli for the PAC and Estimates Committee. When I was Chair there, they were a great support to me, and they certainly put in a lot of extra yards and do a lot of extra work. The workload of the PAC and Estimates has increased exponentially this year. Terry and Ros, I thank you for all your great efforts. Another committee is the Substance Abuse Committee, with Pat Hancock ably assisted by Liz McFarlane. That is a very important committee, and I was sorry to leave that committee. I have a large interest in that, but I know the member for Sanderson has stepped in there and he will do a great job.
The Parliamentary Library: well, I know I could come in for a bit of a caning for saying this, but as someone who likes to research, I love the library. I have a lot of respect for the librarians; they are very helpful, very efficient and they certainly dig up those facts and figures and are very extensive in their searches. So, to Marilyn Hawthorne and Ruby Lindberg who is a relatively new mother, which is great: thank you for all your support.
Now I have become a minister, I have lots of people to thank in DIPE and DBIRD. I have actually got to know a lot of people in those departments, and certainly also PowerWater. I have been told I have to go to Ben Hammond coming up to Christmas and put $250 on the bar there, and we all have a big party. So I can hardly wait to go along to the Christmas party at Ben Hammond. I have heard a few stories and I will probably have to touch base with the member for Drysdale. I heard he had a great Christmas party one year, and I want to find out the ropes from him.
My parliamentary office or my ministerial office upstairs: I am so fortunate to have Mark Hough; he is a great chief of staff and I have a lot of respect, confidence and trust in him. Valerie, who is on secondment, if you like, from the Tourist Commission until we get our permanent staff in place, has been a great help. Valerie has a great sense of humour and a great knowledge of the tourism industry. Caroline and Myrene, they are just fantastic and help me so much. There are others to come on board - Andrew Buick is also there like Valerie, helping out on the environment side of things. That is fantastic and I really appreciate it. My job has been made a lot easier by the great support that I have received from these people.
I am having a little more to do with the drivers and they are great. They certainly know their way around and they know the protocols, and that is great support also. So, thank you to all the drivers. The security staff always have a joke; they are a good crowd of people who have an important job to do and I appreciate that. Also, the Protocol staff do a great job with all the functions that we have at Parliament House.
I mentioned Judy before, but Phil Powling is someone who comes in and steps in for Judy when we let her take holidays. Phil does a great job; he is a very experienced electorate officer and he has some good ideas. As the member for Millner said, I would particularly like to thank Frank Moukaddem for his help in so many ways. Whenever there is a party function on Frank is there, and is not afraid to do the work. He is just a great support for me and for our party. He is someone with a good heart - a true believer and a very hard worker. Frank and his wife are expecting a baby in early 2003 and I wish them all the best for that very joyous occasion.
To all the branch members in the Casuarina branch, I guess we have to have a few Christmas parties over the next month, but I thank you for your support. As always, I will endeavour to get along to branch meetings because they are just so important. As with doorknocking, at branch meetings you get the political feedback, the support and encouragement of branch members, and that is fantastic.
Regarding my colleagues, I have already wished everyone on both sides a happy Christmas. I certainly endorse what the member for Greatorex said about putting aside our political, and sometimes personal differences at this time, to wish each other and our families all the best. When you look at the bigger picture, even though we are opponents we are part of a fabric - a three-way fabric with the Independents - and that makes it a little more interesting as well. We all are part of the proud fabric of Australian political life and we all contribute. I would particularly like to thank my colleagues on this side in our caucus. We are a tight, very friendly group; we talk to each other freely and listen to each other’s concerns and advice and that is fantastic - we are a great team.
I suppose without trying to pick favourites from within the team, my colleague, the member for Sanderson, and I were friends long before we came into parliament and I hope that we are friends long after we leave. He is looking at me sideways here. It is great to have someone who you do have a history of friendship with. I have known others here before I came into parliament, but I met Len and Marie a long time ago out at Maningrida and we became friends before we were in politics, and that is very important.
Finally to the family: I have been a bit of an absentee, always with some sort of project on. I suppose before I entered into politics I was always working long hours or out doing field work. I have a very understanding and supportive family for which I am eternally grateful. They are also great critics. We need to be self-critical and to have friends and family who are critical of us and tell us exactly what they think. That is very important. It has been a tough year, which has had its highs and lows. I lost my mother earlier this year and that was hard. However, merry Christmas to everybody, and good evening.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I look back at the year and, perhaps, look forward at what is to come. I also recognise the things that I have been a part of during this past year, which would not have been possible without the help and support of many people; and for that help and support I am eternally grateful. I have tried hard to be a good local member for Sanderson.
The things that have happened this year around the place that I have participated in as a local member, as well as being good for my electorate are good for the Territory in a much broader context. I recall the Freedom of Information legislation. It is a bit of a sleeper, that one, but it has been a long time coming and is going to make some big fundamental changes to the interactions between the community and government. It has made government more open, and the benefits of our Information Act are yet to be felt through the community. I am looking forward to that, and I am very proud to have been a part of it. I am proud that the people of Sanderson elected me so that I could be a part of it.
During these sittings, we saw the pool fencing legislation go through which will be a great boon to the community in years to come. It will not completely stop the tragic occurrences of children drowning. In future, we will see such tragedies occur, but we are addressing it and looking at ways of trying to reduce it as much as we can.
The smoking legislation that we introduced was a long time coming; people have been wanting government to act on that. I am not trying to make any political mileage on this, but I am saying that we were voted in on these items and we have delivered on them. I am proud to have delivered on them in this short time, and it justifies the choice of the Labor candidate by the people of Sanderson at the last election.
One of the big things that we, as a government, have done for the community is the drug legislation. Quite a number of drug houses around the Sanderson area have been targetted, making it difficult for them to trade. We have all seen the stories about Foils on Moil. People in my area know what a pestilence this has been to the neighbourhood. I was in Pelican Crescent doorknocking the other day and was told by the neighbours that we had busted an amphetamine factory there – and this is in the leafy suburb of Wulagi! This is part of the government that I belong to, and this has all happened this year. I am proud of it and the people of Sanderson can also be proud of it.
I have struck up a good relationship with our police at Casuarina and they are very responsive when I give them a call about constituent issues. I am pretty happy about that.
I have found that I have good relationships with all of the ministers and their advisors. If a constituent comes to me with an issue, then I have open access to the ministers and their advisors and we are able to sit down and work out the best deal that we can. It is an excellent working relationship, and that is of great benefit to my constituents.
On the local scene, the government has delivered on an election promise that was made regarding funding for the upgrade of the Sanderson High School tennis courts. I understand that minister Vatskalis and one of his senior advisors, Alf Leonardi, are working very closely on making sure that money is provided. They have promised me that it will be delivered, and it is going to happen. I know that minister Stirling, who is responsible for DEET, and also the principal, are working hard to make sure that money gets to the school. This is a great tripartite community effort.
Dr Burns: No reason why it should not happen.
Mr KIELY: That is right; a promise is a promise. They are delivering; we are delivering and I am happy about it.
The Marrara Neighbourhood Centre is another election promise fulfilled. We promised them, coming into the election, in the vicinity of $170 000-odd, I think it was, to carry out work that was urgently needed to help maintain that centre as a good community asset, as well as an inclusion worker to help children with special needs. We delivered on that.
As a local community member, I have tried my best. I have been out doorknocking; I get around the electorate having a good chat. It is always wonderful to go into the houses of the people I represent. The suburbs that I represent are not anything special, but they are full of good people – good, down to earth, solid Territorians. It is always a pleasure to sit down and talk to them. Everyone is hospitable, and they will let me know their points of view, and I value the feedback on my performance.
I will get back to my support base. As I said, I can only be a good, effective member if I am supported. I would like to start off with the ministers and their staff. I will not go through naming them all, but, believe me, I value the support that they give me. I believe I have a good relationship with all of them - which is evident in the results that I am able to achieve - particularly Alf, Mark, Lyn, John. There are so many I am bound to miss some out so I will not go through the names. Charlie Phillips and Jane Dancey organise us very well and are always looking after us. They have the best interests of the community and us as backbenchers at heart and they work hard.
I would especially like to pay tribute to the Chief Minister, who we have regular meetings with. It is rather presidential, a fireside chat with the Chief Minister. We are able to talk to her about issues, she gives us feedback about how we are going, and we also talk to her about how she is going. This open communication, this 360 feedback as you say in the trade, is excellent and it makes for a great working relationship. You see the results on the ground in the community, that there is a great parliamentary Labor Party team here, and they deliver. I am as proud as punch to be part of it.
The family of the Legislative Assembly is a wonderful family to belong to. I know as a politician I am outside of it slightly - I am like a second cousin, I suppose, but I am not a neglected second cousin.
Dr Burns: A poison cousin.
Mr KIELY: Not a Tasmanian one.
They look after us. The spirit that is engendered is a culture engendered by the Clerk, Ian McNeill to whom I would like to give my personal Christmas thanks, and to his very capable 2IC, Captain David Horton. The way those two relate to members and staff is what sets the tone for this place, and that is why we can achieve so much.
I would also single out Graham Gadd and his team in the Table Office, for their support during sittings - any time, in fact. It is always there, nothing is ever too much to do. They make a wonderful effort. There is my old mate, Derek Stafford in Building Management. I actually did a year course with Derek. Nothing is ever too much for him. When we phone and ask about maintenance issues in our electorate offices, Derek is always there should we need help.
In committees, we have Pat, Terry, and Rick. Terry and Ros have been wonderful, in the support that they have given us on the PAC. We could not have done it without them. Pat, I know from a prior life, and I am looking forward to working with her on the Substance Abuse Committee.
On the IT side, there is Naoko Kitazato. I know Naoko from when I used to work with her in DCIS. She is a great IT person; always very helpful. I commend her to Ian and David for the work she does.
The list goes on and on and on. There is Vicki, Danielle, Jo - and I would like to say to Jo Carbone: good luck on the impending birth on Australia Day. I hope she has the bub on Australia Day and it all works out well and she gets a nice little medal for it. I hope she gets to footy because there is nothing like seeing Carlton getting a flogging. That is what she needs to see to bring her down to earth after such a joyous event as the birth of a baby.
I would also like to thank a few other people: Esther, Aaron and Ivan at security. They are very helpful as you come through the door. Many times I have forgotten my keys and they have come and bailed me out. One quick phone call or one step down there, they are always ready to assist. Or if you have visitors coming through they will help out straight away.
I would also like to thank my branch members for giving me feedback on the political situation and for their assistance on various fundraisers and other things that the branch has to do to support the local member. There are many, many of them. Might I say that the membership is increasing and some of the people who are joining are so talented, they bring with them a myriad of views and backgrounds and it all contributes to making a richer, stronger parliamentary party to better serve the community. I am very, very grateful for having them supporting us.
I would like to thank my branch colleague, Delia Lawrie, who is great out there. She has worked so hard on getting the Lake Leanyer stuff together, which is going to be another boon for the community. The Karama Sanderson Branch is very lucky to have her as a member. I am very lucky, indeed, to have her as a colleague; that is fantastic. As Chris Burns mentioned earlier on - he is a great, wondrous colleague, who is very supportive when I need someone to talk to about different issues, as one does in the political life. The friendship and relationship with Chris is very special to me, as well as the friendship that I have with his family: his boys, who are fantastic lads, and his daughter. Daniel is a bottler of a bloke and you are really fortunate to have a boy like him.
I would like to also say that it has been a bit of a sad year, with the accident of my friend Arthur Boland. Arthur is booming along now, coming on strong; he should be coming back up here at Christmas. I have learnt a lot from him about handling adversity, and that is a very special gift that has come out of his tragic accident. We all learn from these things.
I would also like to say that, when it comes to advice and guidance, that I am learning a lot from the family of Pippa Rudd and Sally Sievers and their wonderful daughter Luka. They are three very, very special people; who are able to demonstrate to us the fundamentals of a good family. I am very happy to have had these people assist me during the year with advice on different things.
I could not do anything at all without the assistance, the love - and political guidance, might I say - of my wife Marie, who is very, very attuned to my needs and the needs of the family. There is no ask too great for her, and she is certainly one to give me guidance when she believes I need it - that is usually nightly, sometimes daily and hourly. She is an excellent partner to have, and I am very, very grateful for the love and support that she gives me, as well as that of my children, Claire and Ned - they are fantastic little kids. Also my older daughter Verity, and son Morgan - I have been in contact with my daughter Verity recently, and it is excellent.
In the community, there are lots of groups who give their time for nothing, to make sure that we have a better community for us to live in. In Sanderson we have some special groups, and I am talking about the school councils; they do a wonderful job of keeping us all together. There are people like the combined Anula Neighbourhood Watch, the RSPCA, the Casuarina Junior Football Club - these are all people we meet in our office. I would like permission to table the members of this committee. I would also like to give special thanks to the Darwin Golf Club whose support throughout the years has been tremendous, and I hope they have another great year ahead of them.
Leave granted.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will be brief because, in keeping with the festive spirit, I actually want the staff who are here working tirelessly to be given a break and to close the Assembly, and I am the last speaker for the evening.
In the spirit of the festive season, I do have some thanks to pass on. First of all, I would like to thank my electorate officer. As a member, I have relied on Sandi Oldroyd. Sandi has been a stalwart by my side through a good part of the year and she is a tireless worker. She has lived in the electorate of Karama for 17 years. I consider her a dear friend and I say, thank you Sandi for the support, guidance and friendship you have given me throughout a year of incredibly hard work.
I also thank Teng Murray. Teng is someone who has been a volunteer in the Karama electorate office since the election; she comes in every Saturday. Whether she is there representing my needs on a Saturday, or the Darwin City Council aldermen needs, Teng is tireless in her duties. She is unpaid, a volunteer, and it is the people like Teng Murray who weave the fabric of our society. So in the deepest way, I say, thank you very much Teng, for your time, effort, support, guidance, insights, and wisdom. I look forward to many, many more years of working with you, Teng.
I also thank Ingrid Baderwellan. Ingrid is also another volunteer who comes into my office and does the often thankless task of filing. Ingrid, thank you for the effort you have made throughout the year; it is truly appreciated. The minutiae of work is often overlooked and Ingrid is there to effortlessly assist us.
I thank Kate Williams, my electorate officer at the moment; she has been a wonderful person to bring on board. She has taken us through an upheaval of the shift from our electorate office into Parliament House while the electorate office is being worked on. She made it as seamless as it possibly could be and she continues to be a great support and guidance to me in my daily work.
As chair of the subordinate legislation committee I have relied very heavily on the hard work coming from Terry Hanley, and the able support of Ros. To both of them: thank you. To my colleagues on the subordinate legislation committee I thank you very much for your hard work and effort throughout the year. As a committee we have shown that we can work in a bipartisan way for the betterment of the Territory.
I thank Madam Speaker who is often there to, as she said to my mother a couple of weeks ago, ‘ground me’. She is someone whom I listen to and from whom I seek advice. Thank you very much, Speaker, for your guidance. To the Clerk: Ian, words cannot express the support you have given me in the last few months. At times I thought I would never succeed in the plans I had to rejuvenate the Karama electorate - in a very physical way we had great needs. You came in and you gave me tremendous support. You recognised that things had to occur and in your inimitable style, they are occurring. Thank you very much for that. I know every member of the Assembly values your advice, and I am one among many. You are a fair, unbiased Clerk and you have great experience and knowledge that serves the people of the Territory well. Thank you.
To your Deputy Clerk, David Horton: what can I say? I have dealt with David on the House Committee. He shows precision of detail that comes from many years service in the armed services. David, you are a true gentleman. Your attention to detail assists us in every way, in every facet of the operation of this Assembly. You are very much valued and highly regarded. Thank you very much for the year that you have given to all of us.
Vicki Long has been a newcomer in a succession of people to the role of Director of Corporate Services. I have to say that Vicki, in the months that I have dealt with her, has been a tremendous support and assistance. She is someone who is even-handed who, like David, attends to detail and like Ian, in a calm and methodical way, gets the outcomes the members are seeking. To Vicki Long, I thank you very much. You know that I value your advice, guidance and support.
To Rick Gray, I look forward to working with you in the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee. I am sure that we will have a rewarding year ahead of us to the benefit of all Territorians.
To the head of Hansard, Helen Allmich, she is beyond doubt a tremendous asset to the Assembly. As a new member to the Assembly, yet someone who has a history of being associated with the Assembly, I certainly appreciate the knowledge, the wisdom, the intellect and the energy of Helen. We are all very well served by her daily. To Graham Gadd; it is Graham whom I often call upon to provide me with the details and substance for my arguments in Assembly matters. Graham, I appreciate your assistance; you work tirelessly for hours on end in the Table Office. Each of us in this Assembly get breaks from time to time during the long sittings, but hour after hour Graham Gadd is sitting in the Table Office continuing to work. Graham, on behalf of the members, I thank you very much for your tireless effort, for your knowledge which covers many Assemblies, and for your ability to have put up with, sometimes, our inane questions.
To the library staff, Marilyn Hawthorne, thank you very much for your assistance. Ruby, congratulations on your child. You are both very nice people, who are both very capable operatives and without you, my speeches would have been all the poorer.
To the people at Karama Shopping Centre who put up with me daily, I also say thank you: to Tony and the staff at the newsagency; to the crew at Coles; to Brumby’s to whom I feel I am giving all of my earnings; to the chemist, Kingsley - I know we are working hard at the moment to attract a doctor to the Karama Shopping Centre because we lost our doctor - so thank you, you are an intelligent and entertaining chemist and I am sure, with our combined efforts, we will secure a doctor for the Karama Shopping Centre again.
To the Malak shops: Henry Yap, you have vision and energy and I am sure continuing to work together as we have in the past year, we will achieve great things for the community of Malak.
Thank you to the three Darwin City Council aldermen who have given up every second Saturday to use the Karama electorate office to meet with the residents. I know it is no easy task, and I thank you for giving up your time to be available to the residents. Certainly, the feedback I have received is that they very much appreciate it, and I look forward to continuing to work with Darwin City Council to achieve an improved lifestyle for the residents of Karama and Malak.
I have six schools in my electorate, and I count Marrara Christian School as the seventh. I will not go individually into them, with the exception of a retirement that I must note. The Principal of Karama school, Bob Hale, is retiring. He is a man who has devoted decades of his life to teaching in the Northern Territory. The minister for education has already spoken about him in adjournment in this sittings. Bob, on behalf of the Karama community, I say a sincere thank you. You are a very committed man; you have taken the Karama School into a position of noted excellence in the Australian education system. Karama school, under the tutelage of Bob, has won national awards for its indigenous education that, in a real sense, has made a tremendous difference to the lives of the indigenous students in the Karama electorate. It has given renewed hope to the parents of those students, that their kids will not be undervalued, and will be dealt with in a culturally appropriate way. The results show through retention rates and MAP testing that Bob, above and beyond, is an incredible success in the history of indigenous education in the Territory. Karama school is losing a truly excellent principal and I wish Bob all the very best for his retirement, which I know will include enjoying a variety of red wines from time to time - in moderation, of course.
The Speaker’s staff – Katie Tchia has been a tremendous support to me. I ring Katie at various times in my role as a member. She is very efficient, she puts up with us all with the Speaker’s dinners late into the night and she never, ever complains. She is a very professional, charming, intelligent, witty and wonderful woman. So, Katie, I thank you very much.
To all of the members of the Legislative Assembly, I wish you and your families a very festive season - the Jew that I am, I cannot quite bring myself to say happy Christmas but, believe me, each of us need our time of reflection upon the year that has gone and the year that will come. Reflection is a very healthy thing for us to undertake, just as we should spend time with our families to give them the love and the fun that often this job takes away from them. So I wish all members a very festive season with their families and their loved ones.
I have a sad occasion tomorrow. I will attend the funeral of Peter Morgan. Peter has been a part of my life since I was eight. He was at my wedding a couple of years ago playing a starring role, as he inevitably did at any public or private occasion. To Peter, God bless you. I daresay you are with the Queen Mother, which was probably one of your ambitions. You were entertaining, challenging and, like many of us, passionate about this amazingly beautiful and wonderful city of Darwin. I feel privileged to have known you as well as I knew you, and my memories of you are there for me for the rest of my life, so thank you, Peter.
Finally, to my family: my mother who is a stalwart for me - bless you, Mum, enjoy your holiday in Italy and have a festive season; my father - enjoy yourself with your family over the festive season, and all the best for the new year; my sister, Dianne, my brother John, my sister-in-law Tania, their kids; my husband, Tim, whose support has astounded me because this job is difficult, as we all know, but he has filled the gaps that I have not been able to fill as a mother because of the job - so thank you, Tim; my daughters Jhenne and Bronte, not a day goes by without you astounding me. I know you will be great Territorians and I am very, very pleased about the fact that you were born and are being raised here.
I feel very privileged to be representing members of Territory society. I hope that the year ahead brings great benefits and outcomes for the people of the Territory. Bless you all. Have a safe, happy and loving festive season.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will try to be brief. First, I would like to thank the people who I have been working with so long and hard over the last 12 months since we gave our Christmas adjournments, all of my good friends on the parliamentary Labor team and, particularly, Clare and Syd for your leadership and support over this last 12 months. It really has been fantastic. The rest of our caucus team is a great diverse and united team. It has been a very challenging 12 months. I am sure we are looking to working really hard for the people of the Northern Territory over the next 12 months and the rest of our term, and keep kicking goals.
Moving to my branch of the Labor Party, the Casuarina Area Branch, owing to my commitments I have not been as active in the branch this year as I normally am. It is the biggest branch in the Darwin region, perhaps in the Territory, and it continues to grow; we have got great growth in membership. Martin Redhead is the President and Andrew Fyles is Treasurer. You have done a great job this year and I know you will continue to do a great job. It has been fantastic working with you. I cannot, obviously, pay tribute to everybody on the management committee, but I particularly single out George Mu who has been a fantastic support and a tireless worker for the Casuarina branch. Frank Moukaddem upstairs, is another tireless worker who will do anything for anybody. Frank, have a great Christmas and I really hope for a wonderful Christmas present for yourself and your wife with your first baby, and fingers crossed that everything will be okay.
We have seen some changes in my office this year, but they are a fantastic bunch of people and we have had a great time. There has barely been a cross word up there. If you cannot enjoy this job, you should not be in it and we have certainly enjoyed our time this year. Sean, Charlie, Jenny, Michael, Rebecca, Richard, Jim, Chantelle, thanks for all your support this year. The hours and hours of work that you have put in are appreciated and it has been great working with you - and a lot of fun.
My electorate officer Ryan, who is stuck out there at Hibiscus hardly ever seeing me, has been a great support this year. I know I keep saying that I will be out their more often, but it is a new year’s resolution to spend more time in the electorate next year. You have done a fantastic job, along with Jana relieving from time to time. Thanks very much for your support.
I would like to thank Madam Speaker, Deputy Speaker, Ian McNeill the Clerk, Gaddy, Stokesie, Hansard, Parliamentary Counsel, Parliamentary Library, everybody who keeps this place ticking over. Again, a fantastic bunch of people and it is good, even in this pressure cooker atmosphere, that we can have a laugh. As Leader of Government Business for a week, I am really going to enjoy working with you even more closely in the future. As long as we can have a laugh in this place with a great bunch of people, amongst all the tension, well, the better we will all be.
To the drivers, Gary, George, Hardi, Yuni, Wayne and sometimes Bill and Thor: you guys do a magnificent job; you look after us so very well. I know from everybody who uses your service, that you have been magnificent for many, many years. Thanks, guys. Again, we have a lot of laughs as we get around the place.
For the schools in my electorate: Henbury, Holy Spirit, St Andrew’s, Wanguri Primary, magnificent achievements through the year. I have chronicled those in adjournment speeches, but I really believe - and we are all pretty parochial about the schools in our electorate – that at Wanguri, St Andrew’s and Leanyer, in particular, the school grounds are an absolute tribute. Wanguri has won some significant prizes in Tidy Town this year, and I do not think that there are better looking school grounds anywhere in the Northern Territory. So, congratulations: great schools, great outcomes, great people.
To my constituents who put their faith in me by returning me at the last election, I will continue to work hard and represent your interests to the best of my ability, both as individuals as well as the broader community. I thank you all for your support; I am very, very proud to serve you.
Finally, and I am sure there are many other people I should have thanked - apologies, but you know that if you should be thanked, then I will find time over the next month or so leading up to Christmas. The most important people in my life are my wife Stacey, who is the rock I lean on all the time - thanks for your continued love and support; and my three beautiful children, Alasdair, Liam and Isabell – I would love to spend a lot more time with you, but you are there in my thoughts all of the time. Liam and Isabell have chickenpox at the moment - not the best of times, but they are wonderful, wonderful people.
To all the members of the House: merry Christmas, have a safe and happy new year. It is a bit of a bear pit in here, but I can certainly say from my point of view, in spite of all the things that fly across the floor, it is nothing personal; it really is the job that we have to do to represent our constituents. Sometimes passions get raised, but it certainly is nothing personal when things get heated. I wish each and every one of you a very merry Christmas.
Mr Deputy SPEAKER: Just before I adjourn, I would like to say thank you to some people I forgot last night when I thanked everybody, and that is the Hansard people. In my case, they do an extraordinary job, because I can nearly understand what I have said when I see it in writing. So I would like to thank all the Hansard people.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016