2005-02-16
Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
Neville Walker and Frazer Henry were the founders of Henry Walker Eltin, a company which we in the Territory like to think of as our own. It started here, it prospered here, and it lives here still. When he died last week, Neville was the Chairman of the Board of Directors of a company in receivership, but behind the scenes, he was working tirelessly to help it survive its financial crisis.
Neville Walker was not known as one who walked away from a job. His son, David, recalled a time during the Wet Season when Neville went out to do some road repairs at his Noonamah property. A lifetime heavy machinery operator, he drove the grader to do the work, but bogged it. He then took the tractor out to free the grader, and bogged the tractor. Then he took the bulldozer out to free the tractor and the grader, and bogged the dozer. Then he took the scraper out to pull the rest out, but was finally persuaded to give up on account of darkness. He was not a man easily defeated.
Fiercely independent, Neville Walker came to the Territory in the late 1950s, putting as much space as he could between himself and the family dairy farm in Bunbury, Western Australia. Young and fit, he saw the Territory as the land of opportunity for those unafraid of a hard day’s work. It was the start of a life-long love affair between Neville Walker and the Territory. He loved its easygoing lifestyle, the Wet Season and the way the country changed when the rains blew in. He loved the space and the work in bush construction camps.
It was in one of those camps along the Western Australia border that Neville first met Frazer Henry, a young man fresh from the Queensland cane fields. They hit it off from the start. They shared a dream: to put their mechanical skills to work in the civil engineering bonanza which was happening right around the Territory. It was a time of exponential growth in the bush. In the 1960s, when the American export market for beef opened up, improved road infrastructure was essential to move cattle by road trains from the remote stations to urban markets.
Neville and Frazer pooled their savings and bought a grader in 1962. With the grader, they were able to secure their first contract grading the beef roads north-east of Alice Springs. They also put a deposit on an old utility to carry food and water and, along with two dogs, they went bush. It was the start of a partnership that would last 43 years.
The pair stayed out bush as long as they could to keep one step ahead of their creditors. They remember it as ‘glove box accountancy’. They stuffed all the invoices that accumulated over the months into the glove box of the ute and paid them off when they went to town. They worked on such slim margins that on their second job, they were forced to drive a grader 800 km rather than add the cost of the trailer to their tender. They did anything to get work. After a couple of years, they bought a few more machines, established separate camps and started hiring people. They graded roads and cleared airstrips. There would hardly be a road in the Territory that Frazer and Neville did not build or maintain. In those days, life in the camps was rough. Frazer recalls he and Neville going ‘shopping’ for dinner - bush style. That was in a ute with a .303 rifle and a skinning knife. They pulled up at a water hole where cattle gathered; always glancing over their shoulder looking for passing pastoralists.
After Neville married in 1967, he and Frazer became brothers-in-law when Frazer married Neville’s wife’s sister. They often took the families along on bush jobs. Neville’s first daughter, Danielle, remembers a lonely camp in Arnhem Land. Her mum decided to go down to a billabong to do the washing, with a dog racing along, carrying baby Danielle in one arm and the wash in the other. As she put the baby down on the bank a giant crocodile sprang from the water and took the dog in one gulp.
They lived for years in tents and swags, often trading station owners with quality road grading for a ‘cartoon’ of green cans, as it was called in those days. They would often spend their bush weekends aboard their dozers and scrapers cutting a remote community athletics field or a football oval, many of them still in use today.
Business was good and the partnership prospered. They both moved into Darwin, buying three houses in Nightcliff. Then came Christmas Eve 1974 when Cyclone Tracy came to town. Neville and his family had their house collapse around them. Nine people congregated in the bathroom. When the walls collapsed, Walker family members piled on top of each other. In the morning Frazer Henry walked from his house across Nightcliff through the rubble to find the Walker family huddled in a car beneath the house. They then drove on four flat tyres to Noonamah, where they have lived ever since.
After the cyclone, Neville and Frazer had their hands full cleaning up all the rubble around town. It took six weeks to clean up what was once Darwin and take it to the dump. Then they returned to the bush to continue their road work. Neville and Frazer hired employees like them; country people who could turn their hands to anything and liked working in isolated remote areas. Many of them remain loyal Henry Walker Eltin employees today, decades later.
Des McKay is the longest serving with 38 years service, but Robert Wilson is not far behind. Back in the 1970s Robert was a teenager at the Darwin Wharf when Neville Walker approached him. Neville looked him over and finally asked: ‘Can you take that truck to Bougainvillea Street?’ The boy said: ‘Who are you?’ He said: ‘My name is Neville Walker. Don’t you work for me?’ Robert said: ‘No,’ to which Neville replied: ‘If you want to work for me, take that truck to Bougainvillea Street’. New to Darwin, Robert found a map and drove the truck to Bougainvillea Street, even though he was too young to have a licence, but he never regretted it. Thirty years later Robert Wilson is the company’s Darwin Manager.
Henry and Walker, as they were known then, started developing land in the late 1970s. They bought Nathan River Station in the Gulf Country. They raised two prawn trawlers sunk in the cyclone in order to get their licences, and bought two more. They bought land just outside the edge of suburbia knowing its value would one day sky-rocket. They acquired the leases on two gold mines, Mount Bonnie and the Tanami Gold Mine and operated them themselves. Neville bought Woolner and later Marrakai Stations on the Mary River flood plain, where he raised his children.
The pair became partners in the Territory’s first crocodile farm and it all started because Neville hated wasting anything. His friend, Malcolm Eardley, had a chicken farm outside Darwin, and one day Neville watched in horror as Malcolm disposed of waste chickens he was unable to sell. How could they make use of those chickens? Feed them to the crocs was the answer, then raise the crocs, sell them for skins and meat, and let the tourists see them as well. So the Walkers and the Henrys and the Noonans went out, armed with government licences, and captured crocodiles, big salties and little freshies, and so was born another sustainable Territory industry with which Neville continued to be involved until his death.
He was a practical man, always on the lookout for a bargain. Life-long friend, Dick Griffiths, remembered taking a call from Neville informing him that ‘they’ had just bought a-ton-and-a-half block of lead at an auction. ‘What are we going to do with a-ton-and-a-half of lead?’ asked Dick. ‘Make sinkers, of course!’ replied Neville, who set about with a blowtorch making hundreds of fishing sinkers. Those who have been lucky enough to wet a line with the Walker family since know that they are never short of a good sinker.
The late 1970s was a period of intense growth for Henry and Walker until 1981, when they decided that the company must go public to capitalise and expand into the next phase. The long-time partnership went public. It had been a partnership built on mutual trust, honesty and integrity - old school values. They trusted each other like brothers and it was that trust which laid the foundation for the successful public company.
A public share float took place, and Henry Walker became the Territory’s first home-grown publicly listed company. They became the Henry Walker Group Ltd and began to expand. The group acquired air charter operators, Airnorth. They became gaming entrepreneurs in Darwin and Alice Springs. They bought heavy machinery dealers, AgServ Industries, as well as a majority interest in Territory Asphalt Roadways, and later bought one of Australia’s most successful Toyota dealerships, Bridge Autos. The Henry Walker Group could never be accused of not investing in the Territory. The group consolidated its holding over the years, divesting themselves of some of those businesses, and even those that were sold remain major Territory companies today. Their growth was due, at least in part, to the time they were owned and operated by the Henry Walker Group.
His wife, Joanne, said: ‘When Neville saw an opportunity, he didn’t think about whether it fit their corporate portfolio or not. All he thought about was whether it would be viable and good for the Territory’.
The 1980s saw the company take the expertise they acquired operating their own gold mines and expand into contract mining. Their first mining contract came in 1987 and they quickly moved from civil road building projects to long-term mining projects for companies like BHP. They even began operating internationally, first in East Timor and then in Indonesia and Chile.
All this time, Neville Walker split his time between acting as the company’s Chairman of the Board and being a father and Top End property owner. He was a man who was happiest at the controls of a large machine. It did not matter if it was a grader, Land Cruiser or an airboat racing across the Marrakai flood plain. Driving relaxed him. Friend and pastoralist, Robert Townsend, once wrote Neville a poem:
A dozer driver to the end, Neville Walker’s motto remained:
Neville Walker was first and foremost a proud Territorian. Joanne said that Neville was the greatest non-politician of all time. He was a never a member of a political party, but his first concern was whether a policy was good for the Territory. If it was, he would back it, no matter who was in government. When I asked him to co-chair this government’s Economic Development Summit in 2001, he had no hesitation in accepting. The summit proved to be an emphatic success, with business people and economists joining forces to chart directions for the Territory’s economic future. Neville was also pleased, hoping that the summit would have a positive influence on the Territory’s economic future.
Neville’s life changed when he met Joanne in 1996. He spent his last years working as Henry Walker Eltin’s Board Chairman, whilst travelling between her home in Las Vegas and Darwin. At 68, he began to speak of retirement, but that was put on hold when the company’s financial problems emerged. He continued working behind the scenes to get the best possible outcome for his employees, of whom he was so very proud.
Our thoughts today and for the last week are with Joanne and Joanne’s family; Neville’s children, Danielle, David, Lee, Clint and Christina; his brothers and sisters and his multitude of friends at this very sad time.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for this most appropriate motion.
As I considered my contribution, I quickly realised that there is no speech which I could write that could adequately express the loss suffered by all Territorians with the passing of Neville Walker or the contribution he has made to the Northern Territory.
The new part of the Walker family, the Munos clan, who have come from the United States and are part of a very large clan, might know these words because they were spoken by an American when speaking on behalf of another great American some time ago. He said: ‘Great men are the property of the nation’. It was in that context that a State Funeral was held for Neville Walker and those who attended, and I am sure, those who could not attend, had the opportunity to express on behalf of all Territorians what Neville Walker meant to us all.
Territorians were grieving because they had lost a great friend and a great mentor. Some might say that we will never see the like of Neville Walker again. I do not agree with that because what I saw were his children and grandchildren. His son, David, spoke magnificently at the funeral. They were there and the blood of Neville Walker flows through their veins. I believe we will see the like of Neville Walker again. We will see part of that family who will exhibit the qualities that Neville Walker imbued in them. The blood that flows through their veins and the example that he set is too strong never to be seen again, and it will be.
I will not recount the experiences of Neville Walker because it has already been said, but he touched the lives of everyone in the Northern Territory in some way or another. He touched us in business. He essentially built the road network of the Northern Territory. He was involved in many activities from barramundi fishing to crocodile farming, involvement of MGM in our casino and before that, the waterfront development, the Chief Minister’s Economic Development Summit - there was not anything in the Northern Territory that Neville Walker did not either pioneer, become closely involved in, or provide advice and mentoring to governments, whatever side of the political fence. The bottom line was whether it was in the best interests of the Northern Territory. That was Neville Walker.
At the State Funeral was a smaller man, just as tough – you only had to look into his eyes to see that - and that was Frazer Henry. I watched Frazer Henry shedding a tear as he walked down the aisle and I thought: ‘What a legacy to leave: to have a mate, after 40 years, who is there with you so closely, so strongly, and so courageously’.
In the ceremony yesterday, we saw what Neville Walker epitomised to Territorians, and the grief of those who knew him far better than I. The Greek philosopher and dramatist Sophocles once said:
Neville Walker gave the Territory a splendid day and we thank him for it.
The opposition joins the government in extending sincere condolences to Joanne, Neville’s sons and daughters, and to his new family. We shall deeply miss him.
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak about a great Australian, a great Territorian and a good friend.
Neville Walker was a man of the Territory. Originally from Western Australia where his family had a dairy farm in the south-west, he came to the Territory because, as he told me, he did not want to be a dairy farmer. He came from the same area as my wife’s family, and it was this common geographical origin that was the catalyst for our friendship.
For Neville, the Territory was not simply a place to make your living or to take advantage of economic opportunities; it was a place to raise a family, a place he could immerse himself in the countryside as an observer, a developer, and as a participant in the environment.
His properties on the Top End flood plain, Marrakai and Woolner, were his pride and joy. They were places where he ran cattle and buffalo, but also places keenly protected. He allowed no hunting on the properties, and took great delight in the diverse wildlife that cohabited with the workers. He was particularly concerned about salt water intrusion problems at the top end of the Mary River, and was active in building barrages designed to stop the salt water spilling into the flood plain.
Always keen to show off the properties, Neville was often called upon by various governments to take visiting dignitaries out and give them a taste of the Territory and the Top End. He was always keen to do that, piling luggage into the back of his Land Cruiser and, guests in hand, shooting off to the bush. Soon they would be seated on an airboat racing across the flood plain amongst the magpie geese and jabirus, with guests gasping at the size of the crocodiles.
Neville’s sons and daughters - Danielle, Lee, Clint, David and Christina - recalled a large contingent of two plane-loads of Japanese investors whom Neville escorted to the flood plains. He proceeded to take them out to the buffalo yards where he introduced them to modern Australian high-tech mechanical miracles such as bull catchers and bionic arms. Neville was not averse to bouncing around a herd of buffalo in his brand new Land Cruiser, as long as it gave the visitors something to remember. He was a man who broke down barriers between people.
He was not interested in only enjoying the company of globe-trotting VIPs; he was interested in everyone he met. He often picked up backpackers on the Stuart Highway and his son, David, recalled him dropping a couple of hitchhikers at the Noonamah property, telling him to look after them and to be sure to show them around. On other occasions he asked hitchhikers if they were looking for a job and, if they were, he gave them one and drove them to the job site.
Neville Walker was a great ambassador for the Territory and immensely proud of it. Joanne remembered that whenever he travelled abroad, he kept a folder of Territory photos handy, shamelessly showing them to anyone at the slightest excuse. He had one photo of which he was particularly fond: his daughter, Christina, holding a crocodile. He told everyone that, in the Territory, we make pets of crocodiles.
An American from Las Vegas, Joanne met Neville while she was visiting a friend who worked for the MGM Grand Casino in Darwin. He had been asked to escort the girls to the Darwin Cup Ball, and it became an evening to remember and treasure. She thought people seemed to light up when they were around him. It was not until much later when the couple decided to marry that Joanne discovered the regard with which Neville was held by Territorians. When they decided to have their wedding in Las Vegas, they were concerned about whether friends from Australia would come. In the end, 48 people flew from Australia to the wedding, along with many others from different corners of the globe. For Joanne, it was a measure of the esteem in which Neville was held, especially by fellow Territorians.
Neville and Joanne welcomed Margaret and I into their home, and Margaret and I enjoyed Neville’s smile, his humour and his friendship.
Yesterday, I heard many prominent people speaking about Neville, but I must say that the best eulogy I heard was from a group of Greek construction workers. They had met Neville at my place at my 20 years in Australia anniversary party two years ago. They did not know who Neville was, but soon they were chatting together like old mates, exchanging stories of the old Territory. The day after his tragic death, the same people told me that when they saw the photo in the newspaper, they realised who Neville was. They commented on how humble he was, how he joked with them, and the stories they shared. One of them summed up everything about Neville by saying: ‘He was a top bloke’. This was Neville: a top bloke.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I am not entirely comfortable with making statements in parliament that relate so closely to my personal life. A person’s private life should remain sacrosanct, but there are exceptions, and this is one.
I have known the Walker family for my entire life. I went to school with David, Clint and Lee both at Howard Springs Primary School and Taminmin High School. I recall Neville and his first wife, Dawn, were always supportive. I recall them being a typical rural family. They made sure the kids made it to school. Neville worked very, very hard. Most people may not realise this, but the Walker family did it tough in the early days. There was lots of hard work. Neville was always away on jobs and often Dawn had to pick up the children and conduct the home affairs.
It is an almost impossible job to summarise succinctly what Neville Walker meant to me, my family, and the rural community. It is hard to think of something in the rural area in which Neville was not involved. For example, he was one of the foundation members of the Northern Territory Polocrosse Association, a very family-oriented sport. Neville was always there; he made the time.
I recall Neville took David, his eldest son, and I to the polocrosse nationals in Warwick in Queensland in the late 1980s. He was the chaperone and I recall him pulling me aside and telling me that there was only one rule: do not make too much noise and have fun. I ran riot. Neville was great. He was not the harsh disciplinarian that I thought he might be. He enjoyed a tough reputation in the business community but, as a chaperone, he was great. We did what we wanted. If we wanted something, we went to him and he looked after us.
As a child, at Christmas time we would have the usual family soire. The city Maleys would visit the rural Maleys and after we did the family thing, we would go down to Neville’s place and catch up with Dave and the lads, and eat what scraps we could find, and play a few games and some sport. That is just what we did. I look back on those days as the best days of my life and realise that perhaps I took them for granted.
Neville was a great business person, first and foremost, but he was also a consummate politician. I watched him engage and entertain politicians from both political persuasions. I accompanied him on several trips to Channel Point, dozens of fishing trips to Woolner and Marrakai in the airboats, and people from Chief Ministers to bank managers to business people were treated like royalty. All those people left with a positive impression of the Northern Territory and all left with a renewed passion for what the Northern Territory stood for. Mr Walker, as I always called him, was an excellent ambassador.
Madam Speaker, all things considered, the only true measure of a man’s life is the calibre of the children he leaves behind. I stand quite proudly and say that Neville Walker was a huge success. All his children have matured into good people. I loved growing up with you guys, particularly Dave, Clint and Lee, who are around the same ages as my brother and I: Easter camping trips at Douglas Hot Springs, polocrosse carnivals, the shed parties at my place, pig hunting on Marrakai and Woolner for over a decade, the barmaids at Corroboree – I would not change a thing.
Danielle is the eldest and was always the very sensible one. She was, I recall, a bit of a mother figure to me - not that she is significantly older than me, but she always had kind words and a warm smile. Little Christina I remember as a baby, with my dad and Neville sitting on the verandah discussing her future. The only thing they were interested in was what they could best do to make sure that this girl had all the opportunities that life can offer. The Walker family has grown to include other people, wives and girlfriends: Lynley, Casey, and Corney just to name a few.
Neville married Joanne six or seven years ago in Las Vegas and I can say, quite objectively, that he certainly had spring in his step after meeting and marrying you and, from what exposure I have had to your family, I can see why he held them in such high regard as decent people.
So, Neville Walker, your family is a true testament to your success. I am very sad that I did not have the opportunity to say thank you and tell you these things personally. I just imagined that you would be there forever.
However, I am proud to have the opportunity to state the case for Mr Walker. To Mr Walker’s family, on behalf of the people of Goyder, you have, of course, our sincere condolences. On behalf of every decent born and bred Territorian, you have our condolences. On behalf of the Maley family, you have our deepest and most sincere condolences.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the condolence motion and those who have spoken so eloquently.
I did not know Neville Walker very well, but I do know what he did in the Litchfield Shire. I thought I would make a few comments on his pioneering legacy to the shire about which many people who are newcomers to the area do not know. I cannot always separate Neville Walker from Frazer Henry, so in some cases I am talking about one and the same person.
Litchfield Shire probably would not be there today were it not for people like Neville Walker. He was part of the Rural Advisory Committee, the group that negotiated setting up local government in the rural area with the government. At that time, it was quite controversial. There were many people in support of it and many people against it. He was part of the steering committee which eventually allowed Litchfield Shire Council to come into being. I may be biased as an ex-President of the Litchfield Shire Council, but it is one of the best municipalities in the Northern Territory. I can guarantee it is the best shire in the Northern Territory because it is the only shire here.
Freds Pass Reserve is one of the best community sporting facilities you will find anywhere, and much of it is due to Neville Walker: the Aussie Rules football ground, the polocrosse pitch and the dam. You might ask: ‘What does the dam have to do with it?’ I gather it was built as an afterthought one afternoon. Maybe if I had been around, I would have said: ‘Hey, you had better get an environmental impact statement’, but they built a dam, which is there today and used for irrigation to keep the ovals bright and green. The legacy of Neville Walker is a place enjoyed by many young and older people be that playing polocrosse, soccer, Aussie Rules, cricket, rugby, rugby league and the many other sporting activities that occur at Freds Pass. It is because of people like Neville Walker that we have such an important facility. He has left that legacy. I believe the member for Goyder would agree that we should be talking to the Freds Pass Management Board about a permanent memorial to Neville Walker so that people do not forget.
He was also a pioneer in subdivisions, and subdivisions are probably a favourite area of mine. Members know I bored them to tears yesterday talking about planning. Neville designed one of the first subdivisions in the rural area that had bitumen roads before they were needed and town water. I am referring to the Nottage and Lovelock Roads area. He was a pioneer in good subdivisions. He produced a subdivision in which people would want to live, and he led the way. Today, of course, all subdivisions in Litchfield Shire must have bitumen roads and many of them must have town water. Again, he showed the way as a pioneer.
He was certainly a person who liked his polocrosse, as the member for Goyder said. He also created employment in the rural area through the Crocodile Farm, which also had spin-offs into tourism.
I suppose I can say I had one thing in common with Neville: both of us were involved in the chook industry. He must have been a man of good taste if he understood poultry, but, of course, poultry is one of those industries that has suffered because of changing prices and circumstances. Even in the poultry industry, he created employment for locals. To some people, these might seem minor things, but it was because of his vision that other people were able to obtain work.
As a shire president, I did not always agree with things that Henry and Walker did. I certainly had my moments when I disagreed with them. However, I found that if you were straight and honest and gave a logical argument as to why you disagreed, Neville and Frazer would respect you for what you said and there would be no hard feelings. You could discuss issues with them at any time. I respect both of them, and I respect Neville especially for being able to do that. I had a job to do, they had a job to do, and there were no ill feelings. That really reflects the sort of bloke he was. He was tough and I did not always agree with him, but he was fair and he respected you. That is how he should be remembered.
Madam Speaker, on behalf of the people of Litchfield Shire, to which Neville left a great legacy, I extend my condolences to Neville’s family.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I thank honourable members for their comments, and wish to convey to the family the sincere sympathy of all honourable members and the staff of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.
Members rose and observed one minute’s silence.
Motion agreed to.
Alternative Education Provision also links DEET resources with those in the community and business sectors, including the Northern Territory Police Juvenile Diversion Unit, Family and Children’s Services, Youth Beat run by Mission Australia, Corrugated Iron Youth Theatre, NT Stock Cars Association, Harmony Group and Larrakia Nation. The program is currently working to capacity with over 60 students involved. Alternative Education Provision is also established in Katherine, with an Alternative Education Provision teacher partnering with the exiting school attendance officer. An Alternative Education Provision coordinator is now in place in Alice Springs, and will manage the many innovative and successful programs that have been operating in Alice Springs for some time.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the government continues to provide a quality education system for all students.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I congratulate the government on its activities to re-engage students with education. Obviously, it is very important.
However, sometimes one wonders whether that is a band-aid. I have asked the question before about bringing these kids back to school: what is the attrition rate? That also needs to be seriously addressed.
It all starts from primary education. This government must concentrate on that, and ensure that every child goes to school and gets the basic education down pat so that they see value in education. If they see value in education, they will continue on in a serious and meaningful way. Then you will find that they will continue to be engaged with education throughout their lives.
It is when education is not being valued and does not seem to be meaningful that students ask the question: ‘Why should I go? What is the point? What is the value?’ Until the government understands that they have to provide education in that manner, children will not want to go to school.
I remember, when I was a child, not wanting to go to school until it suddenly dawned on me that going to school gave me the means to be what I wanted to be. If you can do that, if you can show the children, whether they are indigenous or otherwise, that education gives them the means to be what they want to be, then they will grasp it with both hands and you will never have to worry about them not attending school.
In regard to attrition, or in a more positive sense, the retention of those who are re-engaged, I asked DEET last week to prepare information around attendance officers: what they have done location-by-location in raw numbers coming back in but, more importantly, what has been the retention rate beyond that re-engagement point.
Motivation around how you can get these students re-engaged is always a question and is probably different for a whole range of people. One of the issues which we have still to come to grips with and that the shadow minister well understands is the question of the 11 to 14 year-old group where we sense, and we are told, that there are real engagement questions of getting them through the attitude of: ‘What is school for? It is boring; I do not want to go to school; why do I have to go to school?’ Those issues are there for us to come to grips with, particularly with that group. I do have information coming back and I am prepared to share this as soon as I receive it.
My colleague the planning minister has kept the House abreast of the detail of the ILUA negotiations with Lhere Artepe and the staged release of land coming out of that process.
In exchange for the surrender of native title rights, the government issued a development lease for one of two parcels of land in Larapinta Stage 4. This development lease was issued in November to a Territory consortium, Asland Pty Ltd. If you go on the Larapinta Road to the Stage 4 development, you will see full-scale work putting in the headworks, essential services and, at this stage, despite the fact that the initial sales period coincided with the relatively quiet Christmas period, more than half the blocks of the first subdivision have been sold off the plan. There is no doubt that the uptake will be rapid and complete on these subdivisions.
The suburb of Stirling Heights is a reality. As a matter of interest, it is named after the chairperson of Lhere Artepe, Brian Stirling, who, along with his executive, put a huge amount of work into these agreements.
A lot of work is going on and contracts are about to be let for the headworks for the second parcel of land to the north of the original release. We expect those contracts will go out very shortly, and the second part of the Stage 4 development will proceed.
As well as the 80 to 85 residential blocks in this first release of land, work is proceeding apace to open up the Mt John Valley land release. The surveying of the initial 100 blocks has been completed. Draining consultancy is being done throughout the area of planned land release so we know how to deal with drainage issues as that release is rolled out. We expect in the near future that negotiations for the release of that land will be successfully concluded.
What we are seeing is trades people coming back into town, drawn by the big public projects such as Desert Knowledge, the council and, sadly, the much-needed repairs on Alice Springs Hospital, alongside many private developments such as the land releases I have been talking about, plus the Red Centre Resort redevelopment and the rural block development south of the Gap. We have a very high level of construction activity in prospect in Alice Springs, and this is very good for the town.
I want to put on record the principles we are following to progress these land releases. It is a whole new situation for Alice Springs because the CLP was never in the position to talk about land releases, certainly not in the last 10 years of their regime. When you release land, you have to get it right in the amount of land that goes on to the market. We are very aware that half of the people living in Alice Springs are landowners and, while price rises might create difficulties for land buyers, it certainly is not bad news for people who already own land.
It is a question of a balance between not unduly undermining property values in Alice Springs and making sure that there is accessibility to the market for everyone right down to the most disadvantaged of potential home buyers.
The way the government is proceeding with this is on classic economic principles of supply and demand. We are seeking the best advice on what impact various levels of release of land will have on the property market in Alice Springs. We are consulting with the industry on the issue and we are using our very highly taken-up First Home Buyers Scheme to protect the most vulnerable people from losing access to the market.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, we are on track. We are very pleased with the fact that we have made progress. We are moving straight on to the next land releases and we believe that by paying careful attention, we will keep the market where it should be in everyone’s interest.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): If you are on track with releasing land, obviously you are going to get it done at the right time. I recall a comment made by the minister who promised to sell his home if he did not get the first block of land released from Larapinta Stage 4 by January last year. It was not until this year that he finally managed to have some land released.
Mr Dunham: For sale sign up, is it? Has he put up a for sale sign?
Dr LIM: Definitely not, picking up on that interjection from the member for Drysdale. The For Sale is definitely not up. I know that the minister did sell his house not to help with the housing shortage; he has moved into my electorate.
Ms Carney: Oh, Limmy! You have an extra vote!
Dr LIM: Yes! Down my street. It was interesting to note that various other members across the Chamber have - the member for Lingiari, the former member for Macdonnell and now the member for Stuart all live in my electorate. It must be the best electorate in the Territory.
Coming back to Larapinta Stage 4, I would have thought that the government would have released both the blocks that were dedicated to the Lhere Artepe and the other 45 blocks together to maximise the cost-effectiveness of a developer turning out all the blocks at the same time. But no, the government decided to hold on to only the 40 blocks initially. What that has caused is the blocks now costing $110 000 to $140 000 each. How can first home buyers afford to buy a block of land at that price and then be expected to pay at least another $150 000 to $200 000 to build a home on it? That is where this government has gone off track. They do not understand how to do it. You do not understand business, and that has been your problem all along - but welcome to the electorate of Greatorex.
Dr TOYNE (Central Australia): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I can only say that the member has just proven that he can pat his head and rub his tummy at the same time, because he not only managed to land-lock Alice Springs during his time in government, but wreck the hospital at the same time.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS (Lands and Planning): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I had great pleasure last week in announcing zoning changes for Darwin’s newest suburb, the suburb of Lyons in Lee Point. I should clarify that the name Lyons honours Tommy Lyons not Joe Lyons, but that is another issue.
The creation of this new suburb is clear confirmation that Territory economy and population are healthy and growing. The suburb of Lyons will be the first residential development in Darwin’s northern suburbs for some 20 years. The new suburb will ultimately be developed to contain over 600 housing lots. This means jobs for Territorians and Territory small business. This development is a clear demonstration that the Martin government’s policies are moving the Territory ahead.
There is a lot of interest in the community about what this new residential subdivision will look like and when it will start to be developed. The lot size under the new zone is established as a minimum of 600 m2, with an average of 700 m2. Obviously, this means that a considerable proportion of the lots are greater than 800 m2, and they will be going up to 1000 m2, I am advised. This range of lot sizes provides choice. Many people these days, and certainly many Defence families, do not want the larger blocks with their high maintenance commitments. For those who do want larger lot sizes, they will be available, too.
There is a lot more to this new development and suburb than lot size. The specific use zoning I have placed over the site is effectively a mini-town plan. The controls on future subdivision and development go much further than the regular Darwin Town Plan requirements regarding site layout and housing design.
Lots must be oriented correctly to take advantage of prevailing breezes and solar access. The local road network is to be designed to discourage excessive speed, and to give priority to pedestrians on local streets. The street network has to be capable of easily accommodating bus routes. The majority of houses will be within easy walking distance of a bus stop. It is a requirement of the development that pedestrian and bike lanes are included.
The suburb of Lyons will be well endowed with open space, a minimum of 7.7 ha of it. The open space will have to include large parcels of recreational space as well as neighbourhood parks. In addition, the majority of houses will be within 400 m of a local park.
The zoning provides for a medical clinic, a child-care centre, a community centre and a service station. The zoning also provides for a school or a small corner store if these are required in future stages. All of these uses are allowed within the consent of the DCA.
With the zoning now in place and the guidelines for future development established in the Planning Scheme, the suburb is closer to becoming a reality. In the next week or so, DHA hopes to announce its joint venture partner, the company which will undertake the development for the Defence Housing Authority. There will then be a subdivision application submitted for consideration by the DCA. Once approved, construction will start.
The Territory is indeed moving ahead, and this will be the first residential subdivision in the northern suburbs, as I said, for many years. I am told the first blocks will be available in the middle of this year. My ministerial office has taken calls from many people who enquired about where they can go to put their name on a list for future purchase. The community is ready for this development. I am confident that Lyons will become a very popular place to live, and will contribute to the social fabric of Darwin in a very positive manner.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the Minister for Central Australia congratulated my colleague from Greatorex for being able to pat his head and rub his tummy at the same time. Unfortunately, that cannot be said of the current Minister for Lands and Planning, who seems incapable of doing two things at once.
This is a squandered opportunity. Had the CLP been in government, they would have purchased that land from the Commonwealth, and the government would have had a say in when it is developed, how it is developed, the packages in which it is developed so that it could be spread across lots of other people.
We could have looked, for instance, at whether we could build a resort facility there, such as the one that might be built at ‘Little Mindil’. It would have given the government a lot of options. It is a site right next to Royal Darwin Hospital. It is in close proximity to the beach. It is in close proximity to, arguably, the centre of town, which is Casuarina Shopping Square, and it is in close proximity to the university. This is strategic land. It is land that some time was spent negotiating with the Commonwealth about. We got to the stage where we could easily have purchased that land, and for reasons only known to this government, they ducked, and they said: ‘Righto, Defence Housing Authority can do it. Over you go; you go over there and we will just be the regulator’.
We now have this strange situation where the minister is attempting to boast about being someone who is regulating this land rather than someone who is actively developing it in the interests of Territorians. The various descriptors he has given us about the lots could be up to 1000 m2 - ‘I am advised’. He is an innocent bystander who is watching someone else develop land in which we could have had a very participative interest.
He does not know and, for some reason, he is taking calls in his office from people who are interested in buying this land. I would be interested to know what he tells them. So, when people ring and say: ‘Look, Burnsie, we want to buy a couple of blocks of this land’, what are you saying to them? ‘Go and see K G Young; it is nothing to do with me. I do not want to have anything to do with it. Go and see DHA’.
Do not come in to this parliament and squander opportunities that you have been given, opportunities to benefit this place and move the Territory forward, and then parade them as your credentials!
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, last week during the housing debate, I raised the issue of the price of land and how it is becoming unaffordable for many first home owners. I am interested to know whether any of the land in this new suburb will be set aside at special prices for people who are buying their home for the first time, as used to occur in places such as Palmerston and the northern suburbs years ago.
The other question I ask of the minister is: hypothetically, if the neighbours nearby this subdivision do not like it, are they entitled to make a third party appeal?
Dr BURNS (Lands and Planning): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, first, to address the issues raised by the irascible member for Drysdale, who does not seem happy with anything, the government has promoted this development. We have entered into an MOU with Defence Housing, and this represents an investment by Defence Housing in the Territory. This is what we are trying to attract …
Mr Dunham: It has nothing to do with you, has it? Nothing to do with you!
Dr BURNS: It has a lot to do with us, and through the town plan and the specific use objectives, we have been able to set the shape of this development.
In relation to what the member for Nelson said about price and first home buyers, this is one of the rationales for having a range of block sizes from a minimum of 600 m2 up to 1000 m2. The smaller block sizes, I would hope, would be in the price range that first home owners can afford. Therefore, there are a couple of elements there. In answer to his second question regarding third party appeals, I answered that last night, and the answer is no.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I report to the House on the recent memorandum of cooperation signed this week by Datuk Haji Abdul Rahim Ismail, Minister of Agricultural and Food Industries of Sabah, Malaysia, and I, representing the Territory, concerning our primary industries.
The memorandum of cooperation formally recognises our commitment to an ongoing working relationship that will be mutually beneficial to the future economic development of both regions. In particular, this agreement will strengthen ties, identify and develop opportunities for economic cooperation, and facilitate trade and investment opportunities between the Northern Territory and Sabah, Malaysia.
The live cattle export industry continues as an important contributor to the Northern Territory economy. Last year, over 210 000 cattle were exported through the Port of Darwin, with Northern Territory producers supplying 98% of the cattle exported. Another 10 000 Territory cattle were exported to Wyndham in Western Australia. This represents sales of around $125m to Territory producers. The Northern Territory Cattleman’s Association tells me that 305 000 cattle were sold interstate last year. Live exports of Northern Territory cattle in 2004 were about 6500 head above the 10-year average.
Indonesia continues to be a key market for live cattle, taking about 70% of Territory exports. The Northern Territory government, in partnership with the Northern Territory Cattleman’s Association and the Northern Territory Livestock Exporters Association, continues to look over the hill in examining other opportunities for export of our live trade industries. Malaysia is one of a range of options we are examining.
It is for this reason that I led a delegation, together with the NT Cattleman’s Association and the Livestock Exporters Association, to visit Sabah to examine export opportunities. The Northern Territory government’s Livestock Export Unit within DBIRD has been working with Sabah in examining opportunities to run cattle in existing palm oil plantations, and in developing a local food technology centre. The Malaysian market will provide opportunities for the export of Northern Territory live cattle for fattening and processing, as Sabah is not self-sufficient in cattle production.
Charles Darwin University, in partnership with DBIRD, is also exporting training services in tropical cattle production and improving diagnostic testing facilities for their local cattle industries. Already, Sabah officials have participated in training at the DBIRD vet laboratory. This support has led to the memorandum of cooperation with Sabah, which places Northern Territory producers in the front row for supplying the Malaysian market.
Growers in the Northern Territory have expressed an interest in assisting with horticulture, and have identified possible opportunities for cut flower stock to be developed here in the Territory. Sabah has a diverse range of tropical flowers, but has not developed a cut flower industry and provides a potential source of new varieties. The Sabah Minister for Agriculture has expressed his interest in examining opportunities for partnership with local producers to commercialise some of the tropical flower stock. The minister also learnt of our rambutan industry’s interest in alternative cultivars and indicated that he was happy to discuss all opportunities for tropical horticulture under the memorandum of cooperation.
A number of buyers also accompanied the Sabah minister, and have a keen interest in sourcing live buffaloes in the Territory for their food market. The NT Buffalo Council is working on further exports of buffaloes to Malaysia.
The memorandum of cooperation provides opportunities for our live cattle and buffalo export industries, and, in the early stages, will assist the further development of our tropical horticulture industry. It also shows that we are moving the Territory ahead in partnership with our key industry stakeholders in examining potential markets and opportunities for our pastoral and horticultural industries.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I welcome the report from the minister.
The Sabah delegation arrived here for the signing of the memorandum of cooperation, but what has this minister done to secure the sale of cattle to Sabah? Last year, we had 346 animals go to Sabah. I know they have facilities to handle 400 to 500 at a time. I know that is small, but it is very important to the cattle industry in the Northern Territory.
This year, Sabah has money from their government to purchase 2000 head of cattle. Has the minister secured the sale of those cattle from the Northern Territory? We need assurances in the cattle industry to make sure that that sale comes to the Territory. We know that cattle exports are worth $150m to the Territory and this minister needs to strengthen and secure the markets that we already have in Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia.
I suggest that the minister take a leaf out of the Queensland government’s book, which is pouring a lot of money into the Vietnamese industry, to make sure that we get a lot of cattle sales to Vietnam. Please do not waste opportunities to make sure that the Northern Territory Cattleman’s Association is well represented in Vietnam as well as securing the industry that we already have, which has been supported by the CLP over many years.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I mention to the member for Katherine that it is a good idea to have a look at the history of Vietnam exports, and how much money from the Territory was lost in the Vietnam venture.
However, I inform the member for Katherine that 300 buffalo have been purchased by Sabah industries; I was advised by the buffalo industry. I have also been advised that the state government will purchase 2000 cattle this year, with another 2000 to be purchased by private investors. These private investors arrived in the Northern Territory to have a look at our cattle and to make the necessary arrangements for the purchase of these cattle. One limiting factor was the lack of money last year, the rising value of the Australian dollar and the fact that they had not developed the feed lots yet.
Now that they have progressed with the development of feed lots and the Australian dollar is at a reasonable rate, they are proceeding to purchase cattle from the Northern Territory.
As for Vietnam, it is one of the markets we have in mind, together with Indonesia and other areas in South-East Asia.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
The Treasurer believed that Auditor-General was quite clear in stating there was no conflict of interest in respect of the CEO of Health. I beg to differ. The basic premise of notifying a conflict of interest is that it needs to be done before any considerations on the relevant matter are under way. Relating this to the tender and award process, it means that anyone with a real or perceived interest would need to notify that interest before any deliberations on applications. This is backed up in the Procurement Review Board’s Guidelines on Ethical Behaviour, which state that early and open disclosure of any interest will allow for prevention of any conflict of interest.
At page 12 of the Auditor-General’s report, he said:
This suggests there had already been deliberations on the contract up to the time the CEO notified his interest.
It is for this very reason that the Auditor-General recommended at page 16 that any potential conflict should be disclosed prior to contracts being considered.
The Treasurer stated in this House last week that the department’s response to this recommendation closes any question of whether the CEO declared an interest, but this response merely states that the CEO notified the two ministers of his interest.
If we go back to page 12, we find that this disclosure was made just before the contract to Metis was awarded. There was no early and open disclosure. Further, on page 17, the Auditor-General stated that he does not know if the CEO notified the Procurement Review Board of his potential conflict. It was this board that awarded the Department of Health tender to Metis.
Let us remember that the Department of Health approached Metis to submit a tender: all the more reason for transparency and the need for the CEO to notify his interest before there were any deliberations on their submission.
I do not agree with the Treasurer. From my reading of the Auditor-General’s report, it is clear that the CEO notified his interest after there had already been some deliberations on the tender and there was no evidence that the CEO notified the Procurement Review Board of his potential interest.
I am not making a judgment on whether the CEO did anything wrong or right; I am asking for a commitment from the government to look at the issues I have raised and whether there needs to be clear guidelines, especially in a case where a CEO has a conflict of interest but the CEO is the one who can approve the tender. That is what I am getting at today.
I ask the Treasurer whether he will commit to taking up some of the issues that I have raised and seeing whether those issues can be clearly defined within Procurement Review Board guidelines.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I will speak briefly on this. I have some sympathy with the position of the Independent member for Nelson.
As members are aware, the Auditor-General was quite critical of some of the shortcomings of government in how the procurement process works, although the minister told this House in debate that he had been advised by the CEO of the conflict of interest that potentially existed. What is unclear is when.
The suggestions proposed by the member for Nelson have merit and are worth investigating. I do not intend to go through the whole Metis review again. Everyone in parliament knows my opinion and the CLP’s opinion on that. Suffice to say that clearly, some shortcomings have occurred in the system. The Auditor-General identified that and the Treasurer acknowledged it. Anything that can tidy this system up is worthwhile.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their comments. We will not be supporting this motion and we have indicated that to the member for Nelson.
We have a fairly straight-forward position in relation to it: we believe the Auditor-General has looked closely at the issues involved in the contracting of the Metis Consulting group and we believe the Auditor-General did confirm breaches of the procurement guidelines had occurred and suggested remedies for these breaches. They have been readily accepted by the agencies and the government.
The Auditor-General found, though, that those breaches were technical in nature. They didn’t show any ill-intent or, in fact, impropriety. That is a critical finding because it goes to the core of the debate. There was no impropriety.
He did find that the actions of government did not depart from the spirit of the procurement policy. He found that Metis had the expertise to do the work contracted, and he found that agencies generally complied with the Procurement Act and its policies. However, the Auditor-General did point out some exceptions which did not fully comply with the process.
Failure to comply with the process occurred only in the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment and the Department of Employment, Education and Training. The Auditor-General found that the requirements of the Procurement Act were generally adhered to, though he did identify specific issues for each agency to address, and the government will be vigilant in ensuring that these sorts of matters do not occur again.
Treasury is currently conducting a fairly major exercise in simplifying all of the rules and procedures that agencies need to adopt. I can understand members’ concerns regarding how chief executives or, indeed, other senior staff alert people to potential conflicts of interest. We have accepted the principle that chief executives should put their conflict in writing and advise others as necessary.
The member’s contention that notification should perhaps also go to the Procurement Review Board, and it is a review board, let us be clear about that, we need to test that position against existing practice and whether that is necessary. Generally, I would say chief executives do not take these decision-making powers lightly and they are pretty vigilant in ensuring that they do not cross these sorts of lines. The Public Sector Code of Conduct does compel chief executives, in fact, all public servants, to declare a conflict of interest.
I understand the member for Nelson, and probably the member for Macdonnell, want more to be done, and I will be asking Treasury, in their role as procurement policy people, to advise whether there could be should be more explicit instructions to chief executives on conflict issues. They are already doing this work, so we will build that into that process and they will come back to government, to myself, as minister responsible for procurement, with a range of options and recommendations on the way forward.
I can assure both members that what you are asking for will be put to Treasury in the work that they are doing, and I would expect that to come back at a future time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s response and appreciate where he comes from. I hope that the minister, when he has decided on what options he will accept, brings the decision back to parliament in the form of a report so that we can assess it.
I believe we have achieved, to a large extent, what we set out to achieve. The member for Macdonnell raised this personally with the Auditor-General, and I have it on the Notice Paper. We were probing to make sure that the processes were correct. If we can improve the processes, we improve the way government spends its money, we improve the public perception of the way our public service and government operates. If that is what we have achieved with this debate, we have gone down the right path. Madam Speaker, I am willing to let the motion lapse.
Motion withdrawn.
Before I begin, I will flag that the government is going to move an amendment to this motion, but I would like to speak on the motion before that takes place.
For some time, I have been concerned about the state of prisoners and prisons in the Northern Territory. As the Attorney-General knows, I have concerns about Wildman River, and he has received many questions about that. I am a supporter of places such as Wildman River which, unfortunately, is now in mothballs. I am interested to hear about the future of Wildman River.
Simply put, we have the highest number of prisoners per capita in gaol than any other state in Australia. The estimate is 520 per 100 000 compared with the national average of 150. That is over three times the average. Further, 79% of our prison population is Aboriginal, or approximately 570 out of 719 prisoners. Since Labor came to power, this has gone up from 62% or 419 out of 671 in 2001-02 to 530 out of 715 or 74% in 2002-03 to 79% for 2003-04.
These are alarming figures for a population group that represents around 25% to 30% of the population. Of course, when it comes to committing crimes, race should not necessarily come into it. If you bash the missus, steal a car or break into a house, there needs to be a punishment which, in serious or repeated cases, should be gaol. The one thing we do not want is these people re-offending and coming back to our prison system.
One way we can put a dent in that is by creating jobs for prisoners, improving their skills, lifting their self-esteem and integrating them back into society I know there are some jobs in our larger gaols - I have been to the Alice Springs Gaol - but they are very limited. It is a fairly stark environment in which to live. I am not saying it should be much more that that since it is a prison, but there are limited opportunities for prisoners. Of course, in areas like Darwin, we have daily work gangs that go out into the community mowing lawns for pensioners and that sort of thing, and that is very good. However, I wonder whether we should be starting to move that along a different path.
Many of our residents in Her Majesty’s gaols come from a long way away. One of the things that prisoners find hard is that if they are living many miles from their family, it is very difficult for the family to visit. I have an interest in whether we should look at regional low-security prisons for some time.
As a member of the substance abuse committee, I felt there was a possibility of these types of camps having some role to play in issues relating to substance abuse. I know the minister is going to introduce legislation some time in the future in respect of the government’s policy on how to handle people who engage in substance abuse. Of course, in that legislation, there will be safe houses and places where the courts can send people if they believe they would be better off there than in their own community.
We should be looking at places where we can get offenders far enough away from their community, but a distance where they can be visited by family and still be involved in the community.
I was lucky enough to discover that Mr Jim Bryant was coming from Western Australia recently. He is a member of the Department of Justice in WA. He has been involved in a project of work camps in Western Australia. The program is called Repay Western Australia and it is a great name. It sends the message that we are punishing prisoners, which is part of law enforcement. At the same time, they are learning, as part of that punishment, that they are repaying Western Australia by doing meaningful work, improving their skills, raising their self-esteem and, hopefully, by not re-offending and coming back into the criminal justice system.
Western Australia has six of these camps. I will make a couple of points about them. According to the figures, the average cost of keeping an adult offender in custody in Western Australia is $246 per day. This compares with $18 per day for supervising an offender in the community. If you were not worried about the social justice side of this issue and were just a bean counter, you would say: ‘Why aren’t we operating more community work camps if that is the cost of operating them?’.
The work camps are generally a reasonable distance from a community. One of the reasons for doing that is not necessarily because the prisoners are high risk prisoners; it is simply to keep them away from temptation because if you are that close to family and there are girl friends or beer or something else involved, it is that much harder for those prisoners to stay in that work camp. These camps do not have fences; prisoners are kept there under trust. Generally speaking, they are near a community but not that close to it that they put the prisoners more at risk.
The work camps engage in community work projects. I will give you an idea what they do at Wyndham, for instance. This is what they have done over about the last six to 12 months: fencing and general assistance with upgrading of station infrastructure at Home Valley Station, which is about 120 km from Wyndham; ground and garden maintenance at the Tally Centre and the Jardamu Safe House, the Community Club, the Catholic Church and school, St John Ambulance and the Marlgu Old People’s home; street numbering for the Safer Western Australia project at Wyndham and Kununurra whereby they stencil the number of all the houses on the curbs; maintenance at Wyndham Police Station; ground maintenance and stable repairs at the Turf Club; cleaned up the local football club; cleaned up the outdoor movie theatre at Wyndham; maintained buildings at the golf course; ground maintenance at the CWA and the Anglican Church; worked at the high school; ground maintenance at the museum; ground maintenance and painting at Wyndham swimming pool; and various projects for the Shire of Wyndham as well as for CALM, which is the equivalent to our Parks and Wildlife Commission.
That gives you an idea of the range of work they do and it should be noted that work undertaken by the offenders must not be work that would be normally undertaken by paid employees in a commercial arrangement, so for those people who may think that they take work away from them, that is not the case.
I drove to Wyndham about two-and-a-half weeks ago. I did not realise there was a work camp so close to the Northern Territory, and I was given permission to visit. It is a very interesting concept. It is a set of demountables with an office and a shed where they can play a game of pool or darts - and that is it. The prisoners have to get up at 6 am. They make their own breakfast, wash their own clothes and basically have to get ready as if they were going to work like anywhere else in Australia. They make their own lunch. Sometimes, especially in parts or places like Wyndham and Kununurra where it is very hot, they are allowed to go fishing late in the day. All the time, they cannot go away from their designated camp.
If you were to escape in the case of Wyndham, you would be very quickly in the Kununurra Court and you would probably get something like eight months prison for escaping from lawful custody. There is a lot of responsibility on prisoners to stay within that community.
I will give you an idea of the type of prisoners. First of all, the prisoners have to volunteer to be in one of these camps, and second, they have to be assessed as suitable. You might have a range of low security prisoners who are fine defaulters, or you may have prisoners who have been in gaol for quite a while and are in their last year or so and are preparing to move back into society. There are low security prisoners. By mixing the two groups, you have what they call ‘peer support’.
This was off the notice board at the Kununurra Work Camp:
It was an extremely enlightening visit for me. Prisoners were given responsibility, but they were also given assistance.
I should mention the prison officers who work there, and this is potentially an issue for the Northern Territory. They are a special type of prison officer, not necessarily a prison officer who is generally used to dealing with inmates in a large gaol, but a prison officer who may have experience working with Aboriginal people, who has a good rapport with people. You would have to have prison officers who are willing to work with the prisoners. The prison officers in these community work camps do not stand around and say: ‘Do this, do that’. They get out and dig the holes as well, and they work out in the sun. It has to be that type of partnership. That is what makes these community work projects a success.
I will talk about the work they have done. There is potential for such work camps, whether they are in mobile or permanent form. They used to work on pastoral stations. Many Aboriginal people have great skills - or used to have great skills; not so many of them work on stations any more - working on cattle stations. A group at Wyndham worked on Home Valley Station. It is probably a bit hard to see, but these are some of the prisoners working there. They enjoyed the work they had. They had freedom to be out in the open, they were fencing the airstrip, and achieving something.
In fact, I have a letter from the station manager. He said that after working with them, he saw there were quite a few diamonds among the rough stones. He came to appreciate the people who were working for him. In fact, the prisoners started to offer to do servicing on the vehicles, although he does make a note that one vehicle did not go any more, which he said with a chuckle, but he certainly enjoyed having them out there and appreciated the work they did.
There is a different approach in these regional work camps to visitors. At the Wyndham work camp, visitation was on Sundays, although you could make an appointment for other days, but you could come on Sunday between 12 and four, so there were four hours when family could come and visit. They also encouraged elders of the community to work with the prison officer to discuss issues, especially when it dealt with Aboriginal people in whose country they were working to help the prisoners, especially reintegrating them back into society.
I was given the Season’s Activities for Christmas, New Year, Australia Day Wyndham Work Camp which features the menu and recreation they were allowed on those days, and it is quite impressive. I will table it. It shows the relationship between the community, the elders, the prison officers and the prisoners. That is what is so different about these camps; it is a relationship that is different from a regular prison.
As I said, you can escape, but you pay the consequences. Here you have an opportunity to do something worthwhile, to build up your self-esteem and to help the community. Of course, if we are to establish one of these, we need community support. I would be interested in seeing one of these work camps based on the Western Australian model trialled in either the Katherine or the Barkly region.
You would need the support of the community because, naturally, some people would fear a prison camp close by. I will read some of the comments from different communities that have these people working nearby. The City of Joondalup:
From the CEO of the town of Claremont:
With this package of materials I received from Jim Bryant, there were a number of videos that describe what is going on. I noticed in one town where one of these work camps operates, the prisoners were part of the indoor cricket team. That is the sort of trust that is given to prisoners in these places. It is a breath of fresh air that Western Australia has gone down this path.
The Northern Territory government, when it first came to power, said that it was going to look at rehabilitation prison farms. I have a print out from ABC News on-line, which reads:
Minister, I know that your government received the CAALAS report, which recommended, basically, having a farm, but also recommended having a type of work gang building houses or repairing houses out in communities. My feeling, after talking to the Wyndham community, is that you have to be careful how close you have them especially to people who might be relations who might put temptation in the way of these prisoners to leave that work camp. I am not saying that that would not be good work for them, I believe it would probably be excellent work for them, but I would envisage that the work camp would be situated perhaps 30 km out where it was not easily accessible.
You have to bear in mind that if there is a relationship between a prisoner and some other people close by, it makes it difficult for prisoners. Although Wyndham has a work camp that is close to the town, that is an exception to the rule, and it was circumstances that ended up allowing that work camp to operate so closely. I would be little wary of going in and setting up a work camp in a community; it would be far better off to be out of the community, but within reasonable travel distance of the community.
There is great potential for places like Katherine and Tennant Creek, if there is the opportunity to involve people who are long-term alcoholics, who have been through the revolving door so many times and have reached a point where they cannot or are not willing to change their life, this may be the place for those people to receive some treatment or at least have an option to get away from it all.
The same with petrol sniffers or substance abusers: is there the potential for places like this also to be used for people with those problems? That would have to be carefully assessed. I am not saying we should do this carte blanche. You would not want to upset the existing prisoners by putting troublemakers among them. You would have to screen them.
If anyone suggests that these are boot camps; they are not. These are definitely not boot camps, and to put that connotation on this type of camp is wrong. I saw young people working, mixing cement and putting in pickets building a fence on a cattle station. That is not a boot camp; that is teaching people skills. When you see people out there with the whipper-snippers and lawn mowers cleaning up the Wyndham women’s refuge, as I saw, that is not boot camp treatment. I saw the boat ramp at Wyndham where there would be about 500 m of paved road way beautifully done by the prisoners with interlocking bricks. If you go to the Bastion, which is the lookout at Wyndham, the footpaths which have been built all the way up have been done by work camp prisoners. The barbecues and the seating areas were all been done by prisoners at the work camp. They have added something to the community and the Wyndham community accepts that as a great contribution.
I know I have rattled on as usual; but I am passionate about this and it is long overdue. At the moment, we seem to have two alternatives: Alice Springs or Darwin. We need more humane options, and our goal should be to reduce the number of people in gaol, particularly the number of indigenous people, and hope that we can lower recidivism rates.
It is very strange but at the moment, under a Labor government, we have more prisoners and more Aboriginal people in gaol than ever before. I am not saying those people are not there because they should not be. From my own experience, many Aboriginal people are not what you would call hard and fast criminals. They have got on the grog and done something stupid. In many cases, it might be the only bad thing they do in their life. Let us give them an opportunity to pick up their self-esteem. Give them another form of punishment, if necessary; that is, working somewhere other than being stuck in the big concrete and steel blocks in Alice Springs and Darwin.
I am hoping the government will support this initiative. It may not agree totally with what I am proposing, but at least look at a trial in the Katherine or Barkly regions. Give it a go and come back in two years time and say: ‘We have tried it, this is the response and we might do more’. At least let us give it a try.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I will be brief. At the outset, I do not know who should be more worried: the member for Nelson or me. I find myself increasingly agreeing with some of his views, which, given the differences which we have had, I do not know who should be more worried about it.
In any event, I welcome his motion. I agree with the sentiments and the way in which he has outlined not only his passion for improvements in the justice and correctional service systems in the Northern Territory generally, but what he said about places such as Wildman River. I share the member’s sentiments and I, too, hold those views very strongly, and have for some years.
We are supportive of the motion. I have spoken with the minister and I know that there is an amendment to it. I do not think that anything swings on the amendment. It is a bit wordy, but I do not think anything important swings on it.
We are concerned about the future of prisons and other such facilities in the Northern Territory. Part of our concern came to us late last year when the Tungsten Report, or the Asset Strategic Plan 2004-2015, was released. I know that the Attorney-General has since replied to some questions I asked of him by letter, but the Tungsten Report referred to the fact that a bigger gaol would need to be built in the Territory by 2014. There is a clear recognition that there will be even more people in gaol. They are likely to be indigenous Territorians. I am not sure what government proposes to do about that. No doubt that we will be hearing about that perhaps this year, an election year, or sometime afterwards, but this is a long-term problem.
I note that the Correctional Services Review that was finalised in the middle of last year, perhaps in May, dealt with adult offenders only. The minister, I am sure, will disagree with me, but I do not think that juveniles have had great attention by this government when it has been looking at correctional facilities.
I am concerned that Wildman River is, for want of a better description, in mothballs. I remember going out to Berrimah early last year and I spoke with the relevant officers there who gave me some information as to why it is that Wildman River is in mothballs. I would be grateful to hear from the minister as to why he thinks that Wildman River is in mothballs and what his plans are for Wildman River in the future.
As to the particular parts of the member’s motion, I will make this point, and to some extent it is academic, noting the amendment, but for the benefit of the member for Nelson, we do have difficulty with your wording because you seem to have thrown together a low security facility for low security offenders and those affected by substance abuse.
We are on the record as saying that those affected by substance abuse should have a separate facility, noting the particular challenges and needs that people affected by substance abuse have. I do not believe that they should be in a facility with other offenders, albeit low security ones. I note that in relation to people affected by substance abuse, the government has picked up on our policy, they would probably disagree, but there is a common element, a common sense of purpose in this parliament from both sides of politics to assist sniffers and we proposed last year that a separate facility, a specialist facility, be built for sniffers. As I understand the government’s proposal, it was subsequently announced that they have that idea, too. Member for Nelson, both sides of politics are of the view that people affected by substance abuse should have a separate facility.
As I said at the outset, I welcome debate any time on this subject. I do not think that there is more I can significantly add at this juncture and I look forward to hearing from the minister.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, with the member for Araluen expressing anxiety that she and the member for Nelson have reached agreement, we have probably reached a point of terror because I agree as well. So we have a three-way agreement here, and that is probably a first.
We are not far away from the member for Nelson’s proposed motion. We are seeking to amend the motion for one reason, and that is simply to link it to the existing prison reforms that are under way in Correctional Services.
We have been looking at the Western Australian model of work camps. I pay tribute to Steve Russell, the department’s Liaison Officer who is working in my office at the moment, for the work he has done on this. I am sure he has the same set of videos as the member for Nelson from the same source. I can report that we are bringing Jim Bryant up this month to have further discussions about the programs that are running in Western Australia.
It comes down to the logical sequence to work to, hence, we want to include in the motion a mention of the current reforms in our prisons.
Madam Speaker, I move that we omit the words after ‘that’ and insert the words:
Members will see from that we want to relate the two potential reform processes that are being discussed.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, before you go on, could we have that amendment circulated, please?
Dr TOYNE: Yes, Madam Speaker. With that amendment, we are quite comfortable with the proposal. If we can work in a bipartisan way on this, Independent and both parties in this House, we can look forward to progressing it.
The issue that we will be considering in our planning and implementation process is: at what stage have we reached the point where the in-prison programs, including work parties that will go out from our two prisons in greater numbers than they presently do, including the in-prison programs that prisoners might require access to for their rehabilitation - things like basic educational programs, sex offender programs, violence abatement programs; there is quite a range of programs being developed and introduced to the two prisons.
Our top priority remains to have the living unit structure in place within both gaols, to get the prison officers as a work force across the case management methodologies that we want to introduce as part of the reforms, and to have individual prisoners under case management so we can then make judgments about the best place to put them.
Both gaols have done work fairly similar to the work camps. One example I can give is the Alice Springs Prison and the work that they have at Ntaria, which is 130 km from the prison. That is a day visit program so that the prisoners remain in the low security area of Alice Springs Gaol overnight. That has been very useful work; it is very much reparation work in the community from where offenders involved in the program come. There has been no problem with that at all. In fact, there have been good outcomes all the way around.
It will also come down to issues of classification within corrections: the health of prisoners, which is a significant issue, particularly with our indigenous prisoners, but probably all prisoners. The health profile of prisoners Australia-wide is inferior to the general health profile of the community, so we have to be pretty careful not to put people in jeopardy for those reasons.
To touch on Wildman River, it was superseded as a juvenile facility by the major expansion we put into Don Dale. That has been universally acclaimed by the juvenile corrections staff as being a major benefit in the work that they can offer juvenile detainees, and it gives them far more flexibility in keeping different juveniles apart and customising their programs to their rehabilitation process. That is why Wildman River went off-line as a juvenile facility.
We are probably using the same logic as the member for Nelson outlined in his contribution. We will look for the reparation element to be far more apparent in programs than simply putting people in a fairly isolated facility that does not have a direct relationship to any of the communities around the Northern Territory. I am not saying we will not use it as a facility; it is still under consideration. However, if you are going to go in the direction of work camps, I do not think Wildman River would be where you would establish a pilot. We would be much more likely to park the pilot next to a living, breathing community somewhere in the Territory and undertake reparation work back to the community rather than have the activities of the out-posted correctional program done in total isolation.
We will look at all these issues. I will keep both the opposition and Independent members across what we are doing as we move into the first stages of the reforms. I have provided regular reports to the House as we have gone through it, and I will continue to do so. It is on the radar screen. Let us listen to what the Western Australians tell us in their next visit here. We will certainly give it our serious attention. With that, I move that we put the amended motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am happy with the motion. It covers the areas about which I was concerned.
Amendment agreed to.
In his initial comments, he did not make it clear to us as to whether or not this substance abuse rehabilitation situation was intended to be incorporated within the punitive Correctional Services side of things or whether they were two separate entities. I see them as two separate entities.
I will confine my comments to the correctional services aspect of the motion, which the minister has picked up on in his amendment to this motion.
Everyone in the Northern Territory, and particularly those of us who are members of parliament, would genuinely like to see a reduction in crime, and it cuts both ways. Criminal activity affects those of us who become the victims of crime, but it also is a very unpleasant life experience, I would expect, for people who do commit crimes in very many ways. For young people, in particular, to find themselves on the treadmill of criminal activity must be quite an unpleasant experience and, really, it just writes them off, probably, for the rest of their lives.
Anything that can be done to prevent crime, and when it is happening, particularly with young people, to nip it in the bud by creating a Correctional Services system that specifically addresses their needs in a creative way, which I feel this motion does, needs to be tried at the very least. There have been times when this has been tried, Wildman River being an example of it, and it is something that we need to look at in greater detail.
The role of these places, of course, is to achieve a number of things. The first is that they remove the perpetrators from the community, and this is both valid and necessary. I note with interest from time to time, people convicted of crimes sometimes are sentenced to what is known as home detention. Quite frankly, the last thing I would want to have is to share my home with someone who is forever there, miserable as sin, bored to tears, complaining about everything, and looking to you to keep them entertained.
Those who would suffer the most in a home detention scenario are the other people in the household who have to put up with it. It would be pretty rare for me to be saying: ‘Oh, that is a good idea, dear. Come on home for six months on home detention’. It would be a most unpleasant experience. There is a role in the corrections system to remove perpetrators from the communities and put them in a place where they have an opportunity to reflect on what they have done. For those who have not yet committed a crime, something for them to reflect on is that the outcome of their activity could put them into that place.
I know, in many circumstances in the community, the victims of crime - and they sometimes are people who live with the perpetrators - are looking for a break in the cycle of the criminal activity, particularly in violent and abusive crimes, and get them out of their house and the community.
The other thing is the role of Correctional Services to punish criminals. I do not think we should shy away from the fact that it is retribution and revenge, that we are unhappy and in a pretty bad mood about what they have done to us and our community. Who cares if their bottom lip is going to be dragged all the way from the court house to the cell block? They can sit there and think about it for a due course of time. Punishment is important, and we should not be ashamed to consider that it is exactly what we are trying to do in many circumstances.
For young offenders and those who have committed crimes on the lesser scale of magnitude, there should be a real effort made to try to help these people turn over a new leaf so that they are given skills, opportunities and abilities so that, once they leave the Correctional Services area - hence the name ‘correctional services’ - there is a chance that they may never return and go on to have a fulfilling life. That is what the member for Nelson’s motion sought to do, and what the minister’s amendment seeks to do.
If you take a normal gaol experience - not that I have ever had one, but my expectation would be - one of the main problems that faces people in gaol is extreme boredom. When people are bored, it is a very unpleasant experience. That is not something we need to compound their Correctional Services experience with. The type of facility that we are talking about is one that provides activities and work to prevent boredom. Activities and work should be developed in a way that helps the person who is incarcerated to develop skills that can be used, once they leave their imprisonment, and to help them re-enter society in a productive way.
For many people, it could well be that the activity needs to centre around schooling, regardless of their age, so that they can develop literacy and numeracy skills.
I note with interest the minister’s comment - or it may have been the member for Nelson – that participation in this sort of activity should be voluntary; that people would enter a facility such as this on a voluntary basis. If they are not happy and they do not want to go there, there are other places they could go as an alternative, and I would argue they are more severe places. However, if they are prepared to volunteer to go to a facility such as this, part of the activities for those who need it would be literacy and numeracy and other life learning skills to enhance their abilities. Life skills may be required as curriculum. That would be, for example in many instances I would think, discussing and seeing whether there is anything to do if the person has problems with drug abuse, for example. The other area, obviously is, where possible, to provide these people with an opportunity to learn skills that will help them get a job upon release from the facility.
I agree with the member for Nelson’s view that facilities such as these should be placed in regional areas wherever possible, particularly to expand the work opportunities for people living in those regional areas, and Katherine and Tennant Creek of course are obvious places for such facilities.
I have already mentioned my concern with regards to the word ‘rehabilitation’ captured in the substantive motion. I have addressed that sufficiently. I support the amended motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I am mindful of the time. Are there any further speakers on the amended motion? Member for Nelson, do you want to sum up?
Mr WOOD (Nelson): I will keep it as short as I can, Madam Speaker. I thank the member for Araluen for her comments. Believe it or not, there is no ill-feeling on the cross-benches. I appreciate the comments she made and, believe it or not, I listen closely to many of her contributions in debates. Sometimes she is a bit more enthusiastic than I would like, but I listened to her speak about the hospital in Alice Springs last night and thought her argument sound.
I do appreciate the comments from the members for Araluen and Port Darwin. I should say to the member for Port Darwin: the work camps in Western Australia also allow for long-term prisoners who have moved from a classification of medium to low security to come in to these camps so they are integrated in to the community. They get ready to come out of the prison so they have some work skills, they are getting used to dealing with people, to making their own breakfast, and doing their own laundry. That is one of the great things about it and, as I showed in the slides in the PowerPoint presentation, some of the prisoners are used as Peer Prisoners within the community. If a young bloke thinks he is going to nick off, you have an elder person saying: ‘Do not nick off. I can tell you first-hand what the big prison is like’.
That mix is great. Just talking to one person and going to visit Wyndham work camp for half-a-day, it is a long way to go, but it left me with strong impressions. You might say I have not had enough time to take it all in, but I saw enough to know it is a great concept. Whether it needs adjusting for the Northern Territory, I do not know, but the top of Western Australia is not much different from most of the Northern Territory so why should it be vastly different?
The minister mentioned Wildman River, and whilst it may not be classified as a work camp as we are discussing today, I still think it has a role for juveniles. I know there are issues about how many juveniles would be available to go to Wildman River and there are issues of cost and staffing, but to some extent, when you have urban juveniles who have been in a bit of trouble and there is a possibility that you can nab them before they go too far, to take them out to a bush setting where there is work, education, recreation and peace and quiet. You are taking them out of that intense urban atmosphere from where many of them have come, whether it is with a gang of kids in the suburbs or hanging around with people they should not be. The Wildman River process can give them a break. It can give them a bit of time to think about where they are going. It has a role; it may not fit the work camp concept, but it still has a role and I hope it can continue.
I know we are getting close to adjourning. I thank everyone for their comments. I know this is slightly off the subject, but the senior prison officer at Wyndham left the day after my visit to return to Albany. He was not a prison officer; he was a manager. One of the difficulties they had in the Western Australian justice system was that because he did not have a classification as a prison officer, he was not allowed to say there any longer.
I raised the issue before that when we look at staff to work in these camps, we may need a new classification that does not necessarily mean a prison officer as we know in the big gaol who locks the cell and has skills to deal with people in the big goal, but has other skills that do not necessarily have to be the same, and can be a prison officer with a different classification.
Just quickly, the senior prison officer at the Wyndham camp is Paul Colby. I wrote his name down as K-O-L-B-I. When I met him, I noticed his name is spelt C-O-L-B-Y. I commented that it was unusual spelling and he said he is of Polish-German extraction. I said the only other person I know as Colby is spelt K-O-L-B-E, and that is Maximillian Kolbe, a priest in Auschwitz who was canonised because he swapped places with a married man and died in the camp from starvation. I asked if he was any relation, and he said that was his uncle.
So I travel to a prison camp, of all places, in Wyndham and discover that the senior prison officer happened to be related to a person who was canonised and whose life ended in gaol. It was an interesting coincidence.
Madam Speaker, I thank members for their input and move the motion as amended.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Members: Hear, hear!
There is no doubt that an oncology and radiotherapy unit is something that is desperately needed in this part of the world. I do not believe that you need to be Einstein to see the problems and stress caused when families have to travel to Adelaide to receive treatment. For many Aboriginal people, being far away from home in a foreign land with no friends must be extremely distressing.
Minister, I know that you are considering the Barton Report by Professors Barton and Frommer entitled Options for radiation oncologist service in the Northern Territory, dated August 2004. Hopefully, you will be releasing that report, or at least telling the House the findings of it, as soon as Cabinet has considered it. Without seeing the report, I understand that there are two main issues that may cause the government to hesitate on this matter and use as a reason not to develop an oncology and radiotherapy unit: money and staffing. There may be other issues, but I know of those two.
In relation to the first one, it is obvious that to build the unit would cost a considerable sum of money. The amount forecast in the Mini-Budget was approximately $15.5m over three years, with most of that money being spent in the second year. From where would that money come? One source could be the extra money that the government has received from the GST, as shown in the just released figures for the Central Holding Authority. Look at the extra money the government received in GST revenue: $166.4m. That was the increase from 2002-03 to 2003-04. Notwithstanding some of that money was used for reducing debt, there is ample money to put aside for an oncology and RT unit.
Regardless of the money, aren’t we making a mistake when we use viability as an excuse for not doing something? Since when is health just a matter of viability? An oncology unit should be available for all people and not a price that stops that happening. If the reason the government is uncomfortable about going ahead with this project is because the numbers did not quite add up, when you see how much extra taxpayers’ money the government is receiving in GST, surely the taxpayer has a right to say: ‘We would like some of our monies spent on this project regardless of viability’.
The other matter that could be an issue is staffing. This was highlighted in the minister’s report, when he said the risks include being able to recruit and retain staff that are in short supply nationally and internationally. I was speaking last year to Dr Michael Penniment from the Royal Adelaide Hospital, who will be here tomorrow. He addressed the staff issues thus:
If it is to be successful, we have to develop a partnership agreement with organisations such as Royal Adelaide Hospital so that the issue of obtaining staff can be dealt with more efficiently by dealing with institutions like Royal Adelaide Hospital.
Another issue you raised in your report, minister, is a possible private-public unit. Whilst this may be the only way for such unit to eventually be built in Darwin, such a unit should be available for all people of the Northern Territory and not just for those who can afford to pay.
I have raised the issue today because I know that the present system of sending people down south for treatment is not appropriate. It is time for the government to change its mind and make a commitment to an oncology and radiotherapy unit. To have such a unit would not only serve the Territory, but also northern Western Australia, parts of Queensland and our neighbours to the north.
I would like to hear the government say that it is committed to an oncology and radiotherapy unit, overturning the announcement by the Chief Minister that it is not to go ahead. I hope that the government will soon release the Barton Report and will give us a date when the community can expect this long awaited facility to finally be built.
Madam Speaker, I note that the minister will be proposing an amendment to my motion, and I will make further comments at that stage.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I was unaware of a proposed amendment to the motion, although I suppose I should not be taken by surprise.
I will deal with the motion in its present form. The thrust of it is that the government keep an election promise. We had the Chief Minister, in Question Time today and preceding days, and her colleagues assuring us all that this is a government that keeps election promises. Well, it has been caught out on this one in a very significant way.
There is no doubt that this government does have the financial capacity to do what it told Territorians it was going to do. In fact, I know that many people, certainly in the Top End, took the Labor Party seriously when it promised to construct an oncology unit. I know it was a factor in the way that some people cast their vote. Yet in its third year, the Chief Minister, no less, said that she is not prepared to honour that promise.
Off the top of my head, since this government has come to office, there has been $500m provided to it from the Commonwealth by way of GST receipts. That is an awful lot of money in anyone’s language. Why this government cannot find $14m for an oncology unit, I do not know.
I note that, in my reading of public statements both of the Chief Minister and the Health Minister, no good reasons have been provided as to why they have taken this decision. Members will recall that in parliament last week, I discussed the hospice in Darwin and how the minister said he was going to build it. He obviously is a fairly literal fellow because, yes, he is going to build the hospice, but, as we know, he is not going to furnish it with the sorts of things that all Territorians thought he might, such as curtains and chairs and clocks and crockery and things that the average Territorian would have assumed would have been provided.
We do not even have the construction of a facility that they said they would provide. There has been no satisfactory reason outlined as to why they have reneged on this promise. We know that the government has an ample opportunity to do what it said it would because there is not shortage of money. I do not know why it is that the government has fallen so dreadfully and embarrassingly and appallingly short on this matter.
In relation to the member for Nelson, with respect: welcome aboard! We raised this matter in late October, I think, last year. The member for Brennan made public comments, I did a couple of radio interviews and I issued a media release. I note that the timetable of parliament was such that the member for Nelson gave notice of this motion after all of that. We welcome you on board, member for Nelson. The more of us, as members of parliament, who jump up and down about astonishing breaches of election promises, the better. We are pleased that you, the member for Nelson, share our outrage and indeed the outrage of thousands of Territorians about this government’s breach of promise. So thank you for putting it on the Notice Paper, but the CLP has been out there well before you had gave notice of this, well before discussing it in parliament today. We have been talking to people, dealing with them and telling them that we will deliver where this government has not.
Madam Speaker, I have a document, which I am happy to table it if either the member for Nelson or the minister wishes. I should say that I have pretty much taken out this person’s identity. I have his permission to table this letter provided that the identity is not disclosed. I received a letter and perhaps other members in the Chamber received it; I do not know. This is a man who went around and got a number of people to sign a document; it was not a petition. I understand he did not want a formal petition, but he has the names of many people who signed up to share our collective disgust about the Chief Minister’s and Health Minister’s breach of an election promise.
This man tells his personal story. He had to endure Christmas and New Year away from his family, and that he suffered as much as they did. He said: ‘We need this oncology unit. I will not go to Adelaide again without my next of kin. It is not fair to separate you from your loved ones’. I expect that the Minister for Health has received quite a lot of letters of this type. I have others, but this is one of which I am happy to table a copy.
This is a very serious issue. People put up with politicians doing almost anything, however, there are a couple of things they do not like: politicians, and governments in particular, breaching promises, and they do not like it when they know that there is enough money to provide a service but government refuses to do so. I remember that, in one of the radio interviews I did, the minister came on after me. It does not always work out like this, but I had the benefit of staying on the line and listening to what he had to say. I nearly fell off my seat. It was political puffery at its best, but as he was trying to justify in a fairly pathetic way, I thought, why it was that government had reneged on its promise, he then introduced the Commonwealth government and asked me to help him work with the Commonwealth government to get the money to provide the very thing that he and his colleagues said they would provide.
You can fool some people, but goodness me! It was an extraordinary thing for the minister to say. They went to the Territory election and they told people they would deliver. After we put the minister and his colleagues under the pump, from left field and using political spin at its best, he then tried to bring in the Commonwealth government and ask me for help. The minister is on his own, and I suggest he is well and truly out on a limb because he has been caught out. People know that (a) this was a significant promise, and (b) there is no rational reason as to why it cannot be delivered.
To suggest that the Commonwealth has a role to play and can I please help is an attempt to deflect attention away from him. This is a promise. This government should meet the promise it made. Members on the other side of the Chamber probably pride themselves - I would say they are delusional - on saying that they keep their election promises. I would like to hear not only from the minister, but from other members of the Northern Territory Branch of the Australian Labor Party about how they feel about this significant breach of an election promise.
Welcome on board, member for Nelson. We have many people on this issue with us. We will continue to show Territorians how the Minister for Health could be described as the Draco Malfoy of Territory politics. For those who read Harry Potter they will know that Draco Malfoy is a slippery character and a person who simply cannot be trusted.
Dr TOYNE (Health): Madam Speaker, if we are name calling, which is the member for Araluen’s habit, she might start to stick to the topic instead of personal abuse which, I can say, has absolutely no effect on me and my concentration on doing my job as a minister well. However, if it gives you satisfaction, fine.
What the member for Araluen is very good at is selectively quoting from the facts. We had a great example of that last night. I will diverge for a moment from responding to this motion in the main by saying, in she comes: ‘Oh, we have this report on the Alice Springs Hospital and it is from the Australian Council on Health Care Standards’, immediately making allegations about me as a minister withholding information from the survey group, which she repeated in the media this morning. The document she was holding actually states:
Those words from the report did not leap out in your contribution last night ...
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister is quoting from a document. I ask that he table that document from which he was quoting in some detail.
Dr TOYNE: I certainly will. This selective use of facts is okay in this Chamber. We will deal with that under parliamentary rules, but when you go out to the media, I give some very strong advice …
Ms Carney interjecting.
Dr TOYNE: I will give you very strong advice: you retract what you said this morning or there may be some consequences.
Ms Carney interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr TOYNE: I turn to the motion before us. Again, we are seeing a very selective reconstruction of what has actually happened. Certainly, we acknowledge and continue to commit to delivering a radiation oncology unit for Territorians.
Since coming to government, we have done what government has to do when it is looking at a major initiative such as this. It is a project that could cost up to $15m, with $2m of recurrent funds every year. What do you do? You go to the experts and get their opinion about the best way to proceed. The question has never been that we would renege on providing a radiation oncology service in the Northern Territory; the questions have been: how do you make it safe sustainable, and make sure that, when you go Territorians and make a promise of a service, you can actually deliver it in a safe and sustainable way?
We asked the Bansemer review to look at that in February 2003. Bansemer came back saying an external specialist should be commissioned to provide advice and options on the provision of a radiation and oncology service in the Northern Territory over the next 10 years. In the meantime, there are sufficient concerns about the sustainability and clinical safety of a new radiation oncology service for the NT to warrant its deferral until that consultancy work was done.
The consultancy work was subsequently put out and resulted in the Barton and Frommer report. What the Barton and Frommer report said was yes, there is certainly a need for a radiation oncology service within the Northern Territory. They identified roughly 350 treatments a year that would be appropriate to apply to Northern Territory patients. They also identified that of those treatments, some 90 patients would probably not come to Darwin for treatment even if there was an oncology unit here. That gave a nett of 260 treatments that would be sought by the current known patient load within the Northern Territory. That is the scale of the need as the consultancy scoped it out.
There were two elements arising from the consultancy: yes, you can set up a free-standing radiation oncology unit here in the Northern Territory if you put the money in and, if you are successful in getting staff and the number of patients to make that service sustainable, probably well above the inherent demand from the Territory itself, and they suggested that we would need to look further afield for both patients and some aspects of service delivery, then they cautioned us. They said this is going to be very difficult to sustain in a safe way if we go by ourselves. They said equipment maintenance is extraordinary expensive and if equipment is not used at a high level, the whole formulation of maintenance and support for the unit starts to look very wobbly. They said that we would almost certainly have major problems in recruiting and retaining specialist radiation oncology staff required to run a unit like that.
They also said if we are going to go ahead, we have to change the model. The model that they strongly commended to us was not a free-standing radiation oncology unit; they said go in with a major centre somewhere else in Australia and enter a hub and spoke arrangement with them to spread support of the project to take advantage of Commonwealth input. Why not? Why would you not want to approach the Commonwealth? There is nothing wrong with that. What we have said is that we have committed to a radiation oncology unit. That does not say that we cannot go and talk to the Commonwealth government or to the private sector.
Following the Barton Frommer report, we have made two announcements. The first one was made by the Chief Minister, as was correctly pointed out, to the effect that no, we cannot do a free-standing radiation oncology unit. That is the expert advice we have been given. I might say that the member for Drysdale is on record as agreeing with us on that. I could source the quote for you. We have already used it in the House. What we then announced is that on this model of a hub and spoke arrangement with potential private sector and Commonwealth involvement in the project, potential drawing of patients from elsewhere around the Territory and perhaps the Kimberley and off-shore, there is the basis of a viable initiative for the Territory.
My agency right now is working towards that end. They know that it is a key election promise from the last election. They know that we as a government want to deliver on it, and we will progress that work as quickly as it can be put together. I can say to members that current indications are very encouraging that there will be a viable initiative put together.
It is always fun to score a couple of cheap shots and take the moral high ground, but it is my experience in discharging various responsibilities I have as a minister that it is seldom that easy. It is seldom a matter of just throwing a bit of money at something and you will fix it. You have to think through in detail the type of services you want for Territorians. They have to be safe, sustainable and defendable as a use of public money and as a public activity. That is what has led to the time frame we have now.
We have had two major interventions with expert advice and we are still on track. We have not given up this task at any stage. I cannot get up in front of the Territory public and say: ‘Yes, we will just chuck some money at this’ when I know from expert advice that there would be real problems with the operation of a unit as we first envisaged. Our promise stands: we will put a radiation oncology unit in place in the Northern Territory. What has changed is that on the basis of expert advice, we are now very close to putting together a proposal that will be sustainable, safe and cover the needs of at least Territorians in the Top End. As a Central Australian, we also have to point out that it is more than likely that patients from Alice Springs will continue to go down to Adelaide. Some may come up to Darwin, but it depends on where they prefer to be to have these treatments. This does not solve the problem for Central Australia and it was never going to, so we have other issues to sort out there.
I believe that with an amendment to the current motion, the government can support it. The amendment is to omit all other words after ‘that’, which is the first word of the original motion, and substitute the words:
That does not challenge the original aim of the member for Nelson’s motion. We are confirming that we are still committed to the facility. We are qualifying the proposal so that it reflects what we are trying to do, and we will come back to this House when we have further news on the development of this unit.
Taking a couple of points made by the member for Nelson, this would be a service committed to all Territorians with this need. There would be no point of installing a high level facility such as this in our health system if you were in some way curtailing access to it for some people. It shall not and will not depend on the financial circumstances or location of a patient. If they need radiation oncology, they will have access to this unit if they choose to have treatment in Darwin.
I am disappointed with the member for Araluen who tends to view bipartisan support of anything with high suspicion. I am simply saying that the Commonwealth government is of the same complexion as the Territory opposition, and there are always ways in which opposition members can prevail on members of their own political persuasion to help the Territory. We are talking about the Territory having a high level facility.
We are not trying to duck the issue or renege on our commitment to this project, but, surely, if I am going to see Tony Abbott, as I have done on a number occasions on this and other issues for the Territory, it is not too much to ask the opposition to use their contacts within the federal government to help us along. That is all I am saying. It is not a dire crime against the integrity of the political process or of this parliament; I am suggesting that we work together on this to get the feds to play a role in setting up this facility.
The federal government will not fund recurrent aspects of this initiative. We know that and we expect to pick up the recurrent costs of running such a service, but the federal government can and does fund start-up capital costs to get the facilities set up in the early stages. That is what we are saying. Madam Speaker, I move the amended motion.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I will make a brief contribution. I was waiting for the minister to respond to debate so far because I was interested to hear what he had to say. Gee whiz! I tell you what: no wonder you use words like ‘practical purpose’ and people do not understand what you are talking about. Your response today started out saying you could not go to the public and give a commitment to build a radiation oncology unit but ended up by saying you remain committed to it.
What your position is, heaven knows. I can tell you what you are asking us to accept: you are asking Territorians to accept the fact when you are in opposition, you can make promises. You may not have the information, but you can go out in an election and say: ‘These are the commitments that we make to Territorians’. You can even go as far as publishing and saying: ‘This is my charter, this is my manifesto, this is my commitment to public servants’ and all in an atmosphere of not knowing what you are talking about.
You stand exposed as a government that not only cannot deliver on a core promise, but has the gall to say to Territorians that they should not even expect you to deliver on a core promise because you now have further information that the core promise is dead. I can tell you what the CLP’s position is, and this is not the member for Drysdale’s position, it is not the member for Araluen’s position, it is the CLP’s position …
Your Bansemer Report says that there are 260 treatments. Have you ever heard of a thing called ‘unmet need’ in the Northern Territory? Are you seriously suggesting, as the Health Minister of the Northern Territory that you have such a grasp on the health statistics of Territorians, particularly Aboriginal Territorians, that you can say definitively at this moment that there are about 260 treatments required now and, probably, they may not increase all that much in the future? Garbage!
Therefore, it follows, logically to me, that it becomes increasingly unacceptable to send people interstate for other than very complex treatment that cannot be done except by specialists who only reside in certain areas in the same way that South Australia may have to send people to Melbourne and Melbournians might have to travel to Sydney and vice versa because those highly-specialised people only reside and practice in those areas. That is a different thing to what is becoming more and more accepted in Australia as basic services that major hospitals should provide. Oncology and cardio services are two of them.
I looked at this matter because, I, too, was keen to stop the necessity for people to fly south for this treatment, and in the structure that I was provided, staffing was $120 000 for a radiation oncologist, you would need eight radiation therapists at $360 000, two medical physicists at $120 000 and $1.5m for nursing at $50 000. Then there are two admin staff at $60 000. Nursing is the smallest component of those. The cost to run it – maintenance, support, CT, planning, water, power, sewerage, laundry, security, medical supplies – was about $560 000. Nursing is the smallest component, so the ongoing costs were conveniently swept under the mat and we were told that the promise on nursing would be sufficient to cover the ongoing costs of this facility.
These are your legacies; they are not mine. However, I will say for commentators and people who look to these debates that, yes, it can be done; and yes, it can be done to the extent that all of those hurdles - and some of them are enormous - can be addressed. However, the first thing you have to do is make sure it is safe; that there is competent practice available. It is not just a matter of building monuments, it is a matter of the human resources that go within those monuments and dispense a service for the benefit of Territorians. I would suggest that you get to work on that because you are well overdue.
Madam SPEAKER: We now have an amended motion. Member for Nelson, your closing debate.
At present, like the nurse who wrote to the minister, and I will quote her words again: ‘I and others will remember’. She deals with these people day in and day out. So it is not about politics, it is about the reality of life. The government should take that into consideration and, hopefully, in Alice Springs we will see a change.
With the exception of Territory Housing, landlords are in the business of leasing premises because it provides an income. I do not believe that they will, as a general rule, use this legislation to hassle those people who help put butter on their tables, namely their tenants. I accept that there have been some overbearing landlords in the past, however, nothing in this amendment provides any greater power to a landlord to become more difficult. It does, however, provide flexibility for actions, and it provides a court a wider power to look at the behaviour of tenants. For that reason, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.
Chief Minister, I am prepared to support the waterfront proposal and the way the government is moving, providing I get some answers to what I believe are genuine questions …
There are concerns about the consultation process. Those concerns, you say, have all been attended to. I do not believe that the consultation process has occurred in the detail that Territorians expect. You certainly believe that …
Mr BURKE: Is that a cost in the consortium’s costings? Is it real? The Chief Minister laughs. Stand up and categorically say that if the Henry Walker Eltin involvement is replaced, that replacement effort will not come at one dollar additional cost to the consortium. You are a partner; you are part of the consortium. You are not the supervisor that is watching this; you are a partner, so you are part of the consortium. Tell us what the consortium costs are going to be, particularly with the rising costs indicated by the Henry Walker Eltin change, as one example.
The Darwin convention and exhibition centre will be a world-class centre catering for up to 1500 delegates and one of the features is 4000 m2 of undercover, airconditioned exhibition space, something desperately needed in Darwin.
I would like to talk specifically to the environment because it is an issue continually raised by the opposition. The Opposition Leader has asked me a number of questions about it over the last week and a half; and I have dealt with them in detail. But, from what he said in here today, it has not gone in. It has gone in one ear and out the other because the Opposition Leader does not want to listen; neither do his colleagues, it seems.
Dr Nadebaum is an independent specialist who will direct environmental clean up operations to ensure there are no remaining threats to either public health or the environment as project development proceeds.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Daly!
Second, there will be an annual payment to support the ongoing operational and running costs of the convention centre. Convention centres cannot generally survive on convention business alone. However, the significant economic boost warrants government support.
Finally, we are not giving away the land, 25 ha, as inferred by the opposition so many times, nor are we going to sell it at a highly discounted price. Rather than just sell at the AVO value, we sought, as part of the competitive bidding process, proposals for a return of value to the government. I can confirm that the proposal under consideration is for a return to government by way of a percentage of the final gross sale value of the developments as they are sold over the duration of the project, ensuring we capture the increasing value of the development over the life of the project.
As I said at the start, I have already committed to providing details once it is commercially appropriate to do so. You will, of course, realise that this is the way business is done between governments and the private sector and to do otherwise would prejudice the Territory’s position and credibility for projects of this kind in the future.
We have come a long way in achieving a key goal for the Territory by putting in place a great project that will see Darwin become a world-class city. Once again, let me give my assurance that details of the commercial arrangements for the project will be provided to the Assembly, as I have said time and time again, after negotiations have been completed, just as we saw with the railway when financial closure was achieved.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the amended motion to members.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will start with some advice for the Chief Minister: when the Darwin City Council almost unanimously, PLan, a former Labor member of this House, Ms June D’Rozario, the CLP, the Darwin Business District through its various peaks, various commentators around town including people like Dwyn Delaney, all say there is a problem here, you should believe that there is a problem here. These are not people who generally hunt in a pack for political benefit. They are people who are coming at this from a lot of different perspectives, and they are telling you there is a problem. If you want to keep saying: ‘There is no problem, there is no problem, there is no problem; I will sign up and then I will show you the detail’, you do it at your peril.
Some of the people I have spoken to who are most passionate about this are people who have nothing to gain financially. They are Territorians of some standing. They have a connection to the area, they have a view of how our CBD should develop and they have a view about the heritage of problems that could be left behind for them. Some of those people are the most eloquent on this subject and I suggest, Chief Minister, that you start to talk to them.
It is all very well to say: ‘The CLP is against this because they are anti-development, anti-Territorian, they receive briefs and do not understand them’ but, really, there are an enormous number of unanswered questions. As much as you can say: ‘Look, I have told you in the parliament’ on other occasions: ‘It is commercial and I am not going to tell you’, and on other occasions: ‘I promise I will tell you in the morning’, which is a little bit like the old promise.
Let us go to some of the things you have said, Chief Minister, and let us start, for instance, with the environment. It was only recently you told us in this parliament, last week in fact, that every single aspect of questioning is not warranted because we will follow proper environmental process, of course we will. You also talked about a report from July last year: ‘There was a supplementary environmental impact statement produced in July last year. There was the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Report by the Office of Environment and Heritage based on the draft EIS and public comment in August last year. The minister made a determination on the basis of Environmental Assessment Report No 43 and the EIS in August 2004’.
Here is assessment report 43, which was done in tandem with the government seeking expressions of interest. So in some respects, it was a blind document. The document did not understand what would be developed there, and all the way through, it says that when there is a master plan, we have to revisit this. For instance, at page iv, it says:
The first report was submitted 27 October 2004, eight days later.
There is another problem they have and it goes to environment again. You have a pecuniary interest. You have to declare that so when you say: ‘I am the government and I want to make sure this is done in the best interest of the people,’ you are assuming the role as the guardian of the land, the people’s assets, you are assuming an audit and oversight role and you are making sure things are done properly. If you are also the proponent, a partner in your PPP, you have a problem because, essentially, you are promoting something, you are wedded to it to the extent that you virtually want to shoot anyone who makes any criticism about it, and it makes it very difficult for you to exercise that other role as the guardian of the people’s assets.
You have told us today that the land will not be sold. It was not that long ago it was reported that
You said to us: ‘Go and have a look at the plan and you will see the Defence staging area’. Here is a photo of the plan and the Defence staging area looks like a big balsa wood lump with a boat tied on it, which is what it is. It does not give you much detail. If you go the documents from which I have quoted, they give you a little detail on what is likely to happen on that staging area. I am quoting again:
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I speak against the Chief Minister’s amendment to this motion.
As you know, the waterfront proposal sits within the boundaries of my electorate. Over the last few years, I have been a supporter of the establishment of a convention centre in the CBD. Members will remember that in approximately the year 2000, there was a very strong proposal to put a convention centre right next to this building. My understanding was that when that happened under the CLP government, things did not stack up and the end result was that this exciting proposal fell over, but the reason was that it did not stack up and that is something we need to remember: governments do, from time to time, have to make a sad decision to say: ‘No, we cannot do it based on those numbers’. I thought it was a good site.
Putting a convention centre in this top area of the CBD would support a lot of businesses, including the mall. When submissions were called a couple of years ago about where people thought a convention centre should go, I submitted that it go somewhere along the esplanade so that the hotels on the Esplanade could be supported, the mall could be supported. I did not feel that putting it down at the Stokes Hill area would be a good thing because of the way it would cut it off, physically, from the CBD. However, history moves on, and the government has chosen to put a convention centre down in that wharf precinct area.
I have great concern at the way the government constantly howls down anyone who dares speak or raise concerns with regard to the wharf precinct. Every time that is done, a spin is put on what people say to try to make the media think that anyone who raises concerns is anti any development on the waterfront. That is not true. As the member for Port Darwin, I most certainly support the development of the waterfront, but I believe it must be done correctly. It is a one-off opportunity to develop this very important and impressive parcel of land, and it must be done properly. It is very disappointing to hear badgering of the opposition whenever we raise issues which are of great concern to Territorians.
In the Westminster system, there are two sides: the government and the opposition, each of which has a job to do. Both are valid and very important for the betterment of the citizens of Commonwealth countries. The opposition’s role is to scrutinise what the government is doing on behalf of Territorians. The government itself came to power saying that it was going to provide open and accountable - and I emphasise the word ‘accountable’ - government, the inference being that previous Territory governments had not been open and accountable.
The onus is on the government to demonstrate its credibility as an accountable government, and it has been doing a particularly poor job with this constant harping and carping, inferring and spinning that any valid concerns raised by the opposition are because we want to scrap the whole proposal. That is patently incorrect and terribly tedious. I hope that the media in particular are wary of the spin being attached to things. I hope the media and the public are very aware of the role of opposition. It is our duty to raise these concerns on behalf of Territorians.
These concerns are valid, and they are things that we should know about before financial closure occurs. They need to be negotiated during this time of financial closure because when the Chief Minister talks about the wharf precinct, she talks about the preferred consortium, the inference being that she still has an opportunity to step back from that preferred group and go to one of the other two consortia.
As you know, the public has not been shown what the other two groups proposed, but knowing some of the people involved in the other two proposals, I have every confidence that they would have been quite spectacular. One of the architectural groups was Troppo Architects and they are world-renowned for their wonderful designs and inspirational products, and I would have loved to have seen made public what the Troppo gang had put up for their proposal. I hope that one day we do get to see it. I hope the Chief Minister will be in a position to explain why the group that have currently been chosen won over the top of what I suspect Troppo would have put up, which would have been something really spectacular. Perhaps what has been chosen is better, but looking at the design of the convention centre as it is at the moment, I have my personal views on the matter.
There are things that need to be finalised before financial closure because they are terribly important. Of course, once financial closure is reached, the developers are going to have this government in their clasp. I suspect the government is desperately keen to see this proposal started and completed. It is the feather in the cap of the Martin Labor government.
I remember going to one of the public meetings about this wharf precinct development last year, which was facilitated by a lady whose surname I cannot remember, but whose first name was Sheila. After we had been at this consultation for an hour or so, I asked what time line she expected for this activity, and when she thought the first sod would be turned. Her comment was: ‘Well, the way it is going, I would think that the first sod will be turned in approximately May 2005 and, shortly thereafter, you will have an election’ and we all had a chuckle because I believe she is very correct. I am quite sure the Chief Minister is desperately keen to get this proposal cracking along so she could pop her hard hat on, jump in her little yellow Tonka toy, and turn the first sod with the cameras rolling, and we will have a great shot for those election commercials. I suspect that is going to happen, as we go to the election very shortly thereafter.
The developers have the government in their clasp, and the government is going to have to cough up. That is my expectation. We are going to end up with a convention centre down on the wharf which will cut it physically from the CBD, which is a disappointment. However, the proposals have been worked up, apparently with a view to facilitate travel between the wharf and the mall area, and let us hope that happens.
The member for Drysdale has spoken particularly well on the documentation available to the public through the planning department. I have been able to get some of these documents, too. On the matter of environmental clean-up, issues definitely arise.
For example, I was particularly concerned with this document: Technical Reports, Darwin City Waterfront put together by IT Environmental Australia. I know the member for Drysdale has spoken in some detail on this. However, it does talk about the very short period in which they were asked to prepare this review with regards to the environmental issues; it was only a matter days. After they completed their review, they suddenly became aware of the three very thick documents regarding the infrastructure works. They make it very clear, in their conclusion, the limitations that are evident now because their report was done before al these other reports came out and everything was done as a rush job.
When you read what is in these documents, as I have, with regards to the environment situation down there, and the fact that it is a long-term industrial site, it is apparently quite seriously contaminated with heavy metals and the like. It is going to have major problems with the leeching of contaminants into our harbour and, as the water table moves and rises, the movement of those contaminants back onto the ground level and, potentially, into some of the water facilities like the pool this site is going to feature. The environmental situation is of paramount concern. What happens regarding this site over the decades to follow, the Chief Minister, quite frankly, is going to have to deal with this herself, whether she is still in politics or not. I hope she is able to sleep well at night because I know if I was her and I had these documents, I would be thinking very carefully about the rushed processes on this project. These are serious issues.
I know the Chief Minister, when she was Leader of the Opposition, was very concerned about planning and environment issues and I hope that what is happening down there with the Wharf Precinct attracts the same level of concern from her.
As the member for Port Darwin, I have concerns about that site. You only have to look at the model to see the complexity of this project. Stage 1 looks very interesting, and I was pleased that changes have been made with the height level, particularly the hotel that is going to be built in front of the escarpment. If you go beyond Stage 1, which only has one row of apartment blocks, and you look at further stages and see the very high density nature of the apartments that are going to be built there, it truly raises issues of roads and people’s access to the area, emergency services access, such as fire engines and the like given the road structure, about which we have not seen much detail yet. If you look at the size of the land available and the significant number of buildings that are going to be squeezed onto it, these issues have to be considered.
The Defence Force situation has been mentioned by previous speakers, but they are issues that have not been resolved. Parking is going to be a serious concern. For example, a two- or three-bedroom apartment in any block in the CBD attracts at least two or three cars. I can tell you that on- and off-street parking in the CBD is a major issue. If you look down there, there is an expectation of 1400 units to be built. At least 1000 of them will be two bedrooms and that means that you are going to have thousands of cars needing to be parked in that area and parking will be a significant concern.
Another issue is noise. Obviously, with high density living, there are all sorts of noise concerns, particularly as these units are going to be surrounding an entertainment precinct. It has a sound shell by the look of things and it has a wave pool. I am concerned about the wave pool. These things need to be sorted out now before the developer has total control of the project and before financial settlement occurs.
This is a period of time where the government can negotiate and what we do not know, for example, is who is going to own and operate the wave pool? My expectation is that this is going to be a very expensive piece of infrastructure. It is going to need long-term maintenance, it is going to need long-term repairs and it is going to be expensive.
I understand Darwin City Council is very coy about this wave pool and the other pools because, of course, the council owns and operates or controls all the local swimming pools, which are wonderful. Is there going to be significant pressure and expectation put on Darwin City Council that they will have to take over the ownership and operation of this wave pool? Are rate payers going to be keen to have to subsidise the repairs and maintenance of this wave pool and the paying of staff who are going to have to look after it? How much is it going to be as an ongoing cost? Because …
Mr Stirling: So you do not like the wave pool, okay.
Ms CARTER: It is going to be an issue. It is situated right in the middle of a high density population group. I notice all their verandahs will face out on to the wave pool. In order for that wave pool to be financially viable and, given the clientele that it may attract, people having a fabulous time on a three- or four-day stop over in Darwin, cracking a tan and having a great social time, it will be extremely popular with our backpackers if they can afford the entry fee.
Given that and our beautiful climate, I can see pressure on the owner-operators of that wave pool in order to make it more financially viable – I am not suggesting it would ever be actually financially viable, although I look forward to whether or not the Chief Minister can allay those fears – but will that wave pool be operating until 10 pm and 11 pm under spot lights? I assume the motors required to generate the waves are noisy, so we are going to have a major noise situation within a high density living area. Eventually for the residents, the novelty of listening to backpackers shrieking and carrying on at 10 pm and the motors pounding and whirring as they generate waves, will wear off and they are not going to be too pleased about it.
However, if at some point in time the government and the Chief Minister can allay those concerns, because I do not think they have been addressed at all, I look forward to having them allayed. I do support development, but, as I say, it must be done correctly and we only get one go at this. Once you have gone in there and built things, that will be it and we will be all be living with this situation for many years to come.
On the issue of noise, city noise is a big concern to my constituents. Since I became the member for Port Darwin, I have been aware that the government – initially it was the CLP government, now it is the Labor government - have been developing noise regulations and I have pursued that, as the various ministers know, for years now, as to where are these regs and how are they going to help us. I note this document, Community Infrastructure Works, mentions on a number of pages, including page 3 of one of the reports at the back, item 2.3, that a discussion draft for the proposed Waste Management and Pollution Control (Environmental Noise) Regulations (2003), which none of us have ever seen, has been used as the basis of developing their proposal. I have asked the minister for a copy of those noise regs. I look forward to receiving it.
In conclusion, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the development. I have serious concerns about it. These concerns need to be addressed. The government has promised to be open and accountable; let us see their actions speak louder than their words. Let us hear someone address some of these concerns so that in 20 years time, we can all look proudly back to this period and say: ‘We all built a great wharf precinct’.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the first question I ask is: where is the planning minister in all of this? Surely, with a matter like this before the House, the planning minister would have a contribution. Many of the issues surrounding the convention centre are issues of planning. Indeed, the planning minister has made some comments in relation to this, especially when it comes to dealing with the negative political aspects of issues like height restrictions on buildings, something on which the government has had to do a backflip.
Immediately prior to Christmas, if memory serves me, when they suddenly announced that height levels on those buildings is going to come down because they exceeded the height level of the escarpment, which was a major issue.
The position of the government is becoming more difficult and desperate for them. The fact is that the longer this process goes on, the more that the Chief Minister is pulling and drawing into herself the issues, and controlling the issues, and allowing less and less latitude in respect of how this proceeds. This is clearly evidenced by the amendment the Chief Minister moved. Basically, what the Leader of the Opposition is asking is: what is the level of taxpayer exposure? How much it is going to cost? That is the bottom line of this, and the Chief Minister’s response is: ‘I will tell you afterwards; I will let you know after negotiations are closed’.
We have heard the usual tirade of abuse: ‘you are un-Territorian, you do not believe in development’. If you want to the CLP of not being development orientated, have a look around you. I remember tirades of abuse heaped on the government of the day for building this place. This place was built during the recession we had to have. That was the government’s response to an employment environment that meant many of the chippies, sparkies and the like were going to have to leave this town because there was just no money. The government of the day responded and built Parliament House. It is certainly a grand building, much loved and much admired, but the question of cost was raised repeatedly by the then opposition, and rightly so, may I say.
On all projects that any consortium partner enters into, until they sign bottom line, each and every negotiating partner should have an abort button built into what they are doing, a big red one, easily accessible because if the numbers do not stack up, if the exposure to the consortium partner does not look right then, before they sign off on it, they can push it.
The Chief Minister accused the former government of being unable to bring the project to fruition. In one respect, that might be true, in the sense that the government of the day was not prepared to commit itself to an untenable negotiating position, and so, as a consequence of the problems with which they were presented through the process, and they could not make the numbers stack, what did they do? They took a politically courageous decision, which is a very Sir Humphrey Appleby expression. They pressed the abort button because they knew that their responsibility was primarily to the people who were funding them as a consortium partner, and who would that have been? The people who were funding that consortium partner were the taxpayers, and there is no difference in this case.
The core of this process rests on the Chief Minister’s shoulders. So desperate is her desire to control the process, she is probably not allowing the Planning minister to make any statements today. She reads out her script and no one, but no one else from the Labor benches utters a single syllable in relation to this because she is in control of it.
Ms Lawrie: It is a fantastic project. I love the waterfront.
Mr ELFERINK: It is a good project. The project, in developing a convention centre and developing the waterfront - yes, it is a good idea. The point is, and I pick up on the interjection by the member for Karama, that the Chief Minister is drawing this into herself. The problem is that she is also making herself the focal point of the crash and burn approach to this. If she is unable to nail this thing down properly before the next election, whenever that may be, then she will be going to the next election with not a single project started effectively under her government.
The fact is that this Chief Minister is refusing to talk about the taxpayers’ exposure, and we have heard from the member for Drysdale about some of the issues surrounding the taxpayers’ exposure, and the fact is that the Chief Minister probably cannot accurately assess some of the quantum involved in assessing exposure, and indeed, the wild vacillations between the cost of this project, the original announcement of $600m to $1.2bn, clearly demonstrates the problems with which the Chief Minister is confronted.
She reassures us that the cost of this project will only be $100m from the taxpayer, plus $10m for the environmental work. It is very difficult for her to know this. However, rather than saying: ‘Well, yes, we have to allow for a certain amount of flex’, she is locking herself down tighter and tighter into a position of: ‘Give me the car keys and I will tell you where we are going once we are on the road, and I will tell you how much the fuel and repair bills are going to be’. Is that really the way that we want to do business? Everyone in this Chamber knows the Chief Minister is in an awkward situation.
Therefore, as time passes and she has this political imperative driving her, and her refusal to acknowledge the existence of an abort button before financial closure has been achieved, she has now exposed herself to a very vulnerable position. I bet London, to a brick, that the other consortium partners are trying very hard to squeeze the Chief Minister to make her - because they are fully aware of her political exposure in relation to this issue - pay for more and more. It is not she who pays; it is the taxpayer. That electoral pressure, her refusal to talk about costs, the fact that she is a consortium partner, and the fact that she has control of the planning process, ultimately - so if there is a problem with the DCA, the planning minister can override any ruling they make anyhow, which puts him in a precarious situation in respect of conflicts of interest - as well as the environmental issues makes me concerned that the future of this project is going to cost the taxpayer more and more. I am certain that is where the Leader of the Opposition is coming from.
The Chief Minister is saying to us: ‘Look, just do not worry about it. I will let you know after the negotiations have been completed’. I support, like all other members of this Chamber, development in the wharf precinct area. However, you cannot sensibly, in any economic environment, lock yourself into a position before you sit down at the negotiating table when the other partners in the consortium are bringing pressure to bear because they know you are vulnerable. It is an untenable situation. That pressure is going to increase and this Chief Minister may find herself in a position of negotiating to a point where she realises that there is no choice but the abort button because she has no ability to argue back effectively. If that is the case, the crash and burn approach is, very sadly, going to be a possible outcome.
There are issues other than cost that the Chief Minister needs to address including the mix of uses in the area. The current model has a certain disharmony and incongruity in its modelling because it has commercial fishing industry, Defence, high-rise residential, an amphitheatre, passenger liners, and a public beach all adjacent to each other, all concentrated into a small area. The approaches to the area are quite limited. For a large number of those buildings, it is Kitchener Drive or the road on the hill leading down to Kitchener Drive. I wonder how easy it is going to be to get things such as tanks on the backs of large trucks through residential areas into the staging area because they have to get there somehow. It is a question of legitimate concern. The response so far is: ‘Do not worry about it; you just leave it with us, she’ll be right’. It is something we have every reason to be concerned about.
There is also the question of the relationship with the CBD. I quote from the member for Drysdale’s submission to the DCA:
The reason I raised the issue of the actual cost is that when do you get these documents, for instance, which make life very interesting: Supplementary Information Supporting the Development Application for the Marine Infrastructure Works, and there is the same for the Community Infrastructure Works, the Ecological Risk Assessment, and Work In Progress: Remedial Action Plan - they hit my desk the other day - there is a lot of information in those documents that one has to work through.
The information in two of these books concerns me. If we look at costs and then look at Darwin City Council’s concerns – and I will take one:
Mr Dunham: The wave pool might.
Mr WOOD: The wave pool. It is a bit silent on the wave pool, except - I beg your pardon! I will look up my own submission. Gee, forgetting your own submission is a bit embarrassing. I did make a request on the wave pool and when you want it, you cannot find it.
Wave pool! I asked who was paying for the construction of the pool, who will maintain it and will the public be charged for its use, and the response was:
You say we have the gall to come in here, even though this is the parliament of the people, and ask questions like, how much taxpayers’ money is involved. Somehow, that is unparliamentary. You should have some briefing at the side somewhere from some officers. This is the parliament of the people and this is where these questions are asked and answers should, rightly, be given.
You have an amendment that demonstrates the lack of interest you have in the motion, and you do not address any of the issues that are raised by other members, including the Independent member for Nelson. The fact that you were reading The Australian newspaper all the way through his presentation was an insult in itself.
You ignore the efforts of some to raise issues that they believe Territorians need to have made clear, and you ignore fact that we have tried to bring to your attention that we believe to push forward on this development with the speed that you are is asking for trouble, and certainly not giving any guarantees to Territorians that the project that you ask them to believe in will, in fact, be the project that is delivered.
You have said in the past that this is a similar public-private partnership process a la the railway. Well, on the railway, the checks and balances were provided by three separate governments: the Commonwealth, the South Australian and Northern Territory governments. There were checks and balances, and every dollar that was involved in that project was on the table for taxpayers’ knowledge right the way through that project.
We are being asked to sign off on a project that has a range of outstanding issues to be resolved, not least being that you are asking us to take on your word the monies you say are involved are actually involved and no one has any detail of what those monies are. It is a sham. It is unravelling, I believe, faster than it is coming together. It is disappointing that you have taken the attitude that you have, but we, as the opposition, have been joined by the Independent member and have tried to bring this to the attention of the House and, I hope, more and more to the attention of the Territorians.
I make the challenge again, Chief Minister: if you are confident that I am un-Territorian in what I say and in your strong support from the general public, let us organise a debate. Let us get up on TV whenever you like. I am sure the channels will help it. I would have thought someone who is so confident would not only look forward to the challenge, but look forward to what political mileage you can get out of it. I am happy to do it any time you want to arrange it. We will put these issues to Territorians and, if you cannot answer them, we will see what they think at the end of the day. I thank members for their contribution.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment to the motion be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
I move:
It is worth reminding Territorians that, from the outset, Limmen, Keep River, Spirit Hills, Mt Nancar, Elsey and Litchfield parks were all included in this package about which the Chief Minister said: ‘I’ll get the deal on this package; I’ll get this deal in such a way, I am so confident, I will introduce legislation that puts statute around the whole deal, and if I cannot achieve that by 31 December 2004, all deals are off. That’s it’.
Mr Dunham: That is right. You put your reputation on the line.
Mr BURKE: Yes! The member for Drysdale said you put your reputation on the line for this and what we have seen is parks drop out, increasing disillusion with Aboriginal people, all of the time a charade being painted to non-indigenous people as to how great a deal this was, how much money it will save them by not going through a litigation route when we know that the Chief Minister was not telling Territorians was that for many parks, she was continuing to follow a litigious route. It is clear that more and more parks are going to follow a litigious route.
Not only do we have the same system in place for those parks that the Chief Minister has been unable to get a deal on, and that is they will use the court processes under the Native Title Act, notwithstanding the Chief Minister said that those days are over, but we now have Aboriginal people, more and more so, who are unhappy with the deal.
I am sure the Chief Minister will say that while we have substantive agreement with many Aboriginal groups, but only the Keep River now. The important thing about the Keep River people is, and the member for Arnhem will know this very well, it is probably only the Keep River people who know what they should be getting. I do not believe that the claimants of the other parks have a real understanding of exactly what is involved or the rights that they are expecting to achieve, but it is important that the Keep River people do, and it is also important to note, and I say this on hope, but I reckon that the Keep River people would probably speak highly of the way the CLP treated them.
The CLP certainly dealt with the Keep River people in a way that recognized their native title rights and gave them accommodation that is far better than anything that has been done by this government. The only thing that is being done by this government is to try to cobble them into a deal on this park’s handover, a deal they quickly realized was no good. I bet they are hoping that a CLP government returns because they will get a better deal under them.
That in itself should be enough to demonstrate to the government that this deal is a shambles; this deal should never have been put in place. There was no reason to hand over freehold title to any of our parks. There was an obligation for the Chief Minister to test this so-called authority with Territorians, something that she hasn’t done. It would appear on the face of it that the Chief Minister is going to seal up a deal very shortly in legislation in this parliament for the parks that remain involved. That is unfortunate because it will take a CLP government to come back and unravel this and provide better accommodations for the indigenous groups involved. It is unfortunate because, once these parks are handed over, it will be very difficult to hand them back. I have said this strongly, hold to it, will stand in front of Aboriginal people and say it, and I am sure that they will understand: there is no need to hand over any of these parks. There is no need to cut non-indigenous Territorians away from their rights with regards to what is Crown land in a deal that has not been tested regarding ownership, and which does not deliver any advantage in a real sense to anyone.
I have given an undertaking in this parliament, and I will hold to it, that the CLP could set up a Nitmiluk on those parks, and we could do it in a way that could achieve a Nitmiluk model without handing over one acre of Crown land. That is the position from which the Chief Minister should started, and if she had held that position, she would have ensured that not only the parks remain in Crown hands, but also that Aboriginal interests were accommodated fully.
Chief Minister, you do not have a mandate to do what you have done. You do not have the support of Aboriginal traditional owners on the important parks, particularly Keep River, where Aboriginal people are aware of what is occurring. You do not have the support of the Northern Land Council, which is one-half of the two large land councils in the Northern Territory and will be recognised by the Commonwealth government to be respected for what they say. They have certainly slammed your approach, slammed your misinformation, slammed your deception, and slammed your objectives by suggesting that this is a win-win, because their media release says there will be none of that.
I might add that I do not know what the federal minister has to say about this. I would be interested to know. I will certainly be making sure that the federal minister becomes far more aware of what is going on rather than the nice words that have probably been fed down to them. The federal minister has to check off and agree to the Schedule 1 agreement, if not have some involvement in the others. I can give a guarantee that we will be doing everything we can to ensure that this deal does not progress any further than it has.
I will give a guarantee to Aboriginal Territorians, the indigenous claimants and the groups that they represent and the families that they represent: a Northern Territory CLP government will be true joint venturers on any development that they propose on Aboriginal land, will do it and provide equity on a dollar-for-dollar basis for the Aboriginal people. We will enter into true joint management agreements not only on the parks in the Chief Minister’s schedule, but for every park in the Northern Territory. For every park in the NT, whether it is included in this schedule or not, a CLP government will enter into joint management arrangements that put in a true Nitmiluk model. We will do that without handing over one acre of land from the ownership title that is there at the moment, to change that title, unless it is something that Aboriginal people want, and then that will be done in a negotiated way if necessary.
That is the deal. That is a far better deal than you are achieving, Chief Minister. It is the deal that Aboriginal people want. It does not involve handover of our parks or any title to anyone. I will go out and debate that with Territorians. The challenge for the parks is the same as the challenge for the waterfront, Chief Minister. Let us go! Wherever you like: on TV, on radio, to Aboriginal groups, to land council meetings. You can talk and I will talk, and we will see who gets the support of Aboriginal people at the end of the day.
When you look at his public utterances in different parts of the Territory, and listen to some of the confused utterances that I have heard in here this evening, then, as I said today in Question Time, we have an Opposition Leader speaking out of both sides of his mouth and taking a hypocritical line dealing with these issues ...
Ms MARTIN: It is only one item of legislation. It is one transparent package that we have put to traditional owners through the mechanisms of the land councils.
We now have the Opposition Leader saying Aboriginal people are being disadvantaged and they are unhappy with what has been put to them. We are dealing with legislation tomorrow where, in 27 out of 28 parks, the deal that is being offered has been accepted.
On the other hand, the Central Land Council has also issued a media release applauding the package and calling on this House to pass it. I would like to quote David Ross, the CLC Director who says that the proposal before us is:
I am very proud of this initiative and I have spoken about it many times previously in this Assembly, the parks framework. I am happy to talk about it again this evening. I would like to talk in detail because, obviously, the opposition still does not understand what it is about. We have an Opposition Leader who cannot decide what, in fact, he thinks about it and who changes his mind according to the audience.
The parks framework is about improving access for all Territorians to our unique environment and forging lasting economic investment partnerships with Aboriginal Territorians for the future. Importantly, it is about resolving uncertainty about land tenure as a result of the Ward High Court decision. Importantly, it is about avoiding costly and wasteful use of taxpayers’ money through needless litigation. We know that was the CLP’s method of operation in the past, and we said we do not want to go down that line. If you look at the options that we faced with the unexpected Ward High Court decision, you could either litigate and spend lots of dollars on lawyers and spend years going through the court, or you could work out a more creative solution.
Throughout this process, we assert the principles that access to parks for all Territorians will be guaranteed on a no fee, no permit basis. That puts an absolute lie to the Opposition Leader’s claims that we have given away parks and there is no access. In fact, this is about enhanced access. Business as usual would be carried on while the negotiations are completed. There will be guarantee of current mining and exploration leases and current tourism operation concessions, and where the titles did change in the offer that we made, it was conditional on being leased back to government for use as park and subject to joint management arrangements.
We know the opposition’s way: determine tenure by litigation. That would mean spending decades in the courts, and between $50m and $100m of hard-earned Territory revenue …
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: The opposition says: ‘You have had GST revenue’, well, this is what you wanted to do with any windfall …
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: … spend it in the courts, look after the lawyers. It is the way of the past. It is what yesterday’s man would have done. It is not the way of the future.
Mr Dunham: No, that is a lie.
Ms MARTIN: The parks framework is something that should be applauded as a genuine benefit to all …
Mr AH KIT: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! The member opposite just referred to the Chief Minister as a liar, and I ask that he withdraw that.
Mr DUNHAM: I did not, actually, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, refer to her as a liar. I said what she was saying was a lie.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, I ask you to withdraw that.
Mr DUNHAM: I withdraw the fact that what she was saying was a lie.
Ms MARTIN: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. The parks framework is something that should be applauded as a genuine benefit to all Territorians, unlike the opposition who would see us mired in expensive litigation, with no guarantee of outcome at the end of it, and that is a critical component. You go into the litigation, what would be the outcome? We could lose parks from the parks estate, we could lose access to those parks. Yet we have an opposition that says: ‘Do not go near that. Take the litigation route’ with no secure outcome.
Let me go through the processes again. The Opposition Leader’s assertions, when he is speaking to certain interest groups and certain communities, regarding the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) (Revival) Bill, overlooked the following: the act merely revives legislation that has been in the public domain since 2003. It was first released to the public prior to introduction for the purpose of consultation with key stakeholders, and those key stakeholders were miners, tourism interests, conservation groups, pastoralists and, of course, indigenous Territorians in September 2003. It was then introduced in October 2003, and fully debated, before passage in November 2003 and, as I said last week, I believe that was six hours of debate.
The only changes in the current bill, other than those gazettal notices authorised by the act, relate to extension of the compliance date to 2 February this year and the removal of Keep River National Park from Schedule 2. That is the only difference between the bill that is sitting in this House now and the one we debated in November 2003.
The opposition’s argument that the negotiations are secret, which is part of what they continue to say: ‘You are doing secret deals! You are doing secret deals behind closed doors’, depending on the audience, and that is completely fallacious.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Macdonnell! Allow the Chief Minister to speak.
Ms MARTIN: The government has gone to great lengths to be transparent and open through publicly announcing core principles on which negotiations had to be based and putting them into legislation, releasing draft legislation and conducting stakeholder briefings, passing legislation which sets out the full details of the government’s offer and the parameters of the negotiations - the full details of the government’s offer. How much more transparent can you be than put the whole lot down in legislation in this parliament?
For the opposition to assert that there is insufficient time to consult with their constitutions overlooks the fact the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act has been in the public domain since September 2003 and that I announced the government’s intention in respect of the Revival Bill on the 5 January this year even though the Opposition Leader refused to come to a briefing.
Furthermore, there have been various mail-outs to key stake holders and the general public and a web site maintained, as well as a question and answer booklet produced. I am pleased to see, even though he does not come to briefings, that the Opposition Leader has his question and answer booklet.
Let us look at the facts, which are that, as a result of the Ward High Court decision, 49 parks in the Territory were found to be invalidly declared ...
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: Legal advice was that - would you take a look at the booklet, rather then just interjecting? You might learn something.
Legal advice was that ALRA claims over 11 of those parks could therefore proceed to be heard by the courts and, as a result, those parks could be removed from the parks estate, parks such as the MacDonnell Ranges could be removed from the parks estate. Native title would continue to be an issue across the parks estate. In order to avoid uncertainty and costly, time-consuming litigation, the government moved quickly to address the issues by announcing that we were prepared to negotiate a resolution on the basis of core principles being accepted by the land councils. These included a ‘business as usual’ approach in all parks involved, continued public access on a no entry permit, no fee basis, protection of existing tourism and mining interests, and putting litigation aside while negotiations continued.
In addition, the core principles specified that any transfer of tenure must be subject to immediate lease back to the Territory for use of the park for a minimum of 99 years - Nitmiluk model, Kakadu, Uluru model.
The core principles are reflected in the relevant agreements, leases, ILUAs and legislative amendments which have been agreed. The opposition claims they are unaware of the status of negotiations. I wrote to the then Opposition Leader - I know you do not talk to each other much, but I did write to the then Opposition Leader on 31 December last year, not that long ago, informing him that full compliance had been achieved for 27 of the parks specified in the Schedules of the act.
Section 10 of the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act specifies the conditions which must be met for compliance with the act. These include:
The opposition misrepresents the nature of the provisions of the act by describing it as ‘a handover’. The reality is that the bill will result in title for 17 parks being transferred subject to immediate lease back to the Territory, for a minimum of 99 years while, for another 10 parks, only joint management arrangements will apply and no tenure changes will occur.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, I am sure you will have your say.
Ms MARTIN: Moreover, we have avoided the prospect of …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: The member for Macdonnell should listen to this because he does not seem to understand. Just opening your mouth and letting words come out in an uncontrolled ramble is not contributing to the debate or demonstrating that you understand what you are talking about.
Mr Elferink: interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell …
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, it is one question and she refuses to answer it.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, just listen and let the Chief Minister give the answer.
Ms MARTIN: Moreover, we have avoided the prospect of possibly losing 11 parks from the parks estate including the wonderful West MacDonnells, which the previous government foreshadowed for amalgamation into a single park as park as far back as 1991. That is what this package can facilitate.
The Opposition Leader is stating on one hand that the government is giving away the parks estate to the Aboriginal interests, and on the other asserting that the arrangements are nowhere near as generous as the Nitmiluk agreement negotiated by the previous government. He calls it a poor deal for traditional owners. The facts are that the government has been able to secure agreement on 27 parks, thus achieving the benefits of securing agreement prior to costly court proceedings where no outcome is certain.
All the Opposition Leader’s statements do is vindicate this government’s approach. By going down this path, government has saved taxpayers millions of dollars in litigation, achieved certainty and resolution of outstanding claims in a very short time frame for 27 parks, and secured agreements which, in the opposition’s judgment, are less generous to traditional owners and the Nitmiluk agreement. What is the opposition alternative? Ongoing uncertainty, litigation and potential compensation costs across the parks estate.
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: Let me just say that again! The opposition’s alternative, depending on which audience they are talking to, of course, is ongoing uncertainty, litigation, and potential compensation costs across the parks estate, millions upon millions of dollars in taxpayers money wasted, foregone opportunity costs in economic and tourism development. I would have thought the member for Macdonnell would have been hounding us for this. There he is with a large Central Australian electorate, wanting to see those tourist developments. Did he ever raise his hand and say: ‘Get the Mereenie Loop sealed. It is going to really help my communities with tourism’? No! Silence, silence from him. Did he ever advocate on behalf of these types of economic developments and looking at ways to cut through some of the difficulties we have? Never! Silence on these issues. What else does the opposition promote? Ongoing adversarial relationships with traditional owners - again, depending on their audience.
I am extremely proud of the parks framework. It gives certainty to the future and represents a new approach that will be of lasting benefit to all Territorians. I want to go to the parks and so do you, Madam Speaker. We do not want to have this uncertainty. Parks are critical to building our tourism future and as tourism minister, I am very proud of the solution we found here.
The opposition is all over the shop on this issue and, depending on the day and audience, a different message is being given. Sadly, the opposition has no plans for the future and this yesterday’s man just wants to return to the old days of litigation and uncertainty.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, the Chief Minister finished on quite a good note about being all over the shop. I have never seen a series of bills before a parliament anything like what we have before us.
In the first place, in September 2003, we had a bill entitled – let us get the name right - Territory Parks (Framework for the Future) Bill. Now, that bill had two kill clauses in it. So confident was the Chief Minister of her option of negotiation versus litigation that she put two tests in there. One was the schedule some parks, and this was a once-off thing that she could do. She could schedule the parks that she knew she could get a deal on and one of those in that schedule was Keep River. Now, that is the problem she has with the potential for further litigation. So that was a kill clause. The fact that she had a schedule and Keep River fell out meant the legislation was in fact defeated. It was obsolete; it could not go forward. The second kill clause said that on 31 December, it would lapse. We had legislation with two clauses in it that took it off the books.
Last year, we had a bill introduced to parliament called the Territory Parks Wildlife and Conservation Amendment Bill 2004, Serial 237. That bill has yet to be debated. It is on the Notice Paper standing at number 5 so that sometime in the next day, tomorrow, we might debate it.
On top of that, we had the spectacle of the Chief Minister coming into this parliament last week and introducing yet another bill. We now have the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) (Revival) Bill 2005, which asks us to pass it on urgency, which means tomorrow we will debate this bill. In one of its clauses, it asks us to accept an action that happened on 2 February. I have never seen anything more bizarre.
We had a bill from the Chief Minister that had two switches to kill it, both of which were activated. We had a bill last year that has come over to this year and we are yet to debate. We have another bill introduced on urgency, all on this estate, and that bill we will debate tomorrow. It gives some sort of a legal status to an action that has happened in the past. When the Chief Minister says: ‘I have been open; I have told you all about this’, what was that action? What happened on 2 February? Where is the detail?
We have the Chief Minister with a request for urgency, which offends standing orders in any event. People would know that notice for bills on urgency has to include what the cause of hardship will be. That was not done with this bill.
You have an absolute legislative dog’s breakfast with this bill. We have three items of legislation trying to achieve the same thing. You have some of the groups that dropped out suggesting to the Chief Minister that what she has done might be actionable, and in the face of all this, the Chief Minister has the temerity to say to us that it is all sweetness and light. That is number one. Two is that she has involved us all the way and if we had come to get some briefings and checked our mail box we would know the full extent of it. Three is that it is the best deal for Aboriginal people going around. Four is it obviates any litigation that might take place. That is all wrong.
The Chief Minister, in her little litany, cited Ward, which found that there were 49 parks that were potentially in dispute. What she has before us covers 27 parks. Simple maths would tell you that Justice Ward of the High Court said 49 parks could have a problem. The Chief Minister is telling this parliament that she has a deal for 27. There is a question about the other 22. What has happened with the other 22? That is the first question.
The second question is that if she is so committed to negotiation rather than litigation, if litigation is so offensive: why is she pursing litigious means? Why is she pursuing litigation for settlement of some of these? I guess one of the reasons for that can be found in some of the earlier debates. There is a series of rhetorical questions put in this little booklet, which asks why we are doing this and does this seemingly stupid thing have a rationale to it. One of them at page 15 of this little book NT Parks and Reserves: Questions and Answers poses this question:
Dr Burns: There is!
Mr DUNHAM: We were asking why you didn’t use …
Dr Burns interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: We were asking why you did not use the procedures laid down in the Native Title Act, and we asked you in this one why you did not use the procedures under the Native Title Act. Okay, they were two different parcels of land. We are talking about process here.
Dr Burns interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: Process! The reason you did not use the Native Title Act has nothing to do with these dot points.
Dr Burns interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: Nothing to do with these dot points.
Dr Burns interjecting.
The Chief Minister has to come much cleaner than she has been. The issue of value is something she knows. We know she knows the value of the parks because she is going to lease them back for us, and she has gone to a gentleman in the AVO. The Australian Valuation Office is actually a federal instrumentality, and they are a very clever people. They sit down and say: ‘This thing is probably worth this or that’ and they can tell you. At page 20 is question 31 of the questions and answers.
I certainly want to know what the repertoire of assets that this government had. When I was the Health minister there was a campaign run that I was going to give our hospitals which, of course, was nonsense and a lie and was perpetrated in a political campaign. Nonetheless, one of the questions would be: why would we hand over an asset of some worth to someone and not charge them? If I was so foolish as to do what I was being charged with, that would be a fair cop, a fair hit on me.
This is a very convoluted legislative process, which is arguably ultra vires. There are significant dollops of information that have not been put in the public realm. The original proposition of negotiating rather than litigating has failed because we are still before the courts on several of these parks. The testing of community attitudes has not been done, and this is an issue about which the community would want to know. The competence of the Chief Minister, who introduced legislation that had two massive challenges and, so strong were those challenges, that they were fatal to the bill, both of which were activated, leaves us where we wanted to take the Chief Minister up on her original proposition, which was: ‘This will be accepted in its entirety or all bets are off. We will take it off the table’. Well, it was not accepted in its entirety. The bill failed and we are still, later on, saying: ‘Well, maybe later, maybe tomorrow. We will give it another chance’.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, withdraw that!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, just cease for a moment! You are really getting way off the motion. Please start debating the motion.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, this goes to the very heart of the motion …
Mr ELFERINK: This is the house of debate. We are here to debate the motion and yet there is only one person and I pick up on that interjection because I have been waiting for it.
Madam Speaker, the minister thinks he can threaten me about my constituency and advising them of the things I say in this House. Please do. Please tell them. Please go out and talk about it because I am not scared of standing up and telling people what is going on.
Madam SPEAKER: Now, could we get back to the motion?
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I have grave reservations and the first reason is costs. Not once have we been told how much this is going to cost Territorians despite the fact that the question has been asked again and again and again. It would be irresponsible of any member of parliament to sign over on a deal like this unless the cost is known.
The issue the Chief Minister raised in relation to the MacDonnell Ranges National Park and the other parks affected by this is: what is going to happen when this deal is signed off? What is going to happen to the traditional owners at that point and what are the advantages for them other than the symbolism in which this government is engaging?
I turn to the two national parks, which are outside of Territory control at the moment, inside the borders of the Northern Territory: Uluru and Kakadu. If you look at the philosophy on how those parks are run, there is an increasing pressure in both of those parks to resist people having access to the parks.
I am concerned about that because if the rest of the parks are handed over to the control of the Central Land Council, access rights that are so guaranteed and locked down by these deals are still threatened. Why do I think that is going to be the case? Once that title has been transferred – handed over, if you like –the effect is that they can do pretty much what they like and I doubt very much that this government, with its so called aversion to litigation, would do anything to make the Central Land Council go back on the arrangements it has entered into.
I look at the way that Aboriginal land has performed for Aboriginal people under the tutelage and management of the Central Land Council, and I see poverty and desolation. I do not see jobs. Now this government is trying to convince us that their model of joint management and transfer of ownership is going to fix that. I am unconvinced that it is going to fix that, and I do not see that the government has any mechanism available to it whatsoever to reverse or in any way bring the arrangements to heal.
I care very much about what is going to happen to the traditional owners of Central Australia, as I care about everyone who lives in Central Australia and, indeed, in the Northern Territory.
The focus should not be on one particular group, despite the fact that I have my reservations about the outcomes for those people; the focus should be on all people with an interest in the parks estate in the Northern Territory, and that is clearly where this government’s focus is not. If you want to publish that, you send it out to them. In fact, I will do it.
Motion negatived.
Under this government’s approach, we have an environment which has created the highest rate of Aboriginal incarceration. We see from page 141 of the annual report from police that protective custodies have increased by 5678 on an annual basis from the year they came to government. We saw the graph earlier today, and those numbers are taken specifically from the police annual report. We heard jibes that this was all part of the successful policing approach because there are more police on the streets - no, there are more drunks on the street.
Why are there more drunks on our streets? The reason is two-fold. One, the communities from whence many of these drunks come and, sadly, Aboriginal people are over-represented in these statistics, as the breakdown from the police statistics demonstrates, do not provide them, often, much of a reason to be there. Certainly, they are on their own country - that is good, that is fine - but where are the jobs, where is the environment that is going to create some wealth for them? What is their reason to stay? It does not exist.
A few years ago, the Minister for Community Development said to us: ‘I am going to change the approach and we are going to go for a Community Harmony approach, and that approach will cure and solve many of these’. Well, he did not say cure, but will ‘alleviate many of these problems; you will see fewer people on the streets’. Anecdotally speaking, I do not see fewer itinerants on the streets; I see more: more in the mall; I saw more in Bennett Park, when I checked last night, than a few years ago; I saw more in Tamarind Park; and I saw 30 or 40 hanging around Raintree Park about two days ago. When I went to Walker funeral the other day, I walked past dozens hanging around in front of the Commonwealth Bank.
Five million dollars was allocated to the Community Harmony Project when it was established, and at that time I said: ‘If you improve services in towns for these people, you are going to see an increase of numbers, people coming into town to take advantage of the improved services for them when they get in here’. That is part of the reason for the trend. The services have improved, and the government’s response has been to announce $2.2m worth of spending in Alice Springs on the Stuart Lodge to improve services even further.
The Minister for Community Development’s approach has been to complain bitterly about the lack of housing for Aboriginal people. Yet, to my astonishment, yesterday I discovered that the way he is funding the Community Harmony Project is by forcing the Housing Business Services to remove $2.5m from their budget to fund the Community Harmony Project. The last time I checked it is Housing Business Services that builds houses and they need that $2.5m to build those houses.
That division clearly says the pressure to remove this money does not come from their management decisions, not at all; it comes from beyond the organisation. That means that the decision to spend this money comes from the minister. They have this problem of not being able to build houses. So far, the minister’s response has been to take money out of Housing and spend it on the Community Harmony Project which, at the end of the day, for all the good intentions in the world, does not give you any bricks and mortar on the ground. So there is less housing as a result of the Community Harmony Project.
What does the minister do with the surplus people he has identified in the bush? He says there is an $800m shortfall in housing. So he says: ‘Let us use the housing stock in town’. Consequently, what we get in Alice Springs is people becoming tenants at Territory Housing in Alice Springs, and their families turn up. We are not talking about two or three family members; we are talking about 20 or 30 family members. Often those family members are a few houses down from other families with whom they are in dispute. The minister’s approach is to allow this situation to occur. He must be aware of the cultural implications of all of this. It ends up expressing itself, literally, in riots in the streets of Larapinta and major problems in other parts of the Northern Territory as well.
The next step for the minister is to say: ‘We are not going to change the habit of using the housing stock in this fashion. We are going to keep using the housing stock in this fashion and we will just repair it as we go along’. Small wonder that the repair bills have gone up by $2.5m or $3m every year despite the fact that this minister has engaged in something that he said he would not do, and that is selling Territory Housing stock. He sold off stock and he is increasing pressure on stock in town, which ultimately damages the stock so it costs more to run it. That stock sits empty whilst it is waiting for repair because it is no longer habitable. The effect is that now you have stock sitting empty waiting for repair and that is not earning any money, so that is affecting the earning capacity of Housing Business Services, all the while continuing to attract more and more people out of the communities and into the major centres.
All of these things are represented in the figures we have seen recently. According to those figures, and I thought this was a positive thing at first blush, was the value of the housing stock has increased. It has, not because of anything that the minister has done but, rather, the way they count government housing stock in the bush, and how they put a valuation on those houses. That is what increased the value of the housing stock. I would like to see the Minister for Community Development place on the table the numbers of housing stock he currently has, as opposed to 12 months ago. You will see a surprising result.
We had these people responding positively to the Community Harmony project. How are they responding? They are coming out of the communities in which there is not a great deal for them to do, and they are coming to town to the bright lights of Alice Springs, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Darwin. Because of the modern way that the banks operate, they can pick up their money here in town and, sadly, you start to have the effects we are starting to see: increases in public drunkenness. That is why we are arresting more drunks. It is not because we have more police; it is because there are more drunks.
The government can put whatever spin they choose on this issue, but the fact is that there are more drunks out there to be picked up. Yesterday, I was standing on the fourth floor balcony of the Leader of the Opposition’s office, and I heard some noise across at the Chan building, so I went to investigate. I am talking about last night, probably about 9 pm. I went down the elevator and walked out the front of the building, went to the double doors of the Chan building, and there was a group of drunks sitting there drinking. I presume what they were drinking was liquor. I came back here and checked with the security at the front desk who said their interest did not go beyond the building, and I ended up ringing the police. They were sitting right across the forecourt. I am almost certain, without having checked, if we went and had a look there now, we would probably see itinerant people from the communities sitting in Bennett Park and, if not in Bennett Park, almost definitely in Tamarind Park, Raintree Park or on the streets.
The fact is that when itinerant people come to town and find themselves sitting idle, behaviour deteriorates. When they see other people sitting, and the broken windows theory is something with which I know that the Treasurer is familiar, that signal is sent to other itinerants. Behaviour amplifies behaviour, which amplifies behaviour even further. Consequently, we start to see behavioural downturns in the way that people behave which draws attention to them. Often they are drunk when this occurs, and that is why they are locked up in increasing numbers.
If there were not 19 000 people out there on our streets who are drunk, they would not get locked up. It is as simple as that. We had 19 000 drunks last year. How many of those people commit offences? Many of them, and they are not charged. The reason they are not charged often is because the police are overwhelmed by the situation or, sadly, the provisions of section 128 of the Police Administration Act have become a convenient way with which to deal with social issues and behavioural problems in our streets.
I, like so many people, am sick and tired of seeing people urinating, defecating, fornicating and doing all of those other things in our streets and if the minister thinks it is not happening out there, he is kidding himself. I get it in the neck all the time. I hear all the time about what is happening in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and, increasingly, here in Darwin. One of the reasons that the CBD is becoming less and less attractive, sadly, is the increasing number of itinerant people, often who are drunk, in the parks of the CBD. If you go to Coles, it is a secure environment. You can walk into Casuarina Shopping Centre and, once you get through the doors, there are security guards and it is a secure environment. It is far more managed and, therefore, more attractive.
The approach of this government is the head-in-the-sand approach: ‘We are doing this great job. We have this Community Harmony project working. We have these people paying for their own flights because we are going to allow them to engage in book-up despite the fact that we have been very critical of book-up in the past, we are going to fly them back to their communities and they are going to sit out there and everything is going to be sweetness and light’. Well, that is not happening. I would be curious to know from the minister if he is keeping any statistics on this as to whether or not the government is engaging in multiple flights for people.
I am yet to have an answer to the question I asked recently: what happens when these people do not catch their flights and who pays the bill then? I have had no answer whatsoever.
It would not surprise me to discover that the same people are doing return flights more than once because, having spoken to people engaged in the mini-bus services in Alice Springs, I know they get calls out to remote communities and often they will travel out, pick up a group of people and head into town, especially when income has recently been received. When those people get into town, as far as I am aware, they do not make any arrangement to go back. The government offers that they pay for their flight and they can get it on tick. I am curious to know how many people are frequent flyers. That is something the government does not talk about. All we hear is the feel-good, motherhood statements, but what we are not hearing is why we have such a high rate of Aboriginal incarceration in our prisons. We are not hearing is why the number of drunks on our streets is going up.
The government will try to dress this up. The government will try to say it is not a problem. The government will say that their policies are more effective than any policy that has existed before, but it is just not washing out there. It is incumbent upon this government to take some real action and stop using Housing funds to fund programs that have no way of demonstrably proving their success in hard core figures. If those figures exist, they certainly have not been tabled or put before this House. It is about this time government started engaging in policy development that will see an improvement in the situation on our streets, not a deterioration.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this problem is getting worse and worse, not better.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I make it quite clear from the outset that the government rejects this motion. The opposition has no policy. Its only policy, as stated by a former leader, is to monster and stomp on people.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: You had you turn. If you want to learn a few things, listen in. This was a morally bankrupt policy then, and the current mob has not advanced a single moral centimetre since then. It was a socially divisive policy and the current lot has been unable to pursue anything in the way of a whole-of-community inclusive policy since that time.
With the housing portfolio and the whole-of-government Community Harmony strategy driven from my Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs, I can provide a good picture of how these programs are impacting on the problems of antisocial behaviour in our towns and their underlying causes.
First, let us get the terminology right. The Leader of the Opposition finds linguistic shortcuts like ‘itinerant’ helpful as a sort of dog whistling, but he should know that if you seriously want solutions to problems, you need to show that you understand them.
‘Itinerant’ is a word that describes people who travel from place to place. This, obviously, is a broad definition. Not all people who cause trouble about town are itinerant and, indeed, not all itinerants cause trouble. I do not want to quibble, though. I will take the Leader of the Opposition to be referring to the people about urban areas who sometimes cause public concern. These may be long-term members of town camps, visitors to town, permanent long-grassers or people from town simply spending time with friends. Alternatively, they may be people from remote communities who have business in town, visiting sick relatives, doing educational and training courses, attending court or simply shopping at Casuarina.
However, I need to question the use of the word ‘control’. The Leader of the Opposition wants us to control itinerant issues. He quite clearly thinks it is okay to control people. I must remind the opposition that freedom of movement is a fundamental human right protected under international human rights laws. Would they prefer that we stop people from coming to town, hunting itinerants back to the reserves like the good old days of curfews and dog tags?
It is interesting, though, they are quite clearly not talking again because the member for Macdonnell, the shadow minister for Housing, acknowledged in a radio interview last week that: ‘You cannot control other people’.
I feel deeply concerned that the opposition wants to head towards a regime where personal freedom is not respected, a place where a difference of cultures is a cause for concern, not celebration or education. We should not be surprised because we have heard it before from that side. I remind you of their policy: we are going to monster and stomp on these people. That was their policy. So now that you have refreshed yourselves on the CLP policy, here is our policy - and talking about policy, last week we were told in this Chamber that the member for Daly who, under the latest change of leadership, has the portfolio of - what is it?
Mr Henderson: Policy development.
Mr AH KIT: Yes, he is the Chair of Policy Development!
Mr Henderson: But he is going, Jack.
Mr AH KIT: And he is going at the next election. There it is! Yes, member for Daly, Chairman of Policy Development, and just underneath him on the bottom, Peter Maley, member for Goyder, nothing. Blank. He could have been Deputy Chairman of Policy Development. You know, it is supposed to be team work.
Anyway, back to policy development. We were told in this Chamber last week that there was a lot of work being put in on the weekend, and I am sure they worked hard. We want to know what their policies are. We want to know what the details are because we are doing good stuff, you get a bit jealous on that side and you have nothing to trot out to Territorians about your policy development.
Members interjecting.
Mr Acting DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister for Community Development, cease, please. Could we just have a little order in this House? If you want to have a discussion, go outside. Continue, minister.
Mr AH KIT: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. The Community Harmony Strategy is about assisting people to find pathways out of itinerant lifestyles towards either return home or a more productive lifestyle in town. The Community Harmony Strategy works through three over-arching directions for change: first, intervention strategies to reduce antisocial behaviour; second, the provision of adequate infrastructure, including shelter, day and community facilities and accommodation; and third, provision of health and treatment services.
These are the key directions of the Community Harmony Strategy, but as a whole-of-government model, with regional harmony groups identifying issues from the ground up, the strategy has strong links right across government and community with issues of law and order, justice, health, education, business and employment. This is a truly a whole-of-government, whole-of-community model.
In talking about Community Harmony Strategy, I have to stress that the Northern Territory government takes issues of antisocial behaviour in public places very seriously and, no, we do not believe that we are going to solve the problems overnight. We have never said, and nor would we ever say, that we were going to solve the problem. How do you solve a problem instantly that is caused by such a deep-seated and long standing array of issues like chronic overcrowding out bush?
From the Indigenous Community Housing survey that Health conducted for IHANT last year, you would know about the extent of neglect. An average of 38 items were required to be repaired in every house out bush, urgent repairs required on 4000 houses, a back log of over 150 000 repair jobs on a housing system that the Commonwealth refuses to acknowledge is in crisis.
This is a dire situation, reflective of long term neglect, and while the opposition started this survey, the survey has never been so comprehensive and it has never been followed through in the way that it is now. The current survey is followed up through direct feedback and engagement with the indigenous community housing organisations throughout the Northern Territory.
In representing the Northern Territory’s housing needs, I have also tabled a position paper, National Issues in Indigenous Housing 2004-05 and Beyond, at the Housing Ministers conference held in Adelaide on 3 December last year. Again, the member for Macdonnell’s response was that we do not need a single cent of additional Commonwealth money to meet this crisis. Indeed, at a community meeting, I have been told about the member for Macdonnell who has signalled CLP cut backs to facilities out bush. Again, failure to act in the past fits with the picture we have come to know - blind, mindless neglect, stomping and monstering; the CLP policy.
To recap on the key directions of our policy and what we have achieved, we have integrated patrols carried out by service providers, such as Mission Australia, Julalikari, Tangentyere and Kalano, coordinated together with the NT Police, councils, Parks and Wildlife and private security firms where required. There is an attention to and level of coordination in these patrols that has never existed previously. These patrols, supported by the Labor government, have made possible a highly responsive approach to managing hot spots. While we know that the patrols cannot be everywhere all the time, we know were the hot spots are and the patrols are diverted to these areas. This is smart, intelligent policing, not mindless stomping and monstering. Some local businesses, resident groups and, indeed, the police themselves, have reported that these patrols are having a definite effect. They are seeing a dispersion of large groups and that the patrols are doing a great job.
I need to comment too, here, on the connection that has been made a few times between public drunkenness, people being taken into protective custody and the Community Harmony strategy. These are the facts: protective custody apprehensions have increased by about 20% over the period from 2002-03 to 2003-04. During the same time, public order offences have decreased by about 15%. So you see, this suggests that people are being taken into custody before they can commit public order offences. This is indicative of the excellent job that the Northern Territory Police force is doing, showing a proactive approach - again, intelligent smart policing which should be praised on the other side of the House, not belittled and condemned by the acting spokesman on police as he did in his motion this evening.
I need to point out, too, that people in custody have not necessarily committed an offence and they might be there for all sorts of reasons. People in custody are also not necessarily itinerants; they come from all walks of life. To make that leap of logic to suggest, like the member for Macdonnell did, that all people in custody are itinerants and that they are all guilty of some kind of public offence is dangerous and offensive.
Another key platform of the response to antisocial behaviour is the Return to Country strategy, under which 2171 people have returned home. This is a user-pays scheme. I wish that the opposition would get their facts right about this program. Last week, we heard the member for Araluen saying that it is a taxi service, and wanting to know how much it costs. I will say it again in the hope that they take some notes: the Return to Country program is a user-pays system. Eligible Territorians can use the system up to four times in one year, not more than once a month, and they pay for it every time. All debts have to be cleared before the person accesses the next ticket. That means that if people owe money, they cannot use the system again until they have paid off the last debt. This prevents the development of large debts.
More fact, seeing as the opposition seems to be ignorant of them, is that users of the system must provide 24 hours notice of cancellation. If they cannot provide 24 hours notice, they have to pay for either that bus ticket or the flight. I will repeat that for the members opposite: if they cannot provide 24 hours notice, they have to pay for that air flight or bus ticket.
I do not want to harp on the negative misinterpretations of the opposition. The Return to Country program is a successful social program that has reunited people with family and community. That means a lot.
I am happy to talk about the successful Mala Elders program and other similar ones that are popping up across the Territory. We have had great success and excellent feedback about bringing respected elders in from communities to talk to people about country and responsibilities. My department is right now arranging the next visit with a particular focus on people from Wadeye. We are very concerned about the high representation of young men from Wadeye who are moving about Darwin and Palmerston.
On infrastructure, the Labor government has worked hard to find solutions to accommodate people who move about town. The member for Macdonnell said last night in his adjournment that Community Harmony is doing nothing regarding bricks and mortar. Yet, at the same time, and in his ignorance, he condemns Territory Housing for doing just that. He clearly understands nothing about social housing let alone the Territory’s responsibilities in this area through the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, an agreement signed up to by the previous CLP regime.
I am happy to have this opportunity to provide details on the infrastructure we put in place as part of the strategy. We upgraded Knuckey Lagoon at a cost of $700 000. It has the capacity to accommodate, on a temporary basis, up to 100 people. We have upgraded the Christian Outreach Centre at a cost of $145 000. It has capacity for up to 48 people. We upgraded Ozanam House at a cost of $200 000 to provide ablutions for the homeless and destitute. We have upgraded the Safe Families Shelter in Alice Springs at a cost of $80 000. We have upgraded Alice Springs Youth Accommodation Service at a cost of $198 000. This added four bed spaces and a common area. In Katherine, at Katherine Booth House, $80 000 has enabled them to add six additional bed spaces for women in crisis. At Stuart Lodge in Alice Springs is planned, at a cost of $2m, 68 new beds for people needing short-term accommodation.
Through constructing new accommodation together with innovative approaches like accessing existing networks better and upgrading existing accommodation, nearly 300 additional beds have become possible for people in need of crisis and short-term accommodation, but the beds I have described here do not include the ones we have upgraded for health purposes.
The third key direction under the Community Harmony Strategy relates to the provision of health and treatment services. There has been a range of significant infrastructure and service provision developments that the Northern Territory government has supported. We constructed a facility for A New Start To Independence, otherwise known as ANSTI, at a cost of $540 000-odd which has beds for up to 16 people. We upgraded the Drug and Alcohol Service Association at a cost of $155 000 and this has provided six additional beds. Council for Aboriginal Alcohol Program Services, also known as CAAPS, have had upgrades costing $241 000, which have provided space for eight additional beds for assessment, alcohol withdrawal and family support. Additional funds have also enabled sobering up shelters right across the Territory to extend their hours.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, the simple truth is that this debate would be entirely unnecessary if members of the opposition would seek briefings on the Community Harmony program. If they spoke to the many, many Territorians …
Mr Maley interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: Well, it is Wednesday. You can comment today, you are working.
If they spoke to the many Territorians across a huge range of community and business organisations who have devoted many thousands of hours of their time, many in a voluntary capacity to what the program has been about, there would have been no need for this debate. But they do not and they have not. They have no plans other than knee jerk, mindless, blind rhetoric and that is a tragedy for the Northern Territory.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the motion that this Assembly call upon the Chief Minister to explain to parliament why she has failed to live up to her promise to control the itinerant issues that affect Territorians in our urban communities.
I had no idea that the Minister for Community Development had developed such flowery words in the years that he has been in parliament. He is very quick on the uptake and I congratulate him for being colourful in his rhetoric. He is entertaining, but listening to him tonight, we could be forgiven for believing that the itinerant problems that we are experiencing in the Northern Territory and, for me, closer to my heart in Katherine, do not exist. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I heard the Minister for Community Development talk about how idiotic we are on this side of the House, how we have no idea of how anything happens, especially with the Community Harmony program. Well, we do, and of course it happens in Katherine. The Community Harmony program has been running for a couple of years and it was going to be a panacea and solve all the problems in Katherine. We have many people involved on that committee. They meet regularly. There are many programs in place which cost a lot of money. Do you know something, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker? There has not been an improvement in the itinerant problem in Katherine.
Even with all of this money being put in to Return to Country and the different programs in Katherine, I still have the constant harassment of itinerants in the main street who present not only a visual blight, but also, in most instances, they either have verbal diarrhoea, which I call abuse - drunken, loud noises, calling out across the street, fighting, the way they seem to communicate is by yelling. I suppose that all of us in Katherine have been told many times that it is a cultural thing and that we should be accepting of it.
I believe, as do most people in my electorate, is that we have some culture that needs to be respected as well. I live in a nice little country town. Katherine is a really lovely place to live, and I would not be there if it was not, but what spoils it is the itinerant problem, especially in the main street along the river corridor, and the Minister for Community Development is well aware of it. He used to live there. For him to say that he has made these wonderful improvements in Katherine could not be further from the truth. I invite him to come down and spend daylight hours walking up and down the street instead of sitting in places where he cannot see what happens.
As for the minister saying that the only policies that we have are monstering and stomping, that could not be further from the truth. The programs in place in Katherine for Community Harmony serve a certain group of people and only a few of the itinerants. It does not take account of those who do not want to be involved. There are more now on the streets of Katherine who do not want to be involved in Community Harmony programs. They do not want to be told what to do; they want to do their own thing. Well, their own thing is costing Katherine hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, especially in lost income.
In the one area with which I have had a lot of dealings over the years, and the last 11 years especially, is tourism. You would be well aware, as government is, of the amount of money that is put into tourism for marketing. In the first six years that we were in the Red Gum Tourist Park, I was on the Executive of the Katherine Region Tourism Association and for four of those years, I was Chairman, the following year I was the Vice-Chairman and remained on that committee until I was elected as an alderman on Katherine Town Council.
During that time, I could not tell you how many dozens of complaints we had at the Visitor Centre, at all of the accommodation places in Katherine and especially at the caravan parks and camping areas. People would come to the Visitor Centre and say: ‘We were going to stay tonight. Is it safe to stay in Katherine?’ We would say: ‘Yes, of course it is safe to stay in Katherine. We would not be here if it was not’. ‘Oh look, when we were drove in the street there were these Aboriginal people fighting …’ ‘Oh, well, you just ignore them. That is fine. It happens all the time’.
It is not good enough. No one wants to see that sort of thing happening in their main street. In many instances, Pine Creek is very upset that we would even consider tidying up the main street of Katherine because we are the best marketing tool they have! As the tourist drives in one end and sees what they do see on the median strip, lying under the trees, usually blind drunk on the main street on the median strip or under the trees at the Visitor Centre, which is even worse, they do not stop. They continue on to Pine Creek. They fill up with fuel, may get some things at Woolworths supermarket, and go to Pine Creek and fill their two caravan parks up, and they love it; they think it is wonderful. ‘Keep it coming, Fay’, they say. I am not at all happy about that. I want them in Katherine.
We have people come into Katherine and witness some really bad violence in the main street. The Minister for Community Development talked about how we need to respect their culture. Okay. Is it culturally acceptable for two people to be having a physical fight in the main street and then invite a few more in to continue the fight, dribble out on to the road, and let the traffic that is going by maybe try to dodge them, and if we run into them, or we have to jam our brakes on and have an accident with someone else running into us, it is our fault? It is just not acceptable. I have been saying for years, since I have lived in Katherine, that I have a right to live in a community, as does everyone else in Katherine, to go about my business in a place where I am not verballed or spat on, or people spit as you are walking past, or else they call you a ‘f…ing w…. c…’.
Ms Carter: ‘w.... c…’?
Mrs MILLER: That is right - and I get that in Katherine even now. They do not know whether I am a local or not, because they are itinerants just coming in and out of Katherine. I am not doing anything but walking down the street. I am going about my business, either going to the Post Office, the bank or the grocers, wherever I am going, and this is the sort of incident that happens continually in the main street of Katherine.
For people to say that there is no problem, and we have fixed it up, and it is a fundamental human right for itinerants to move from place to place, it may be their fundamental right, but I have a right, too, and so do the people who live in my town, so do those wonderful young families who live at the RAAF Base at Tindal who are absolutely mortified, when they bring their children into the car park of Woolworths to do their shopping, to either witness violence in the car park, violence inside the mall until security can finally get them out, or they are humbugged for a dollar, two dollars, or whatever, and those people cannot wait to bundle their children up, put them in the car and get back to Tindal. So they try to do their shopping when their children are at school or day care or they get someone to look after them so they do not bring them into Katherine. That is really sad.
Here we are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars a year through the Tourist Commission, promoting Katherine as a great place to come and stay, and what do we have when they get here? Now news is travelling fast down the track: ‘Do not stay there. It is a scary place. Do not stay there because those people are there’. In many instances, these travellers have never witnessed indigenous people before. I say ‘indigenous’; we do have some Australian itinerants there as well, but they do not cause problems like the Aboriginal itinerants do.
Mr Kiely: They are Australians, too.
Mrs MILLER: Pardon?
Mr Kiely: They are Australians, too.
Mrs MILLER: White. Okay, white Australians. Okay, you can call me racist, but this is exactly what happens in Katherine, whether you like it or not. I invite you to come down and spend a weekend there. I bet you pack your bags and come back here quick smart.
If I sound really angry about this, I am because I have been making noises for years about this, and everyone is saying: ‘The Community Harmony program is going to solve everything’. Well, I am sorry; we have to have harsher penalties that go along with all this nice touchy-feely stuff that is not working in Katherine. If it is not working in Katherine, it is not working in Alice Springs, it is not working in Darwin and it is not working in Tennant Creek. We are not the only ones.
We have really had enough and the itinerant problem has to be resolved with harsher penalties for those people who come in and spoil the environment, spoil our community as well as have all these nice touchy-feely programs for those people who want to be involved in them. As you know, you cannot move them from place to place. You also cannot make them participate in these programs. The majority of trouble makers will not participate in these programs so it is a lost cause. It is not targeting and dealing with the people who are really causing all the problems.
The Minister for Community Development said: ‘Nothing happens overnight and we have to be patient’, I can remember some members of the Community Harmony program stating exactly that to me two years ago, saying: ‘Fay, be patient, be patient. You are always saying something about the itinerants and trying to do something’. Well, I am not going to stop, either. They said: ‘Be patient’. I have been patient. Nothing has happened. As a matter of fact, it is getting worse. It has to stop. Our dear Minister for Community Development said ‘nothing happens overnight’. I will finish by saying I do not want to live in the land of the long sleep; I want to see something happen.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the motion. Itinerants are the single biggest social problem this ALP government has had to deal with and not only have they refused to acknowledge there is a serious problem, the situation has become worse.
The Chief Minister will not even acknowledge that there is a problem. It has become worse, we know it is worse. Indeed, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, you, the member for Nightcliff, I understand, hosted a public meeting where members of the community had a chance to amplify and articulate some of their concerns about itinerants.
Here we have members of the other side who have been informed. We assume that there is some break down of communications because the Chief Minister has not had the courage to say: ‘I have created a problem here; we are going to deal with it properly’.
There is no doubt that strategy upon strategy upon strategy, policies, and three-point feel-good plans simply do not work. It is rubbish. Harmony upon harmony is rubbish. It does not count for anything unless there is a real result on the ground. The Minister of Community Development said: ‘There is not a problem. If members opposite would have a briefing …’. If you think about that logically, he is saying: ‘There is no problem if you merely seek a briefing’.
I inform the minister that there is a problem. If you talk to any fair-minded and reasonable Territorian who wants to walk along the bike path, take their kid for a walk on the beach or wander up the Esplanade, there are itinerants behaving in the most appalling way; it is a real problem. No amount of hand-holding, briefing, three-point policy or harmony plan is going to save the day; there has to be real action on the ground. In fact, member for Wanguri, this is your opportunity to step up to the plate. You could do something about this …
Ms Carney: He is reading the paper.
Mr MALEY: At least he is here. This is a huge opportunity for the member for Wanguri to really take over the reins of the ALP. It is his opportunity. If anyone can do something about it, he is the only one. The Chief Minister has turned a blind eye to this, so these are words of encouragement. Do not say I never encourage you, member for Wanguri. This is a huge opportunity for you, so step up. I know you have some support among the back bench. I know you speak well, they like what you say, you are a man of action. Just move over and do it.
If the member for Wanguri does not step up to the plate; if he does not do the right thing by Territorians, my prediction is that this is one of the very fundamental issues which is going to cost the Labor government - the one term wonders, the one-term government - at the next election.
Mr Henderson: You are a one-term wonder. Why are you jumping ship?
Mr MALEY: People will – not on this issue alone, but this is a significant issue. For them not to acknowledge that there is a problem, for them to aggravate the problem, to make it worse, means that ultimately, people will issue a fairly significant and harsh verdict on them at the next election.
The Minister for Community Development and Housing attacked my colleague the member for Araluen with criticism of her observations of the Return to Country program. The member for Araluen got it right when she said it is nothing but a taxi service. It has aggravated the situation. We know it has. We are told that now is it easier for people to come to town, easier for them to get home so that is exactly what they are doing. They are coming here and the itinerant problem is being aggravated. One way or the other, the message is clear: it is aggravating the problem. The message is not only to the Chief Minister in support of this motion; there is also a fairly blatant message to itinerants.
It is clear from the community, from anyone who has a family, who enjoys Darwin, who is passionate about the place: itinerants, you are not welcome here. You are not welcome if you behave in such an appalling way that our tourists are offended. You are not welcome if you are drunk and you fight and you swear and you accost decent, hardworking taxpayers from going about their daily business.
I caught some of the Minister for Community Development’s speech. It was not all doom and gloom and feel-good comments. Obviously, he was reading it for the first time and they were not his words, but nevertheless, there was some credit – and credit where credit is due: the Knuckey Lagoon complex does a pretty good job. That type of real option, properly used, is something that could address the problem.
There was also reference to ANSTI. My hat goes off to the incredible amount of work they do for people – itinerants sometimes, but for anyone with a serious alcohol or drug dependency-related problem. So, they are real, hard, physical solutions to a problem, both of which incidentally existed, were germinated and flourished under the former CLP government. This government certainly cannot take a scintilla of credit for those programs. They can have credit because they did not scrap them, but they cannot take any credit for germinating the idea.
There is a real need for some action on the ground. We know in the long term the only real solution is an economic one. It is in the creation of jobs, not just for the do-gooders and the hand-holders, but real jobs for these itinerants, jobs that will create dignity in their communities. Give them a job. Give them a hand up, not a hand out. There needs to be some real reform of the land tenure system and we will touch upon that during the course of the election campaign.
We need to deal with this problem with some compassion. What we do not need to do is be patronised and told to just lob upstairs for a briefing and the problem is going to disappear. What a load of rubbish. I wish those comments could be broadcast directly into every single household in the Northern Territory. The minister, one of the men charged with having responsibility for this – of course, the Chief Minister carries the mantle – his response is that there is no problem, come and get a briefing. What a load of rubbish. There is a problem. Walk down the Esplanade tonight. There is a problem. It is, quite frankly, a disgrace.
The Chief Minister made a promise and probably similar to the public pledges she made, there will be no new taxes – oh no, hang on, we have the rego tax – there will be no job losses – oh, sorry, we have just wiped out an enormous amount of potential and the CEOs and these people who were committed to the public service, they got the flick quick smart.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, we have seen promise after promise broken, but this promise cuts to the very heart of some of the social problems that affect families every day. Unless the Chief Minister has the courage to step up to the plate and acknowledge it as a problem, then we are really calling on the member for Wanguri to do the right thing and take over. He is the only one who makes sense sometimes. He has to step up and take the job, which is his; we know it is his. It is just a matter of time.
Ms Carney: And we know he wants it!
Mr MALEY: God, he wants it! He has been lobbying. He is a machine; a lobbying machine. He deserves that job. So bring on the next election! Let the people of the Northern Territory give their verdict on the success of the Chief Minister’s promise to fix the problem. I suspect, just like me, the majority of Territorians are starting to realise that this Chief Minister has been a failure and has dropped the ball on itinerants.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the motion. The Chief Minister has promised to control itinerant problems in our urban centres and she has failed. She has been unable to do it. I agree with my colleagues that over the last few years, the problem is only getting worse.
In Port Darwin, the problem fluctuates depending on the season and events in the community. The problem is public drunkenness, which is how I view the issue. I agree with the Minister for Community Development that not all itinerant people cause major problems. Many of them probably behave in a relatively quiet and unobtrusive matter because they have the smarts; they know where to go to keep out of trouble. Sure, during daylight hours, they might come and sit in the mall to see what is going on, but at other times, they quietly move off somewhere and they do not cause a problem.
It is the public drunkenness and the behaviour that stems from that which causes problems. There is a certain solid cohort of itinerants who participate in this behaviour. I talked about this last week when we discussed policing issues, and I cited a couple of incidents that I witnessed. Since then, I have seen other things happen.
In the CBD, the problem is concentrated in the mall area and Knuckey Street in particular. Last Wednesday night at around 7 pm, I slipped out for a meeting, and I saw an itinerant female who was quite obviously drunk chasing one of the workers from a cafe up the street. He was trying to defend himself as she was trying to lay into him. She was a big, solid woman and he was a relatively slight man. He had a look of terror on his face, and I am sure his dilemma was whether he tried to deal with the woman on the street, away from the business, or whether to seek sanctuary on the premises and upset the patrons. He was at a loss as to what to do. Unfortunately, I did not have my phone, else I would have phoned the police. I am sure that others did at the time.
On Monday of this week during the luncheon adjournment, I walked from Parliament House through Bennett Park to the mall. At 1 pm, there were men sitting in Bennett Park drinking beer from VB stubbie bottles, obviously consuming alcohol in public within a 2 km radius of a licensed premise. These would be, no doubt, part of the groups that are starting to congregate at the Chan Building, which is a very disappointing development I have noticed over the last few months. It was reported to me today that there was a significant group of people located outside Spillett House in Smith Street, about 80 m from the mall, drinking yellow liquid from soft drink bottles, and I do not think we need much imagination to figure out what that yellow liquid was.
This is the problem that we face in the CBD. Like the member for Katherine, my concern is not only for constituents who live in this electorate who find moving around the CBD, walking along the Esplanade, those sorts of places stressful when they are accosted by people who are drunk, and they are not always Aboriginal people, they most certainly include white men, who I personally find far more frightening. If I am confronted by a drunk, I would much rather be confronted by an Aboriginal person than a drunken white person any day. It does not matter which race people are from, it is drunken behaviour that is the issue, and drug-affected behaviour, but I suspect most of the time it is drunken behaviour.
This is the issue. As locals, we cannot walk the streets without being concerned for our safety, and then, I am ashamed when I see tourists being accosted by drunks because you can see it written all over their faces, their dismay, their fear, their confusion, as to what is happening. ‘Can someone help me? Beam me up, Scotty, please, and I am going to tell everyone I know that Darwin is not a great place to come and visit’. It breaks my heart to see situations like that. I, like the member for Katherine, am sick of it, and it is the government’s job to tackle the problem, and their efforts so far have been nothing short of failure.
The Minister for Community Development cites the Community Harmony program, and sure, that kicked off a few years ago now, and I have to say I was pretty sceptical about it, as various airy fairy strategies were put to us, but we held our breath and hoped for the best. In the CBD, we had the development of the Larrakia Ambassadors, and for a week or so, I saw people in uniforms wandering around the mall, and then they disappeared. I do not know where they have gone. They are apparently somewhere, but you do not see them in the mall, as they were meant to be, talking to the people from out of Darwin, telling them what the Larrakia story is here, informing them that this is Larrakia land and that, as visitors to Larrakia land, they should behave themselves.
Colourful posters and signs went up in windows and on lamp posts, and it is sad, but the ones that were on the posts have been smashed. My understanding is that apparently people from outside of Darwin see themselves as far more traditional with far more culture than the Larrakia people and they do not take any notice of the Larrakia people. I suspect that that is why we do not see the Larrakia Ambassadors around any more because maybe the Larrakia Ambassadors found that they were not having much of an effect, that they were finding it unpleasant and uncomfortable. If they were being abused by people from outside of Darwin, I do not blame them if they no longer continue with this program. We have not heard any update for a very long time as to what happened to the Larrakia Ambassadors.
The Minister for Community Development, as usual, slams the CLP, blames us for everything and says we did nothing and hooray, thank God for Labor; they are here and they are fixing everything. I remind the minister that if you look at the initiatives and strategies introduced by the CLP and, I might add, are continued to this day, they are the only real and tangible things that we still have going, and I speak specifically about Community Patrols going out, known at that time as Night Patrols, but now doing it 24 hours a day as Community Patrols. They are still going, and they are great. Sobering-up shelters – we built those sobering-up shelters. We are the ones who pushed for them, and they are another great initiative which, fortunately, this government continues to support.
The other initiative was transient housing in places like Knuckey Lagoon, as the member for Goyder mentioned. There are successes out there and they were CLP initiatives. You guys on the other side, please keep supporting them, but do not forget when you are giving your responses to issues like this, it was us, the horrible CLP, that kicked those strategies off. It is great to see that you are still supporting them, and I encourage you to keep doing that.
One of the things that is needed with regards to itinerant issues is cheap, affordable support accommodation. Many non-government organisations such as the Salvation Army and St Vincent de Paul, over the years, have provided that. I find it disturbing that the Minister for Community Development cites as number two plank in his Community Harmony program the provision of accommodation as important for these people. I ask the Minister for Community Development: what has happened to St Vincent de Paul? Their shelter in Westralia Street no longer operates providing accommodation at night for Aboriginal people because it does not have enough money to staff it. Let us hear from the minister why the government is no longer supporting, in an adequate sense, St Vincent de Paul to provide this important service. I can guarantee you that the loss of those beds close to the CBD has affected our problem in the CBD. Where is their support for a wonderful organisation like St Vincent de Paul in the provision of that essential service?
Last week, I spoke on the issue of policing in the CBD and of my concerns with it, always stressing, of course, my great support of our police service, but couching that with concern that I understand that they obviously have difficulty day after day being expected to enforce the 2 km law. However, in the short term, the solution to our public drunkenness problem is the constant enforcement of the 2 km law. Several years ago, as members are aware, I had the great pleasure of going to Cairns and meeting with Mayor Burns. After having examined the inner city area and being very impressed with the way it was operating, particularly with regard to itinerants which I know had been an issue in Cairns, I asked him: ‘What have you done? Where are your itinerants?’ He explained to me that the solution is, in the short term, pressure, pressure, pressure. What he specifically meant by that was that there was constant pressure and vigilance to not reward bad behaviour by allowing this behaviour of public drunkenness to continue unchecked in the CBD, but instead to tip out the alcohol.
That is what these drunks want to do: sit in the midst of the CBD, under a tree in comfy chair with some poor employed person coming along every day to pick the litter up. They want to sit in a nice possie, watch life go by and get plastered. That is what they want to do. We should not be reinforcing that bad behaviour by letting it go on unchecked. Unfortunately, that is what we are doing. We have to keep the pressure up and, unfortunately, it does fall to our police to have to do that. We have to keep the pressure up so that when I walk down the mall or Knuckey Street, when my rellies are up visiting and walking through Bennett Park, they are not confronted by drunken people abusing them, accosting them, demanding money from them, nor are they going to have to be subjected to witnessing the violence that we all see. It is terribly distressing for all of us to see people fighting each other. We do not do that; we are not used to that. It is not part of our life experience to constantly have to see that. For the people perpetrating the violence, it is a tragedy for them.
You only have to look at the faces, in particular of the Aboriginal women in this town, to see their distorted, swollen faces, to see the history of their sad lives. The problem is caused by alcohol. We should not tolerate it; alcohol must be tipped out. I know it is an unpleasant job, but it must be done. It is our obligation. It is the government’s obligation. It is the Chief Minister’s obligation to make sure more is done to ensure that the 2 km law is enforced. If not, we end up with tourists leaving. As fast as they can get in, they are leaving. The look of horror on their face; they are out of here. They cut their length of stay as short as possible and they are gone. That is that problem.
The other problem that concerns me is the loss of great Territorians who are getting sick to death of this situation and who tell me constantly - wonderful people who are leaving the Territory and saying they cannot stand it any more: ‘I cannot walk up the street without seeing it. I do not have to look at it any more. It is fantastic down south’. I hear this constantly, particularly in late January when you start bumping into people at the post office who have been away: ‘Sue, mate, it was great down in …’ I would say far too cold and far too isolated and far too dry place, but people love it because they do not have to see public drunkenness. Unfortunately, they are often middle-aged Territorians whom I thought were going to retire here and they are voting, as the member for Macdonnell says, with their feet. That is another outcome of this deteriorating situation with public drunkenness.
I agree with the Minister for Community Development. He is right. There is no quick fix for the actual deep cause of these problems. There is not a quick fix, but there is a fix, and it is a quick fix, for the symptom that we see, and that is public drunkenness. The deep-seated cause is the social and economic situation of many of the people who become our public drunks, and that is going to take some real tackling.
It has been very encouraging over the past few years to hear Aboriginal community leaders, including leaders who sit in this House, voicing their concerns and belief that Aboriginal people need to look at what they are doing and move forward, particularly with regards to education and economic achievement. They describe their communities as dysfunctional. No wonder that people who are coming from so-called dysfunctional, and I would say generally remote, communities often come to places like Darwin because it is a wonderful place.
The streets are clean, it is generally quiet, it is interesting to watch. You could sit in the mall all day watching life go by. It is a fabulous place with weather that supports such an activity. I do not blame people who are coming from so-called dysfunctional communities and I welcome people to Darwin regardless of from where they come. They can stay as long as they like as long as their behaviour is acceptable and not upsetting other people who are going about their business.
Madam Speaker, in the short term, public drunkenness can be tackled by enforcing the 2 km law, and that comes under the concept of pressure. We must provide the police with the resources and the encouragement to do that. It is not easy but it has to be done if we are to retain our Territory lifestyle for all to enjoy for decades to come.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I would like to share some observations about this motion. The itinerant problem in Central Australia, I am sure, mirrors what many of my colleagues have been expressing about Darwin. Constantly, I receive phone calls from constituents and business people complaining about the increasing difficulties with itinerants coming to Alice Springs and causing mayhem. It is literally mayhem. Business people are so fed up with the situation, they are selling up and moving out of town.
Todd Street and Gap Road are locations of constant social disruption. The antisocial behaviour is unbelievable. I received a phone call from a motel owner recently who, within the period of one week, had three motor vehicles interfered with or stolen or damaged at the premises. One belonged to a chef who started work two days previously. Is it a wonder why people say: ‘I am going to still stay in Alice Springs and put up with all this antisocial behaviour and disruption to my life’?
It is difficult for people who come from interstate to try to make a life in Alice Springs, getting employment when they can and then to find that their supposedly tranquil life is suddenly impacted upon in a way over which they have absolutely no control.
We have people in business in Gap Road who have lived in Alice Springs for nearly 25 or 30 years who are now selling up and saying to me: ‘We are sick of all these problems with antisocial behaviour in Alice Springs caused mostly by itinerants. We are going to sell our properties and go interstate’. Each week, we lose a family from Alice Springs. It is no wonder that the town continues to suffer.
The Chief Minister does not seem to understand that she has to take some responsibility for this increased activity and do something positive about it. Many of the feel-good policies that the government has are important because people need to feel good about themselves. Policies that encourage the development of self-respect and self-esteem are useful, but, at the end of the day, along with that, they must have responsibility for self. They must have responsibility for their own actions and accept those actions.
Walk down the street in Alice Springs. Walk past Greatorex Park. That is the park around the fountain outside the Greatorex Building. Before the town council put the enclosure around their compound so they could re-construct the Council Chambers, the gardens were full of litter and sitting amongst the litter were itinerants. After living there for a while, they move on and the litter stays behind. Who has to clean it up? Council workers or contractors who clean up Greatorex Park.
No other person would, I suggest, sit in a park to relax for a few hours with their picnic lunch and walk away leaving everything behind. Yes, they might leave one or two articles behind sometimes because they have overlooked them, but you do not leave all your rubbish behind expecting someone else to clean up behind you. That untidiness and littering takes away the aesthetics of the surrounding area. Greatorex Park and the town council lawns are very nice green areas in Alice Springs. It is poor hygiene. Alice Springs is promoted as a tourist town, and when tourists walk past, they see all that. It does not imbue a sense that we are proud of our town, we are a clean town. We want it to disappear.
I heard the minister talk about the Return to Country program, that it is user pays, and people must clear their debt before they are entitled to another Return to Country ticket or pay up front. I know for a fact that the minibuses in Alice Springs have been called by people in communities. Those minibuses will drive out 200 km or 300 km, pick up a whole bunch of people and come into town. I cannot imagine the expense that these people would go through to pay for a minibus to drive all the way from Alice Springs to the communities to bring them into town. It hurts. Maybe I am just Chinese Scotsman who does not want to spend that sort of money, but it hurts to think someone would pay hundreds upon hundreds of dollars to get a minibus to pick them up and bring them to town.
When they come into town, many of them do not ask to be returned to country. They stay in town. Some of them have very legitimate reasons. They come in for either legal or health services. If they come in for health services, I know they get PATS to pay for them so that they can come in that way. It seems that the mechanics of it all, or the government processes, do not pick them up after they finish with their health or legal service to take them home. So they linger in Alice Springs.
When I was the minister for Housing, we were exploring how we can develop temporary housing for these itinerants. I am surprised that this government, which espoused that it was going to do lots of things for indigenous people, has not carried through the idea of creating temporary housing for these itinerants or visitors from the bush. Instead, all they have done is move many people from bush into urban homes in places like Larapinta, and it is no wonder you then have all this antisocial behaviour. You bring them into single location, there is a high density of them living there, with very little urban living skills, and then you have problems.
I see many indigenous people yell to each other across the street. My electorate office is smack in the middle of a very busy area. The post office is across from my office, and I hear people yelling across the road. I do not find that offensive. I am used to that because Chinese talk loudly, we yell across the street to each other as well, and that is normal behaviour as far as I am concerned. Others, who are not used to it, find it not so much offensive, but scary. Someone is yelling, someone is angry and there is a problem. They then recoil from that yelling.
When you watch it, though, it is actually two people having a great discussion, albeit in a very loud voice, yelling across the street. I do not have a problem with that. If I were in government, you try and explain that to people. Say: ‘Hey, that is fine. It is not a problem. This is just two people having a conversation’. That sort of cultural understanding needs to happen. If you explain to people, they will say: ‘Oh, okay. That is all it is’.
The other side of the coin is that the people who talk loudly could also be shown that most people around the town do not talk so loudly, so if you are going to talk loudly, soften it a little bit. There is a compromise, and the people in town can cope with it if there is loud yelling across the street, and the people who yell might yell a little bit softer, and therefore we will not have the problem.
That is the sort of thing that is important in Alice Springs and perhaps even in Darwin: there is not enough cross-cultural education provided. People do not understand each other, and that then promotes a sense of discomfort, even a sense of distrust.
I am sure most Aboriginal people like to have all the services and facilities that everyone in society wants. However, you have to make sure that, when those services are provided, they are provided as a hand up. I support the comments of the member for Goyder of having a policy of hand up rather than hand out, because hand outs means you sit there: ‘We will look after you, do not worry about it. As long as you sit there, and I can look after you, I will always have a job and it does not matter whether you do or not’. That then promotes a sense of loss or inability to get out of whatever situation you are in.
Coming back to the issue of accommodation for people coming from the bush into Alice Springs, whether they come for medical or any other service, I am disappointed that for three-and-a-half years, this government has been in power, they have not explored how they can improve short-term accommodation for visiting indigenous people from the bush. I am sure there are many ways of doing it. For three-and-a-half years, I have not heard any ideas come from the government as to how they are going to do it, and it is time they did something. We have six months left before the next election. Perhaps it is a little late now, but at least if you start exploring, there is some direction that we can see clearly …
Ms Martin: Stuart Lodge.
Dr LIM: Stuart Lodge? Stuart Lodge is not adequate.
Ms Martin: I just said that the minister made a statement on it last week. Accuracy is important.
Dr LIM: No, no, I said to you that it is not adequate. Stuart Lodge has not enough accommodation to accommodate the numbers of people coming into town. They do not have enough space to accommodate. You need more than that. For three-and-a-half years, that is all you have done. Do more than that. You want to promote indigenous rights and getting them into Alice Springs. Everyone living in the middle of nowhere would say: ‘Look, why don’t I want to go down to the bright lights? Of course, I would want to have the bright lights and have the services of a city’. However, make sure that they can at least have some semblance of accommodation, a place where they can have a wash and go to toilet and the normal basic things that we all expect. Make sure that is available. Otherwise, you allow more and more of these problems.
Mrs Gerry Baddock writes letters week after week to the newspaper complaining about Basso Road. She has invited the member for Stuart out there to have a look. She complains to him, writes to him, rings his office and she gets absolutely no satisfaction. She rings me, I ring the police, the police go out there and, by the time they turn around to come back out of Basso Road, the groups are back there again. She tells you quite clearly that the hygiene outside her backyard is intolerable. The people who gather out there and the antisocial behaviour that they demonstrate is intolerable. However, no one seems to want to do anything about it.
We talk about the violence and the injuries that many of the indigenous women suffer from alcohol abuse. All you have to do is walk into the Emergency Department of the Alice Springs Hospital and you see people absolutely disfigured, not only facially but, if you look at their arms, they have multiple fractures or old fractures where the alignment of the bones have all been absolutely distorted. If you took an X-ray, you would see multiple fractures, old and new. That sort of behaviour is rife in town, and you have to somehow stop that. You stop that by providing good housing, which is important. You have to make sure that you ensure that they do not abuse alcohol as they are prone to do - not that I am suggesting that you have total alcohol ban in Alice Springs; that would be the last thing you would be the last thing you would want to do because that would present more problems than it solves.
I support the motion because this government has failed to do the things that it promised. They were going to do all kinds of great things for indigenous Territorians. While they have picked up on the itinerants program, which, thankfully, we started and, like every successful thing this government has been able to maintain or complete, they have taken on a CLP initiative prior to the change of government. I congratulate the government for taking on the itinerants program and keeping on with it, but they are not doing enough.
This graph that was shown to me today is a classic. I do not know, Madam Speaker, whether you have seen this graph yourself. In this graph you will see where this is a change of government and this is the last three years of this government’s period in the Territory. It is protective custody for being drunk. If you look at the non-indigenous, that is the brown colour, there is a very marginal increase whereas with the dark blue, the indigenous number is increasing each year. Obviously, the total is going up each year as well. Over the last three years, it has increased by 5678 and that is an indictment. There are obviously more drunks in the street and they are being picked up more.
It is time that this government really did meaningful things for indigenous people instead of being racially divisive. The way the Minister for Community Development spoke, he always comes in with the race card. The CLP are always the racists, the CLP are the ones who always tread down on Aboriginal people. I say to him that is a lot of rubbish. The CLP’s policies were good. The CLP can hold its head up high that it has been able to relate to indigenous people a lot better than this government has. The CLP has never been racist. We have tried to have one rule for all, whether you are black or white or in-between. The Chief Minister and her government have to take some of the responsibility that she has failed.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I intended to take up the full 20 minutes, but what needed to be said has been said and repeated. The member for Macdonnell will sum up shortly, but I wanted to make a few points, and I accept that notwithstanding what I have just said, some of these may appear repetitious, but I do not propose to spend much time on them.
I was interested to hear the minister give what amounted to a definition of itinerants. Yes, minister, itinerants do move around. They are itinerant by their nature. My constituents do not call them itinerants; they call them all sorts of things. It would be unparliamentary to disclose what some of those terms are, but let us look at the facts.
Yes, itinerants move around. Some, not all, itinerants are Aboriginal. Some, not all, are drunks and some, not all, create problems for the people around them. I copped a fair bit of criticism for saying at the Alice Springs sittings that we have drunks on the streets in Alice Springs and that they are causing problems. I will say that any day of the week for as long as I am in the Northern Territory under a Martin Labor government because it has become noticeably worse. I say this not just based on my own observations, but on the information we receive in my electorate office.
When I take calls from young mothers saying that they are concerned about their kids playing in the Frank McEllister Community Park, which is in the heart of my electorate, because drunks are occupying the park and the mother does not feel safe about letting her kids go there, I am concerned. When I hear, again, young mothers explain to me the difficulties they have had pushing a pram and carrying shopping through the CBD of Alice Springs, I know exactly what they are talking about: drunks in the streets of Alice Springs making their lives difficult. Most of the drunks are itinerants.
The minister cannot just say: ‘Well, it is all under the Community Harmony program and therefore it is all over, Red Rover’. That is the not the case. I have a bit of time for the minister on a personal basis; he does care and have a commitment to improving the lives of indigenous Territorians, and I commend him for that, but he is the minister, and I cannot see the results. If the minister were honest with himself, I do not think he would be able to see the results, either.
The people in my electorate cannot see the results. I live in my electorate; I want to see the results. I really do. When I see and hear of people not just in my electorate, but elsewhere in Alice Springs, saying that they have had enough and they are going south, the main reason they cite is the drunks. They do not call them itinerants; they call them ‘the drunks’, and that’s what they are. That is based on not only my observations, as I have said, but story after story after story recounted to me.
We can play ping-pong across the Chamber any day of the week and, often, we do. However, I would like the minister to give some consideration to what else can be done and what sort of performance indicators might exist in relation to the Community Harmony program. What exactly is he looking for? He quoted a figure - I cannot remember what it was, but he said that so many people had been returned to country. That’s great, but I would like to hear some information on what happens then. Do they come back? How often do some people use the service?
He criticised me for referring to it as a taxi service. That is the information I have been provided with by a number of people. Instead of just criticism, I would have liked a bit more detail as to why it is that he thinks the Community Harmony program is so good.
I was very interested in what the member for Port Darwin had to say. She recounted again tonight, as she did last night, an experience she had. As women in this Chamber, we are all very aware of walking the streets both at night and during the day, and I agree with the member for Port Darwin. I would feel less fearful seeing an Aboriginal itinerant in the middle of the night often as I walk back to my hotel from this parliament than a whitefella. So it is not a race issue. It is about not all itinerants, but some itinerants, some of them Aboriginal, some of them drunk.
For my part in Alice Springs, what I see is the fact that most of them are Aboriginal and most of them are drunk. I would like to know what the government is doing about that. I should also say that in the crime statistics that are published quarterly by this government – and the minister and I again play ping-pong with our media releases every time they are issued, and I have said before that - I am interested in why it is that instances of antisocial conduct are not recorded. I am certain that the police, if they are not collecting that information, will certainly be able to collect it, and I simply ask the question: why is it that those sorts of things are not contained in the crime stats?
I do not believe the Chief Minister has commented on the motion, but in her capacity of Tourism minister, she would know that itinerants, drunks, call them what you like, have the potential to impact significantly on the Territory’s fine tourism industry. How often have all of us heard stories from tourists, sometimes friends and family, sometimes people we do not even know? We have heard stories from these people saying that they have had terrible experiences with itinerants, that women in particular feel fearful. Some of them come from different cultures overseas, so they are not able to necessarily gauge, on culturally equal terms, I suppose, white or black itinerants, so maybe there are more fearful than Australians.
I do not think we can underestimate the serious impact that itinerants or drunks have on our tourism industry. I do not believe the Minister for Health has contributed to this debate. There is another link with itinerants and drunks regarding nurses. We know that we have a nursing shortage in the Northern Territory. Not only are the nurses at the hospital patching these people up after so many of them, although not all, but so many of them bash one another up. The nurses are there at the coalface patching these people up day after day after day. The nurses also come into the Northern Territory, and so many of them, of course, drift away. From my own experience, based on some nurses I know, they are, forever it seems, expressing the view that they want to leave the Northern Territory because they are sick of the daily patching up of the itinerants or drunks.
There is a population decline issue here, and I know the Chief Minister has talked about that, as indeed have some of her colleagues, in the past. We are suffering a population decline in the Northern Territory, and I suggest that is a factor in some of, although certainly not all, the population decline. We all know about people, whether they are friends or constituents or whatever, who say: ‘I have had enough’, or ‘Our family has had enough and we are going down south’.
They are just a few things that touch upon many of the portfolios. I look up and see the member for Wanguri who is the minister for Business. He must surely know of the dreadful effects that itinerants or drunks have on small business owners. I speak to proprietors of businesses in the mall, which is in the electorate of Araluen, regularly. They are very concerned that they are going to have to put shutters on their windows, not unlike what we see in Tennant Creek. Not all of the shop owners in Tennant Creek have erected that type of barriers on their shops because of itinerants, and I do not suggest that for a moment, but it is a factor. Some itinerants, some drunks, cause damage and commit crimes. So you can look at it from a business perspective.
When I was the Tourism shadow, I was made aware of a catch phrase, and it is a good one. I do not know who thought of it, but it does not really matter, and that was ‘Tourism is everyone’s business’. Itinerants are everyone’s business. It permeates into all of our lives as politicians. To suggest otherwise really is delusional. It affects so many aspects of our lives here in the Northern Territory that the impact of it simply cannot be under-estimated.
The minister, in essence, to the extent that I understood what he was saying, said: ‘Do not worry. It is all in the Community Harmony Program’. That falls a long way short in my view, and given the minister’s commitment to this area, I would have expected much more from him, and I say that both in a professional and personal sense.
I look forward to the minister talking about this more at the next sittings. No doubt, it will be revisited in the normal colourful way these things are, but I wanted to give a measured contribution tonight, because we can all get hyped up about our contributions in the Chamber, but this is a really serious issue, and the minister should act. I would like to see some evidence of action, not just sentiments, and not just comments like: ‘It is all in the Community Harmony Program. I very strongly support the motion. Naive though I am, I would ask, nevertheless, for government members to similarly support the motion.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, of course, we have only heard one member of government speak and that is the minister, not the Chief Minister to whom this motion is directed. Like the member for Araluen, I will be measured in my closing comments.
The member for Araluen pointed out, quite correctly, that we have had this debate to death. By way of interjection, the Leader of Government Business, whilst he was reading his newspaper, said: ‘Yes, I have heard it all before’. We all have. The fact is we have all heard it before and nothing is happening - zero, zilch, nothing.
I took my own little challenge up during this debate. During my opening comments, I set down the challenge to go for a walk. I thought: ‘Why don’t I? Why don’t I go for a walk around town, on spec at 8.15 pm, from here to the Chan Building through Bennett Park, down through the mall to Raintree Park, hang a left at Knuckey down to Tamarind Park, and then along Mitchell back to Parliament House?’ It took me about 10 or 15 minutes to complete the circuit.
On that circuit, as I walked passed the Chan Building, there was half-eaten tin of corn and several loaves of bread mushed up and left, obviously, by itinerants because people do not eat corn out of tins when they are having lunch and throwing their lunch away if they are office workers. That is part of the litter problem that goes with it.
On walking through Bennett Park, there was only one there tonight, asleep on one of the park benches. On walking down the mall, a police van came past and right behind the police van was an old man rummaging through a bin. As I then went down to Raintree Park, one old woman was yelling indiscriminately at no one in particular. Then there were several people sitting down in the middle of Raintree Park, no offence, as they do every night.
By that stage, I had reached Raintree Park. There were several items of litter lying around. There were several people sitting near the taxi rank with rubbish surrounding them. I walked through, along Tamarind Park. Three fellows sitting in Tamarind Park did not appear to be up to too much. I cannot tell what they were drinking out of the plastic bottles; it may have been water or wine. They were surrounded by a bit of rubbish.
There was one busker out there who was playing his didgeridoo. Good luck to him! At least he is doing something. He had his little blanket out, and sitting next to him was his wife with a cast all the way up her leg. Then I walked along Mitchell Street and there was a woman I walked past who was staggering. Maybe she has an injury, but I would say it is much more likely that she was staggering because she was drunk. I made my way back to Parliament House.
That was just on spec. It was a walk at 8.15 pm on a Wednesday evening. Not all of them were Aboriginal, I might add. However, there was a signal, a message that I was trying to glean out of this. The message was this: there are certain no-go zones at 8.15 pm on a Wednesday evening in Darwin because if I was a woman walking through these environments, I would feel uncomfortable, I imagine. It is all right for me, I am a big, burly bloke, and I know how to look after myself. However, I have heard several of the members in here tonight say that they are a little concerned about walking through those environments, and I can well understand why.
Mr Bonson: Unreal!
Mr ELFERINK: It is interesting. I did not hear what the member for Millner just interjected, but if he wanted to say something, I imagine he would have risen to his feet and said something in this debate.
Mr Bonson: I am not going to lower myself to the debate, member for Macdonnell.
Mr ELFERINK: He has something to share, but nothing he is prepared to put on the record - nothing that he is prepared to put on the record.
Mr Bonson: I put on the record that I do not want to lower myself to your debate.
Ms Carter: Pardon?
Mr ELFERINK: He does not want to lower himself to the debate. Well, that one I did hear, Madam Speaker. He does not want to lower himself to the debate. Madam Speaker, if he thinks this is lowering himself to a debate, he is living in La-La land. The fantasy in which he is engaging is that it is all sweetness and light out there and because we have the audacity to raise this issue again and again in this parliament, that in some way, is lowering himself to the debate …
Mr Stirling: Oh, do not stretch it!
Mr ELFERINK: Now the Treasurer pipes up. He had an opportunity to say something and, all of a sudden, he has something to say now. Well, get to your feet and put it on the record.
This problem is not going away and just throwing money at it ain’t going to fix it. Many of these people come from remote communities in the Northern Territory - some do not, some do. I can understand why they come from these communities because there is not much to do there. The management systems in these communities need to change because these people need to find some sort of occupation out there. That is a management issue, not a race issue. Management issues have to change on these communities.
Education is always a problem and I know that the minister for Education struggles to try to do something about this, but education is not the only solution. Boredom seems to be one of the great underlying factors in a lot of this stuff and I know the problems are not getting better in the remote communities. I looked at the newspaper the other day and at Groote Eylandt they disarmed a family with enough weapons to probably arm a Saxon horde raiding North England
The situation in these communities is not improving. I see it myself every single time I go out. Ganga is a problem, alcohol is a problem. Now it is just coming into town. Well, big surprise!
The government must respond to this stuff with more than platitudes about community harmony projects. It is not working. It is evidenced in what you see on the street every day, evidenced by the results in the statistics. If the Community Harmony program was working and people were taking notice of what the government was urging them to do, we would not have incarceration rates either for protective custody or in our prisons that we currently have.
Madam Speaker, I know that we have been over this a hundred times, I know we going to go over it again, but until some of this stuff changes, it is going to keep coming up in this parliament.
Motion negatived.
By way of general comment, that sort of autocratic approach to Ms Machado and her husband was beyond the pale. In any other environment, if someone was evicted from their job and their home and given six hours to clear out, it would have been a reprehensible abuse of power by a statutory authority or government department or whoever was doing it. The executive arm of the Central Land Council is becoming a law unto itself, including the fact they often do not listen to their own constituency. I hear that frustrations expressed by a regularly. That is by the by.
The fact is that they were driven off the land in a most unceremonious circumstance. Had they been tenants, under the Tenancy Act there would have been a three month process and court appeals and all those sorts of things. None of that was available. The permits were revoked under legislation that is under the purview and control of the Attorney-General. It is not the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. The permits are issued essentially under the Aboriginal Land Act which is Territory legislation.
I draw the minister’s attention to a couple of parts of the Aboriginal Land Act specifically section 5(5):
If you look at the electorate of Stuart, with its enormous size, and it happens the minimum period of an election in the Northern Territory, I suggest that it is physically impossible to travel the whole of that electorate and canvass if the interpretation is that you must wait until writs are issued. If you allow for a week of bush polling, on a 17-day campaign, that means there are 10 days to visit the electorate of Stuart – physically impossible. The minister himself would attest to this.
This goes to the heart of democracy because people have a right to meet their candidates. The railroading of Ms Machado off the Willowra community, for whatever reason, should not preclude her from visiting potential voters in the electorate for which she is vying.
It is unclear how the word ‘candidate’ is defined under the act. If the candidate is prevented from travelling the length and breadth of the electorate and from speaking to people by virtue of an onerous decision by an executive body under an approach to Administrative Law, which is nothing short of ruthless, democracy for Aboriginal people on Aboriginal land trusts is dead.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I hope the minister will provide a full explanation as to the circumstances. The motion was put on the Notice Paper last week, so I am sure he has had an opportunity to have a look at it and has some answers in front of him. I look forward to his comments so that he can throw some light on the situation in the Northern Territory and to whether he can advise whether democracy for remote Aboriginal Territorians living on land trusts is a viable option or not.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, at the outset, I say to the member for Macdonnell that I intend to reply in exactly the terms of the motion you moved.
I have made it pretty clear on the public record that in the matter that you raised about the Machados and their access t the electorate of Stuart, you will agree, have been very even-handed about that issue.
Under the arrangements I am about to outline, it is a matter between the land council as the designated body to issue or revoke permits on behalf and in consultation with the traditional owners of the area in question. I have made it very clear that I in no way want to or will intercede in those processes. I certainly have not been in any way involved in the decisions that have been made to date regarding the Machados.
Looking to your motion, which calls on me as the Attorney-General, I will reply in kind and give you the technical information that outlines the rights of people to enter Aboriginal land.
The right of entry by political candidates onto Aboriginal land trust land is spelt out in section 7 of the Aboriginal Land Act. There is an express grant of power in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, which is the Commonwealth ALRA, for the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly to make laws regulating or authorising the entry of persons on Aboriginal land. In ALRA, that is contained in section 73(1)(b). ALRA section 70 prohibits entry or remaining on Aboriginal land otherwise than, amongst other things, in accordance with a law of the Northern Territory.
The Aboriginal Land Act Northern Territory regulates entry onto Aboriginal land and provides for three classes of persons. The first class is persons who may enter Aboriginal land as of right, in other words without a permit, and namely these are: (a) the Administrator or Acting Administrator acting in the course of his or her duty; (b) a member of the Legislative Assembly engaged in the business of the Assembly; (c) a member of either House of the Commonwealth parliament engaged in the business of the parliament; (d) a candidate for election as a Senator for the Northern Territory or as a member of the House of Representatives for a Northern Territory electorate; and (e), the one to which you have already referred, a candidate for election as a member of the Legislative Assembly for the purposes of conducting his or her campaign.
The entry onto Aboriginal land as of right, section 7, does not apply to candidates for Local Government elections, ATSIC elections, union elections or other types of elections.
It is the view of the Office of the Solicitor for the Northern Territory that the right to enter Aboriginal land as a candidate for election only operates once an election has been called. In other words the writs have been …
A member interjecting.
Dr TOYNE: Hear me out. A candidate for election has a narrow meaning, that is, someone nominated for election after a writ for an election has been issued. It will not operate generally in respect of preselected candidates during whatever campaign period they may feel that they are involved in. That completes the persons who have entry, and thereby lies another option for gaining a right of entry.
Two, persons who have been issued a permit by the land council or traditional owners, which is contained in section 5; and, three, persons to whom the relevant Northern Territory minister, the Minister for Lands and Planning, has issued a permit, which is contained in section 6, and, more to that last point, the minister’s power to grant permits pursuant to section 6 is limited to persons who are employed under or by virtue of an act or as a member of the personal staff a minister, the Leader of the Opposition or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and where those persons have a need in the performance of their duties to enter upon or remain on Aboriginal land. Public servants who are employed under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act and other persons who are employed by government to fill positions created by or necessitated for the purposes of other statutes are persons to whom permits may be issued pursuant to this section. These persons must, however, be employees, as opposed to, for example, consultants.
In summary, there are three different ways. There are mandated non-permit entries, which are the list in part one. The second is anyone who gains a permit from the land council, so applying this to the case that you raised by way of an example, it is open to anyone to go the land council and apply for a permit, which, I understand, has not happened in this case, generally into the area covered by the electorate of Stuart. That is open to them and it would be interesting to see what the outcome would be.
The other class is …
Dr LIM: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! Minister, would you like to table that so that we can have a look at that?
Dr TOYNE: I am more than happy to. I am reading directly from it. I will table it. It will be in Hansard. Hang on; I will just tear a little bit off.
We have those three options open to anyone wanting to gain access. At this stage, the government does not have any proposal to expand the class of person who may enter Aboriginal land, either as of right or pursuant to a permit issued by the Minister for Lands and Planning.
However, I note that there are potential difficulties for granting access to the right of persons who identify as candidates for election. Where you are trying to go with this is: is there a case for opening up the definition of who is a candidate and for what period of time? The difficulty that has been identified by the Solicitor for the Northern Territory, looking at possible reform in that area, is that while it might be possible to define a person who has been preselected for one of the two major parties, you run into difficulties where, for example, someone who states that they want to stand as an Independent. There are no guarantees, for a start, that they are a bona fide candidate; they could just say they are and subsequently not stand for the election once it is called.
It would be very difficult to tie down a definition of who should gain that non-permit access to Aboriginal land simply because they claim to be a candidate. That is the difficulty with extending the definition of ‘candidate’. It becomes clearer once the writs are issued and people are either formally registered as candidates. I hope that information helps the member. It responds very definitely to the motion.
A further point I make about it is that the case for basing access of political candidates to the permit processes that have been established in our Aboriginal Land Act is that there is a qualitative difference between the offering or gaining of consent to Aboriginal communities than, for example, someone doorknocking in the northern suburbs of Darwin. Anyone who has doorknocked around the urban centres of the Northern Territory will know that each householder, individually, has the right to say: ‘I do not want to talk to you’, or ‘Yes, come in and I will listen to the political case that you want to put to me’. That is the way in which consent is gained by a candidate in an urban centre.
In an Aboriginal remote community, on traditional lands, there are different social mores that operate and they are more communal in nature. It was for that reason that this mechanism has been established both under our law and Commonwealth law.
That is the situation that you asked me to explain. I have explained it, I hope, accurately in the two items of legislation by which this is governed. I table the documents for the benefit of the member for Greatorex, and I hope you will see that it is almost word-for-word what will be in Hansard tomorrow.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like say some thoughts on this matter. It appears to me that there is obviously some political skulduggery going on here. I am not sure where it is coming from or where it is going. To say that a candidate officially, formally endorsed by a party is not allowed to doorknock her constituents-to-be is blatantly unfair. When the Central Land Council issued an eviction notice …
Dr Toyne: The householders can choose to listen to them or not. You are saying that every constituent has to listen to a candidate if they are preselected by a major party. It seems to be what you are saying.
Mr Elferink: No, we are just saying they should have a choice made by themselves, not by some clown sitting in a statutory authority with a rubber stamp.
Dr Toyne: There are a lot of people in statutory authorities, and they can do all sorts of things.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we just get back to the motion? Member for Greatorex, continue.
Dr LIM: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. We found out that the Central Land Council unilaterally issued an eviction notice of six-hours duration to the Machados to leave Willowra, and in the letter of eviction, she was told that she is not allowed to enter any Aboriginal land under the control of the Central Land Council. You need to ask a question: does the Central Land Council have a problem with Anna Machado’s activities in Willowra or does it have problems with her activities across the whole of the land trust area under the jurisdiction of the Central Land Council? She has been blamed about her presence in Willowra and what she has done there, or so it seems. If that is the case, this land council has now said because of your activities in Willowra, we are going to ban you from the whole of the land trust area under our jurisdiction.
Isn’t that the problem? Traditional owners of the land have given her permission to go there. Traditional owners of the land have written to her, spoken to her, even signed petitions pleading with the Central Land Council to allow Anna Machado and her family to return to Willowra, yet the Central Land Council has denied her that very opportunity.
The fact is that she was in Willowra for more than two years without any problem. The fact is that she went there as the spouse of a person working in Willowra, later to be invited by the community of Willowra to manage the store for them, bringing the store from a deficit operation to having substantial amount of money in reserve, a well operated store, good quality food and goods that the community of Willowra can use. For the time she managed the store, there was never a problem. She supported the store, she supported the store committee and in return, the store committee supported her and they worked strongly together for the betterment of all the people living in Willowra. The fact is that she declined to provide book-up for specific people. The fact is that she declined to provide money to specific people who asked her for it because she wanted to maintain a proper store, an accounting system and financial management and that was what encouraged the community to keep her there, to want her to stay there.
It was not until Anna Machado became the officially endorsed CLP candidate that she became the subject of intense pressure. I know because I have fought it all along. I have seen Anna Machado on many occasions. I have visited Willowra and spoken to many of the people there. It was not until Anna Machado became the official candidate for the CLP that she came under pressure from the Central Land Council and others involved with the CLC. Bit by bit, the pressure was on and rumours spread around that she was instigating this, that, and the other. I have her absolute assurance that she took no part in all that. She managed the store and she managed the store well and the Consumer Affairs have been there to check her out. The accounting services checked her out and she did it very well. They gave her a clean bill of health regarding financial management of the store. Yet she was under pressure.
Finally, it came to a head when the eviction notice was sent by the Central Land Council. You have to ask the question: why is this candidate being subjected to such pressure? It is not only: ‘You have been causing problems in Willowra, therefore you have to leave Willowra’. It is: ‘You cannot go anywhere else, either. You cannot go to Lajamanu; you cannot go anywhere within the land trust area that the Central Land Council covers’, which is literally the whole of the Stuart electorate.
Where does this candidate go? She drives up and down the north Stuart Highway and hopes to see her constituents when they come out to the road to meet her. That she has done and she is doing it very well. She goes to meet her constituents at many other places up and down the track and she meets them in Alice Springs when they come into town to meet with her. They continue to plead with her to go back. Unfortunately, she is not allowed to, despite the fact that she still has in her possession, and I have seen them, permits from traditional owners of the land to go back.
The minister said: ‘My hands are clean and I am Pontius Pilate; I have washed my hands of this. I am staying hands off, and it is between the Central Land Council and the individual’. The minister might have washed his hands, but there is something that does not smell right and either the Central Land Council is part of a political game to prevent a candidate from rightfully canvassing her constituents to be, that is a bad way of playing our political game.
Anna has tried to do the right thing by the people in the electorate of Stuart. She does it in the most proper way that she knows, and in a way that traditional owners trust her. She does it in a way that garners confidence from them.
If the minister sees a way of encouraging the land council to provide her with the relevant permit that would be the fair way to do it. The government would ensure that a duly endorsed candidate has right of access to all her constituents. There has been nothing proven that she has done at Willowra that could be the reason why the Central Land Council has prevented her being in the land trust area.
If that is the case, when there is no legitimate reason for the land council to obstruct her, then permission should be given to her without having to go through all the stupid processes that the land council expects her to go through to try and regain permission to get into Stuart. It is important that she gets there in the lead-up to the election. We know that the election is going to be on this year some time, and she should be given fair exposure to the constituents of Stuart so that she can do her job.
If the minister is so confident about his position in Stuart, what does he have to worry about?
A member interjecting.
Dr LIM: That is right. I know that Bushranger predicted that he was not going to stand again, but whether he does or not it is another matter. What matters is that the CLP candidate for Stuart should have rightful access to her constituency, just as I would expect that every Labor candidate would have access to all the other electorates that they want to canvass.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): This is a really sad day, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. The minister said: ‘We have to worry about the social mores. These poor old little blackfellas stuck away in these communities need to be so protected from these dreadful, nasty candidates who need to get special permission to go out there. They need to be protected’. This particular woman has worked in remote communities for years. She has worked in shops in Finke, Haasts Bluff and Willowra. There is nothing she is going to do that is going to particularly tread on toes out there.
This is a fascinating position for the government to take on this because what they are actually saying is that Aboriginal people living in places like Lajamanu, Yuendumu, Willowra and Ti Tree need to be protected from this woman. Well, they do not need protection. Who on earth does this government think it is to decide who should and should not talk to Aboriginal people? Surely we have gone beyond the gate-keeper mentality where the lock-down on Aboriginal people is so complete that they are not allowed, unless some person - I said clown before - clown in a statutory authority gives them a rubber stamp.
I will tell you how the rubber stamp works. It is all right for the minister to stand here and say: ‘All she has to do is apply for a permit’. That permit has been revoked. In fact, it was never a permit. She has worked on Aboriginal communities for years without a permit, and it is only now, after she is endorsed as a CLP candidate, that all of a sudden she is advised that she has six hours to get out of her home. It is a police state mentality of protecting these people from dreadful candidates.
The minister said it is so hard to decide who might or might not be a candidate until the writs are issued. Crap! Sorry – I withdraw that.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just as well, member for Macdonnell.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, rubbish! The fact is that political parties are registered. How about an endorsed candidate from a registered political party? I am sure that has occurred to the minister, but, no, he is trying too hard to twist this set of rules to prevent Aboriginal people from having a fair choice. The gate-keeper mentality is alive and well. He knows full well that Ms Machado is not going to get a permit to go on Aboriginal land.
Indeed, he still has not answered the one question that I asked of him. The land council may revoke a permit. It does not say that the executive arm of a land council might do so unilaterally. I am not aware of any motion on the books of the land council - mind you, we never know what motions they have on the books - which directs the revocation of one of these permits, and he has not answered that question.
This goes to the very heart and fundamental rights of the people to choose who represents them. This is more than just a cute little rule. This means that this candidate has no chance, no opportunity to present herself to the electorate. So this gate-keeper says: ‘Sorry, I know what is best for you, Aboriginal people, and you Anna Machado, cannot go out into the electorate of Stuart and campaign’.
I will tell you a little story. Way back in 1997, I applied for a permit to travel on Aboriginal land so I could campaign. Guess what? I am still waiting for an answer on that inquiry. That was shelved somewhere. Guess what I did? I went out and campaigned, anyhow. No one complained, no one went charging around saying: ‘Oh, my God, I have been offended by this person knocking on my door’. In fact, the result I got was quite positive, like it is so often when we go doorknocking as politicians, whether we do it in Yuendumu, Docker River, Araluen or Jingili, because like to see their local member or candidates appear on their door step, and they like to know the choices they have. This is a reprehensible approach by the minister of: ‘I throw my hands up in the air, its all too hard for me, I am not going to make any effort to protect democracy’.
Democracy has now been removed from Aboriginal people, and it is small wonder that I hear so often complaints, especially from the older men and women, who feel like their lives are being run by other people in offices so remote from their lives. They feel like their lives have been totally organised for them and that they are being deprived of choices and information.
This is the quintessential example of it. This minister, who has a vested interest because it is his seat, has chosen to wash his hands of it and say: ‘Go he’. This is a sad day for democracy for Aboriginal Territorians, and if the gate-keeper mentality keeps going the way it is, what is going to happen eventually when change happens, it is going to be radical. All times when there is radical change rather than measured and controlled change, there are going to be casualties. That is a shame.
However, as it stands at the moment, we have candidate in the Northern Territory who is endorsed by a registered political party. There are rules for registered political parties. You can get the Electoral Roll as a registered political party if you have 200 members. It is easy to identify one; we know what they look like. As a registered political party, we have a candidate who has been deprived of an opportunity by a bureaucracy which is out of control, and has such a gate-keeper mentality of the people for whom it is suppose to care that they will deprive those people of the ability to make their own choice.
There are many Aboriginal people who have spoken to me about the Anna Machado affair. They have come to my office and complained. They have also provided Anna Machado with letters of invitation saying: ‘Please come to our land and talk to us’. Those would be permits under the Aboriginal Land Act. The message from the land council has been quite succinct: ‘We revoke any permit that you might be given by these people’. That is outrageous.
If I invite someone into my home and say: ‘Come on to my property in Greatorex Road in Alice Springs’ and had some police officers or gate-keeper standing there saying: ‘Sorry, you cannot go in because I said so’, I would be incensed. People are becoming very angry and incensed out there. This is a refusal to protect the democratic institutions of our Westminster system because it is convenient for the operation of some act and some statutory authority that does not like someone. It is the case that the parliament has become subordinate to statutory authorities. When that starts to occur, there are some major problems in our system.
Motion negatived.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The aim of this amendment is to give people who have been adversely affected by the conduct of a tenant the opportunity to present a case to a court as to why that tenant’s rental agreement should be terminated.
Under the Residential Tenancies Act, the only person or body that can seek such a termination is the landlord. This is fine, except in many cases, the landlord does not have to contend with the constant aggravation or antisocial behaviour exhibited by some tenants. It is neighbours who have to put up with disruptive or abusive conduct 24 hours a day, seven days a week, yet they are powerless to do anything about it. Hence, the landlord is often slow to react.
The reason I am introducing this amendment is because for some time, I have seen people become exasperated and desperate in coping with the behaviour of unruly tenants in public housing. Some of our people have left town; others reach crisis point where they can no longer cope; some tenants have left their tenancies; most have many sleepless nights, kept awake by a loud and abusive behaviour. Of course, these neighbours can make a complaint to the landlord. This has happened on many occasions, but a lack of action by the landlord - in particular, Territory Housing - merely exacerbates the problem.
At present, tenants who write letters of complaint which are used as evidence if a case goes to court then find they are expected to front up to court as well. Courts may be reluctant to accept statutory declaration as evidence on its own. A resident, under the current guidelines, must present in court. This is not always easy to do, particularly as long delays, in many instances, have occurred before the department takes action. By then, relationships between neighbours had well and truly broken down.
It is well known there are difficulties with some public housing tenants in Alice Springs. The majority of tenants are law abiding citizens, who are willing and able to live in peace with their fellow renters, but there are others who cannot peacefully cohabitate in housing estates for a variety of reasons, or perhaps they are unable to control the behaviour of their visitors, again for a variety of reasons. This is a complex issue and requires a range of solutions.
I am pleased to see the government has introduced preventative measures such as employing community liaison officers and deterrents such as increased security patrols. This amendment complements these measures by asserting the rights of neighbours who should not have to endure antisocial behaviour in their neighbourhood. This amendment gives them the right to formally lodge a claim to a court for a tenancy agreement to be terminated if that agreement has been breached for reasons of objectionable behaviour over a period of time.
The amendment enhances section 100 of the Residential Tenancy Act. At the moment, this section states that a court may terminate a tenancy agreement where the conduct of a tenant has been unacceptable in any of these circumstances: when a tenant has been using the premises or allowed it to be used for an illegal purpose; when the tenant has repeatedly caused a nuisance or allowed a nuisance to occur; or when the tenant has repeatedly caused or allowed an interference with the reasonable peace of other people living nearby. The section states that only a landlord can lodge an application for terminating a tenancy agreement.
I am proposing two key changes in this section. First, allowing an ‘interested person’ to make an application to a court to terminate a tenant’s rental agreement, which will give affected persons a legal avenue to uphold their rights to quiet enjoyment of their home. An ‘interested person’ is someone who has been adversely affected by the conduct of a tenant. Second, the landlord will be given the opportunity to be heard by the court when an application to terminate an agreement has been made by an interested person. This arrangement provides a fair go for the neighbours and a fair go for the landlord.
This is not without precedent. The South Australian Residential Tenancies Act contains a similar provision and research has told us it has been utilised by hundreds of people who have been so affected by unruly tenants that they have to resort to court action. There does, however, remain the issue that people are reluctant to front up to court to present their case and, naturally, a court would prefer witness-based evidence rather than a statutory declaration. It is important that any moves by a neighbour to evict a tenant are made when the situation has become unbearable rather than a vexatious claim. The point is that in South Australia, people have the option to take action rather than just relying on the landlord taking action.
My amendment alone will not solve the problems presently being experienced in Alice Springs and other urban centres. Living in housing estates, be they private or public, necessarily means that people are living in close quarters and need to comply with certain standards of acceptable behaviour. This is clearly written in the Residential Tenancies Act, section 54, and the Department of Housing’s tenancy agreements. When a tenant has difficulties with their tenancy, the solution should not just concentrate on that tenant. Affected neighbours should also be considered because it is their privacy and their right to enjoy their home, free of harassment and nuisance that has been severely impeded, sometimes permanently. If the measures proposed by the government to change the antisocial behaviour of the tenants succeed, then that will be good for everyone, but if there is no change with intervention, then neighbours should be able to protect their rights. This way, my amendment works hand in hand with government measures. Mr Deputy Speaker, I comment the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
This is such an important issue that one has to ask why it is not possible for us to get together as a parliament and look at ways to work through the issues. We belong to the Westminster system, and it has been claimed that it is a great system of government and that we keep the sides of parliament apart by this Table – and I believe it was the Opposition Leader who told me it is two sword lengths. That may have been all right in the 1700s, but today, parliament has evolved and I do not believe that we should have an adversarial approach on every issue.
One way to overcome the adversarial approach is to use a select committee that we can establish, which allows us to take members from all sides of the political spectrum and try to come up with a consensus approach to issues confronting us. We have done that with the substance abuse committee. Except for perhaps one point in the findings of that committee on petrol sniffing, I would say there was total agreement.
We have looked at other issues as well, such as the Environmental Protection Agency. There is variation in the models, but generally speaking, as a parliamentary committee, we have agreed – sorry, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. I am probably speaking out of turn before the …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I do have to caution you not to breach parliamentary process.
Mr WOOD: That was not intentional; it was by way of example of what committees do.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: You almost got to the breach, but you stopped at the brink.
Mr WOOD: I do not think the world would have come to an end, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, but I do take the point. Actually, I just said it to make sure you are awake and you are, indeed, awake.
They were examples of where we have worked together as a committee to come up with a bipartisan or tripartisan approach to difficult issues. That is where we should be going with the parks issue. I had have briefings from both sides of parliament, and I thank the government and opposition for them. There are good points raised by both. However, I wonder whether it is time to stand back and look at the issue of park land tenure again.
One of the reasons I say that is from what I can count, we have seven or eight different types of land tenure for our parks. We have national parks that are leased back from Aboriginal owners and operated by Parks Australia. We have national parks leased back from the Aboriginal owners to the NT Conservation Land Corporation and operated by Parks and Wildlife. We have national parks under a deed of grant from Aboriginal owners to Parks and Wildlife Commission, and operated by Parks and Wildlife. We also have park freehold title, a form of title the government is proposing. We have Schedule 5 land, which is another form of park title. We have Crown land, as in existing Northern Territory Conservation Park, with native title management agreements being contemplated in the government’s legislation. We have national parks that are Crown land and do not have any native title agreements over them.
We have parks with a range of management regime and land tenure, and this would be a great opportunity for the Territory parliament to say: ‘Can we find a solution that would include all the rights of the Aboriginal people and include the rights, you might say, of the non-Aboriginal people?’ When I say that, I am thinking of something that is interwoven between the two: we get a land tenure that recognises that this park is made up of several parts that are intertwined, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal issues. These parks would then allow for Aboriginal heritage and culture, biodiversity, employment opportunities, all those things could be built into that land tenure, which would not be leasehold; it would be a park in perpetuity.
One of the problems we have with our parks is that many of them are now going to be 99-year leases. That is only one or two generations, but if you look at parks in general in Australia, like the Royal National Park, the oldest park in Australia, it is not a 99-year lease; it is there in perpetuity. You take Ku-ring-gai Chase, again one of the oldest parks in Australia, and Botany Bay, those parks are in perpetuity yet we will have a system of parks that have a 99-year lease. We will all be dead by then, but it could mean that those parks may not continue if the owners of them decide they do not wish to renew leases.
Look at the philosophy of why we have parks. We do not really develop parks for 99 years. We are saying we would like these parks to continue on in perpetuity. We are establishing a land tenure that does not really take into account what parks were originally for.
There is an opportunity to come up with something unique, and perhaps the Territory could show the way, something that shows that we as Territory parliamentarians can work together. We could take into account all the issues that the Chief Minister spoke about in the future frameworks debate.
The Leader of the Opposition has spoken about advancing the opportunities for Aboriginal people in these arrangements. We already know some of the Aboriginal people have not agreed with the government’s terms. Again, if we let these things fester, there will be more divisiveness.
Maybe I am nave and live in a utopian world, but this debate about parks, especially during an election year, will do more harm than good. There are times when we should say: ‘We have a responsibility to unite our communities, to try to find a way to come up with solutions that make our society better’. Other people would say the way to go is to have a great argument, take it to the next election, and whoever wins – well, that is the story. Fine, that is the way some people like to do it. Perhaps I was raised slightly differently. I do not mind a good argument in parliament. Maybe I do not have the grunt that some parliamentarians have; they really get stuck into it ...
Ms Martin: Yes, you have. You have the grunt.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but that is only when I am very passionate. We live in a world where there is a lot of conflict. It is all very well to say we do not like conflict to occur in Iraq, Beirut and all those places, but surely there are times when we should show that conflict can occur in our own society, and do our best to see whether we can avoid that conflict. Sure, we are not using guns or punching one another, but when you deal with issues of race and land, it can cause disharmony in our society.
I am saying to both sides of parliament that I will not vote on the parks issue. People might say that is sitting on the fence. No, it is not; I am saying there is a third opinion. The problem with an adversarial parliament is that is one opinion and that is the other opinion and, for the life of me, I cannot see why you cannot have more than two opinions. It is a bit like picking a type of car: a Toyota, Ford or Holden. This side might want the Holden and this side would want the Toyota; I like my Ford ute. That does not mean I am sitting on the fence. I am saying that on some of these complex issues, there are other opinions and solutions.
We should step back a bit, put this issue on hold, and send it off to a select committee. My reporting date of June 2005 may be impossible. It may require longer, but so what? If we can come up with a solution that takes a bit longer, don’t we have a better society to live in? Haven’t we encouraged people to work through problems that are difficult? Haven’t we encouraged Aboriginal people to work with white people? Haven’t we also encouraged people to have a better understanding of the issues before us?
I believe we can do it. I am not saying there will be a lot of support from other members of the parliament, but I propose it as a possible solution, and I hope members will at least give it some thought. I am interested in their comments.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I listened carefully to the member for Nelson’s argument about his motion. Whether this is an appropriate mechanism to deal with the bill before us, which is a solution to a High Court decision that we were not ever predicting, which he sees as a difference of opinion between one side of the House and the other, I should tell you at the outset that I am not going to be supporting it.
However, he raised some good issues. It is not useful to compare the situation in the Northern Territory with land tenure with New South Wales. We have very different systems, different laws applying to those systems, particularly when you consider the percentage of our indigenous population, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, which has been in place since 1976, and the different impact of native title throughout the Territory. We have a town like Alice Springs where there has been the first native title recognised over an urban area. We have seen some great results from that, but we do have a different land tenure combination. At this stage, it is not particularly productive to look at how our land tenure relates to other parts of Australia because, as we often say about the Territory, we are unique.
Turning specifically to the parks legislation, although we have done a lot of that tonight, and what you are proposing, I will go through the rationale of what we are doing. Government’s actions on parts will provide certainty and stability for the future. At present, we do not have that stability and certainty for the future. It will save Territory taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars wasted in costly litigation and the framework that government is implementing is not new and untried. Most states and territories either have or are now investigating how to resolve native title issues through joint management with indigenous interests and transfer of titles subject to lease back arrangements. We can give you more details of those if you are interested to find out. This process is not new within the Territory, where the title for many of our parks is not actually held by the government, but by the Conservation Land Corporation.
The previous government established joint management at Nitmiluk. The previous government also granted land in close proximity to Darwin to Aboriginal interests, thereby securing 60 km of pristine coast line and the site of first white settlement in the Territory as Aboriginal land leased back to the Territory for use as the Djukbinj jointly managed national park.
The arrangements being put in place through this legislation reflect many years of policy development within the Parks and Wildlife Commission. This is now forming the basis for thinking behind the Parks and Conservation Master Plan of which we should soon have a draft. There is also a master planning exercise which is currently drawing to conclusion and a parallel natural resource management planning process. Both of these processes have involved extensive research and wide community consultation with key interest groups, and through forums and discussion papers. There has been widespread community interest in the process. The master plan web site has been receiving about 5000 hits each month.
Parks play an important role in protecting our landscapes, natural features and wildlife, and associated cultural values for the enjoyment and appreciation of present and future generations. Government has a vision for the parks and reserves in the Territory. We have stated our intention to establish, maintain and manage a comprehensive system of parks and reserves. We are setting down in legislation what we mean by a comprehensive system. It is one that is developed in partnership between the Territory and the traditional owners of the parks and reserves. It benefits those traditional owners by recognising value and incorporating indigenous culture, knowledge and decision making processes, protects biological diversity, serves the educational and recreational needs of Territorians and visitors, and enjoys widespread community support.
The current parks and conservation reserves system comprises about 90 individual parks with a total area of about 50 000 km, or 4.7% of the land mass. Most of these parks are smaller than 50 km, while there are some notably large parks such as Kakadu, which is 20 000 km, and Gregory, which is the best part of 13 000 km.
Government recognises the reality that 42% of the Territory is Aboriginal freehold and 46% is pastoral leasehold. Government has already consulted widely, specifically on the issue of the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act. During the public consultation period, feedback received was generally very positive. Key stakeholders, including representatives from the tourism, mining, Aboriginal, pastoral, fishing and environmental sectors, were also fully briefed on the bill. The majority of these appreciate the many practical and positive benefits that flow from the act and not just as far as their own interests are concerned. There is widespread acknowledgement of the benefits that will flow for all Territorians. Perhaps this is because the legislation draws together a range of objectives beneficial to our community, including job creation, protection of biological diversity, enhancing recreational, educational and tourist opportunities, and creating a sound and sustainable economic base for regional development.
More specifically, the legislation provides for huge savings from protracted and confrontational litigation which was a feature of former CLP governments, tourism development and increased capacity to meet tourism demands and expectations, enhanced parks land management, Aboriginal social and economic development including improved opportunities for joint venture partnerships and employment, resolution of uncertainty regarding future developments, the development of constructive rather than adversarial relationships with traditional owners, and the expansion of parks estate through lease-back of additional Aboriginal land.
As I have stated previously, at its heart, this framework will provide the certainty required to establish a truly world-class and fully integrated national parks and reserves conservation system. That certainty will mean that our parks will continue to operate with the necessary guarantee of continued access and enjoyment by all Territorians on a no entry fee, no entry permit basis.
The government is very proud of what this legislation will achieve for all Territorians. As I said, there has been significant and detailed consultation with all stakeholders in this legislation. A select committee would add another layer of paper work and bureaucracy to the process without necessarily adding to the outcomes.
While your aspiration that we should be able to work as a parliament and get agreement, when politics comes into play, on some issues we are never going to have that agreement, and this is one of them.
The approach we have taken is a sane, sensible and rational one. It has very positive outcomes. It saves a lot of money from lawyers’ pockets - and I am not bagging lawyers, but it is not necessarily productive for jobs, enhanced tourism and a better parks system if we spend a lot of time in front of various institutions of the judiciary, be it the Aboriginal Land Commissioner or Native Title Tribunal. A lot of money is spent on litigation before those courts, even if you do not contest it. It is a very expensive exercise.
I believe that you have the grit for these things absolutely, but I do not think in this case we could, even if there was a select committee on this, that we would reach agreement with all parties. Appreciating what you offer in this motion, as I indicated, I do not intend to support it.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for her comments. She said the Territory is unique, and that is exactly the basis on which I proposed this, so we could come up with a unique solution. I understand the practicalities of that may be extremely difficult. Having a single land tenure over our parks would be very difficult, but that doesn’t mean one shouldn’t try.
She also said that land tenure in New South Wales is different from land tenure in the NT. That may be the case, but what I was referring to was that a national park, as in the Royal National Park, is a park in perpetuity. It would have been Crown land. We have set up quite a few parks that have 99-year leases. The difficulty I have with that is that to some extent, it leaves a park up in the air. It would not be the same as Royal, which will always be a park. In 99 years time, the traditional owners of the land we class as a national park may decide otherwise, and it could mean that the park does not exist as such.
I am looking at a form of land tenure that protects the rights of Aboriginal people, but does it in a way so that the rights are interwoven with the reason we have parks, which includes their reasons as well. We could be looking a land tenure that we do not have at all at present, and I would expect such discussions to involve the Commonwealth as well as the relevant Aboriginal parties. There are Commonwealth implications, when it comes to land in the Northern Territory, under the Land Rights Act.
Heaven forbid! The federal government is now going to have full control of both Houses of parliament and it may be an opportune time to look at whether there is any room for looking at rationalising land tenure in our parks.
Native title, in this land tenure, would not be in any way diminished, but, again, working a way whereby native title is intertwined into this land tenure and where you have agreements similar to what the Chief Minister proposed as management agreements, but you would be saying: ‘That is a park for all, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, and it is in perpetuity’. We do not quite achieve that with having park leases for 99 years. I know that is probably the most practical way to get around the issues that Aboriginal land rights have created in relation to park tenure, but we should be trying to do something better.
The Chief Minister said that politics gets in the way. To that, I could say: ‘Be an Independent’. That is the problem I have with party politics at times. I can listen to debates, and sometimes the debate is from one person here and one person there. Everyone else in the wings has to shut up because that is the person who is going to speak and we will all agree to what that person is going to say.
Sometimes, I reminisce about the way councils operate. I have always said that councils operate in a way parliament should operate. We would sit around a large table here, you would appoint your Chief Minister and Cabinet, but every issue would be taken on its merits by each person. In many ways, for a small population base the size of the Territory, which is no bigger in population than many cities and shires in Australia, I do not see a great deal of a problem with that system operating, but I know there will be many people who disagree with me.
Chief Minister, both sides are not that far apart, but the points of difference will be enlarged so that they look like major differences. I do not believe the differences are that great. I believe on this side, the government is saying: ‘We think your arrangements with Aboriginal people are not as generous as we believe they should be. Therefore, we think this is the system we should have and we could do that without changing the land tenure’. There are other differences. The opposition is saying, as I understand it, that you are giving away Schedule 2 parks because you are changing Crown land into new title, Park Freehold land, and then leasing it back. That may be the case, and if I was sticking with my concept of parks having a special title, that is probably close. I do not mind them saying it is Crown land.
There are some differences between the two sides. I do not think the CLP says that anything different will happen with parks that have land claims over them. They accept that they have a land claim on them, and government does, too. So the differences, I do not think, are enormously great. However, what I fear, as I said before, is that those differences will be put about in the media as much as possible because people will be trying to gain political points, especially coming up to an election. That is the process, and I live with the process as it is.
It would have been nice even to say: ‘Let us put a select committee together for at least a few months and see whether we can iron out the differences between ourselves’, and not even bother about going out to the wider community at this stage, and see whether we could sit down in a more quiet atmosphere than an adversarial one, and whether we could come up with even a compromise between both sides. There is nothing wrong with compromises. After all, that is why we debate. We hear another point of view and think: ‘That is not a bad idea; maybe we can just accordingly’.
I will not hold you up any longer at this late hour of the night. Thank you, Chief Minister, for your comments. I will try to promote it a bit more as life goes on. I will be interested in seeing how the debate travels, especially in an election year. I hope that we do not go down the path of divisiveness. The Territory has a history of divisiveness when it has come to land issues, and it would not be unique in divisiveness about land throughout the world. Land has always been an issue that has caused disharmony not only between races, but sometimes between neighbours and between the rich and poor. It is something that is not unique into the Northern Territory. As the Chief Minister said, we are different. I hope we can do things differently and find solutions that will not be to the detriment of the people who live in the Territory.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I withdraw the Sentencing Amendment Bill 2003, Serial 126, standing in my name. I introduced this amendment as a means of protecting Aboriginal women and girls when customary law is raised as a means to reduce the sentencing penalty of an offender. I received much support for my bill from many Aboriginal organisations and other agencies but, unfortunately, did not receive full support from government.
Late last year, the government introduced its own amendment to the Sentencing Act so I sought comments from the same organisations. I received feedback supporting the government’s action and I quote one such advice:
Motion withdrawn.
BAIL AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 245)
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney General): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the government opposes this bill. We consider it to be bad law, both in concept and detail. If I can deal with the actual technical detail of the bill to begin with and point out some of the difficulties that we can see with the way that the amendment has been drafted, and then I will deal with the conceptual level …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell!
Dr TOYNE: … of the overall intent of the legislation.
The bill proposes to extend the offences for which a presumption against bail exists by including a section 7A, a repeat offence. This is defined as an offence that is the same as or similar to at least three indictable offences in respect of which the accused person has been convicted during the three years immediately preceding the date on which the application for bail is being determined.
It appears to work this way: a presumption against bail will apply where a person is seeking bail for an indictable offence. That offence is the same as or similar to at least three indictable offences of which the person has been convicted during the three years immediately prior to the date on which the application for bail is determined and multiple convictions for indictable offences made in the same proceedings only count as one indictable offence.
The second reading speech indicates that the objective is to require persons with a history of criminal activity to demonstrate why they should be given liberty. It is said to be aimed at what could be well described as habitual criminals. The amendment is not targeted at serious offending, but is aimed at repeat offending. The fact that an offence is indictable is not a guide to whether it is a serious incident of offending. Many indictable offences are dealt with in the lower court, for example simple stealing or receiving offences or property damage. This is just one problem with the bill.
The bill has several problems in achieving its stated objective. For example, the second reading speech says that the bill is aimed specifically at indictable offences. However, the offence in relation to which the bail presumption is to be reversed is described only as ‘an offence’. I presume the intention is that the offence must be an indictable one to answer the requirement for similarity to past offences but that is not clear on the face of the bill.
There are some summary offences that might be said to bear similarity to indictable offences. Examples are whether fighting in a public place or threatening violence, section 47AB of the Summary Offences Act, is similar to assault or whether illegal use of a vehicle, section 49A of the Summary Offences Act, is similar to indictable property offences.
Another problem area is the determination of whether the current offence is the same or similar to the previous three offences. It is said this should be determined ‘in the opinion of the authorised member’ or police officer ‘or the court’. A number of problems arise. How do you assess similarity? Are the offences within the same section of the Criminal Code or the general nature of offending? For example, dishonesty offences. Is a sexual offence similar to a personal violence offence? There is no mechanism to review a determination as to similarity. Do the Bail Act review provisions apply to allow a review of the determination itself whether the offence is the same or similar, or do they only allow a review of the process of determination?
An authorised member or police officer can make a determination that results in a different legal presumption. This may be an exercise of judicial power by a non-judicial officer and is therefore unlawful. Each of these issues is likely to give rise to legal challenges.
A serious flaw with the formula established by the bill is the uneven application to offenders. For example, offender A has a criminal record consisting of three offences of receiving stolen goods, all committed three years ago, but for which he was sentenced on separate occasions and is before the court now on a further receiving charge. He will have a presumption against bail. Offender B was similarly convicted three years ago for three property offences over a period of time, but he was dealt with on a single occasion. This counts as only one indictable offence and so he will not have the presumption reversed when he applies for bail. Offender C was convicted of multiple violence offences four years ago for which he received a four-year sentence. He has a history of violent offences dating back 10 years. On release, he re-offends within a short period. The presumption of bail will not apply to him because the prior offences are outside the three-year limit. Because the offenders were dealt with in a procedurally different manner, the presumption will operate differently. This is not a good example of law making.
There are other technical issues regarding the interpretation and application of the bill, however I now want to turn, as I foreshadowed, to the basic policy clash between the government and opposition reflected in this bill. The government is committed to tackling causes of crime. This government attacks crime from an evidence base so as to maximise the effect on criminal behaviour. This is to be compared with the CLP approach: broad-brush, headline grabbing, non-targeted, all ineffective and costly, the hit-and-hope method of reducing crime.
We are happy to stand on our record. Allow me to give you an example. We identified that 20% of offenders commit 80% of property crime in 2001. We then identified a relationship between drugs and serial property crime. We established an evidence base for that relationship and set about establishing offences specifically designed to tackle drug-based offending. We also initiated intelligence-led policing strategies to tackle drug offending and property crime. We expanded the tools available to police and courts through DNA legislation and legislation to seize the proceeds of crime. Police in operations use these tools to target this category of serial offenders.
We then put in place the drug courts to divert offenders away from a major cause of serial offending: a drug habit. We identified the specific criminal behaviour and the cause of it. We made sure police have the tools to catch and prosecute offenders and we made sure specific offences targeted the behaviour. The effect of this targeted, evidence-based approach is that property crime has fallen by 47% in three years. It has fallen from a high of 32 054 offences in 2001 when the CLP hit-and-hope strategy of mandatory sentencing produced its full legacy to 20 727 in 2004-05 because of these smarter crime prevention strategies. The proof is in the pudding.
Madam Speaker, the bill before us is merely another example of hit-and-hope legislation. It is not targeted. It is flawed in its construction, and its objective will not be met. The government is opposed to the bill.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I support the bill. We heard the minister say that the government will not support it. That does not come as any surprise to commentators or to this side of the House. The government is reluctant to support anything, even well thought out and logical suggestions such as this, from the opposition or, indeed, independents.
The reasons the government sought to justify its lack of support of this bill really are superficial. The Attorney-General talked about technical difficulties. We know that these technical difficulties could, if the Attorney-General was serious about dealing with them, being remedied by way of a short amendment, but no, the Attorney-General has come before this House without any constructive measures to help this legislation.
Further confirmation that the Attorney-General is lazy is that he did not seek a briefing. There was a briefing available for him. His secretary could have contacted our secretary, and I would have perhaps got that secretary to give him a bit of a briefing, but he did not do that, so he cannot come here and complain that he did not understand the legislation if he did not seek a briefing. We were waiting for that call, and we would have taken him through it, step by step. He would have had a grasp, an understanding of this, and that would have, I suspect, changed his view and the attitude he took today.
The Attorney-General talked about problems such as assessing what is a similar offence. He said this is a difficulty, and the person exercising that discretion would have difficulty in determining whether this prior conviction was an offence of a similar nature to the subsequent conviction. The intent of the bill is clear. If it is an indictable offence, that is all that is required. So it these serious, indictable offences that the learned member for Macdonnell is seeking to catch in this bill.
Let us not for a moment forget the genesis of this bill: the community is, quite frankly, sick and tired of having their homes broken into. The community is sick and tired of this perception that perpetrators commit these offences and there is a revolving door at the courts. This amendment does not seek to exclude the important discretion the courts exercise. All it is doing is sending a clear message to the courts and the community that if you are a person who is of the view that you can continue to commit these serious indictable offences, eventually your chain is going to come to the end and there will be a presumption against bail, that is, a presumption that can be reversed if you can satisfy the court or the police officer that there are a number of real reasons for granting liberty. It is consistent with the presumption of innocence. We are dealing with the bail aspects here, the remand, a portion of the sentencing process.
I have read the well drafted second reading speech and, clearly, the member for Macdonnell put a fair bit of thought and effort into this. He should be commended for articulating and amplifying the concerns of his constituents and the people of the northern suburbs and the NT in the form of this very good bill. Credit where credit is due. I will quote a small portion of that second reading speech to which I would have taken the Attorney-General during the course of a briefing if he had sought one. As the learned member for Macdonnell said:
I do not think any more can be said.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the member for Goyder’s contribution. I am sure the judges and magistrates of the Northern Territory will enjoy what contributions he has to make after he retires from politics.
As I seriously considered the bill in the same way as the member for Goyder clearly has, I wish to make some comments based, essentially, on what the Attorney-General said in reply. He referred to the bill’s flawed construction and made a couple of other references - I did not manage to take notes. In respect of the flawed construction of the bill, I suggest that is a bit cute in light of what can only be described as the hissy fit that the government had in response to vigorous questioning I had in relation to a bill that came before us in about October last year. The hissy fit was based on the fact that I got stuck into it and suggested that the bill was flawed. I do not know whether the Attorney-General needed to bite his tongue but, for a moment there, I thought he was going to describe it as ‘a dog’s breakfast’, member for Macdonnell. On occasions, he can be measured and perhaps tonight was one of them.
The Attorney-General would have us believe that every word he utters is true. I actually disagree with much of what he said. It seemed to me that he came up with all of the reasons why the bill should be opposed. In other words, all the reasons why not to agree with the sentiments and purpose expressed by the member for Macdonnell when he presented this bill. This is typical of the Labor government. Instead of actually getting on with things, doing things, producing the goods, they seem to just go chasing their tail, going around in circles, coming up with all of the reasons why not to do something;. Well, we ask them to do something.
This bill is inspired. The reversal of the presumption of bail borders on genius and the member for Macdonnell, in his usual eloquent way, expressed the reasons why it applies only to those charged with indictable offences in his second reading speech.
The community does expect us, as legislators, to respond to their needs and wishes. I do not think that any government should be guided by media headlines. Equally, though, I do not think any of us should ignore the sentiment of the community, if you accept, as I do, that a publication such as the Northern Territory News or an august body such as the ABC would be reasonably accurate measures or gauges of public opinion. Public opinion, as measured by comments on talkback radio - of course, I am talking about commercial radio as well - and also in the Northern Territory News, the Centralian Advocate and a number of other publications, suggests to me that the community agrees with the reversal of the presumption of bail. One need only flick through the NT News to see that the people we are all meant to represent are dissatisfied with particular cases where they see people accused being set free, as they see it, on bail.
We do have a responsibility to respond and to be responsive. I know the Attorney-General and others will disagree, but I do not think this government is serious about protecting the victims of crimes, or at least giving them a voice. We have seen it in a number of forms. We have seen it in the way that two years ago the Attorney-General made changes to the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Act. He was told then and has been told consistently by me and others that those changes were not good, that they resulted in victims being denied access to justice. He disagreed with me on that and yet, thankfully, because lawyers continued to make representations to him, my understanding is that he will announce changes to the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Act to increase the cost lawyers can charge so that more victims can access those lawyers, thereby no longer being denied access to justice.
We saw it yesterday in Question Time when the Chief Minister was asked a question about what counselling services had been provided for that prominent Territorian who had been charged with numerous sex offences. We see in other jurisdictions, and the news reports tell us this, that counsellors were deployed at various schools and so on and that is what other governments have done. Unlike here in the Northern Territory under the regime of the Labor government, in other jurisdictions those people charged were not the beneficiaries of suppression orders, but those governments in other jurisdictions provided the counsellors. They had them on-site and we saw them on the television. We saw the counsellors walk into schools and so on. Not here, and the Chief Minister seems more obsessed with protecting, it seems to me, that prominent Territorian, and not giving any thought to the alleged victims. I do not think this government is good for victims. That is a view I strongly hold and I do not think there is anything the Attorney-General and his colleagues can do to dissuade me from that view.
I return to the bill at hand. I see it as a useful tool for victims of crime. It is a good bill and I am not surprised, but again disappointed, that this Labor government is a can’t-do government. It comes up with all of the reasons it can possibly imagine why not to do something. We want you to do all sorts of things, Attorney-General and Chief Minister. You refuse to do them and this is yet another example.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, there are no major surprises in the attitude of government. It is a refreshing change not to have the minister announce that the government is going to pilfer the idea and put it into its own legislation.
The minister’s opening comment was that it is a drafting problem. I am not a lawyer. I sought advice from Parliamentary Counsel. If he wishes to criticise Parliamentary Counsel, I am sure that he can take it up with the Leader of Government Business who will scream and yell abuse at him for diminishing Parliamentary Counsel’s role in this. The drafting is fine and I thank Parliamentary Counsel for their kindness and efforts in relation to it. From time to time, people criticise drafting because it suits their purposes to do so and, sometimes, there might even be reasons for it. Parliamentary Counsel do not walk across swimming pools as a matter of course and might not be perfect, and I understand that. Anyway, that is by the by.
This bill was a genuine attempt to say to the meat heads, villains and scum bags out there who break into our houses and steal our cars and steal our property: ‘If you get yourself convicted three times in three years, you obviously have a crime problem. You, as a result of that, then come to the attention of an authorised member or a magistrate in the meantime, well, stiff, stupid, you are going to have to convince us why you deserve to be at liberty’. It is not any more complex than that. The minister can cite all of the different examples and say: ‘If someone is only convicted of the minor offence of stealing and they are convicted in the first instance of three offences of stealing, they fall outside the realms of this bill’. That is true, but you have to draw lines and parameters somewhere and legislation does it all the time. Legislation has absolutes. The spent convictions legislation has a cut-off date in it. There are cut-offs in all sorts of legislation. There is nothing new in cut-off dates and parameters in legislation. You have to set them arbitrarily. Sometimes they catch people and sometimes they do not. The point is that this government’s response is that it is all too hard and therefore we cannot do it.
In terms of saying that an authorised member has to exercise judicial discretion, they do it anyhow. If the minister reads the Bail Act and you read the conditions and terms upon which bail is granted or refused, they are required to exercise a certain amount of discretion because the line between judicial and administrative decisions is not a clearly definitive line; it is blurred like all things in the real world. Clear dividing lines are often very hard to find, but we require it in legislation of authorised members all the time and we ask it of OICs of police stations and sergeants of police. If you look at the operation of administrative law, you have many judicial officers do quasi-administrative work in different aspects of law.
It is a farcical argument and a cute little way in which the minister can say it is not worth doing because there are with it. Well, yes, there are problems with anything if you look at it. The minister only had to come and get a briefing and I could have explained all this to him. It is common practice for this government to not seek briefings, and they rely on the briefing that I give to this House called a second reading speech. I do not mind that because my second reading speech clearly explained what I was intending to do. If the government disagrees with it, they could simply have said: ‘We do not agree. We do not believe that the presumption bail should be reversed and we do not support legislation.’
But, no, they had to find problems with the technical aspects. No need. If you do not agree with it, say so. Say: ‘This is wrong. We do not want to do it’. That way, we create a point of difference between the members on this side of the House and the members on that side. That is all you have to do.
Rather than doing that, you decided to do a number on the bill and you had an each-way bet. You said it is badly drafted and will not reach the intention you are after. All you had to say was: ‘We do not believe there is a presumption that bail should be reversed in these circumstances and get nicked; we are not doing it’. You are the government; you could have chosen to do that. I am sure that the minister for Police, were he the Chief Minister, would certainly be supporting these tough measures on crime.
Madam Speaker, there is no surprise in this. I find it slightly refreshing that the government does not intend to steal this policy for a change, and we finally have a point of difference between the government and ourselves. There is no surprise that they do not support this. Big deal. At least be honest about them and tell Territorians you do not support trying to protect their property.
Motion negatived.
Motion agreed to.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I would like to, again in adjournment, raise issues regarding the fire safety and other safety defects at the Alice Springs Hospital. The minister had a bit to say today when, in the context of another debate, we were discussing the broken election promise of providing the oncology unit and he had a swipe at me and a comments I made last night about the Alice Springs Hospital.
Before dealing with what he said, I thought it appropriate to comment on what he said in parliament today. I note that despite my invitation to provide answers to all of the questions I asked last night, he has not done so, although there is one sitting day left and, of course, we had adjournment tonight so there is still time.
However, the minister had a go at me today by saying that I was in the business of name calling. What hypocrisy! He was the one yesterday who called me ‘the member for cheap shots’. Today in a radio interview, he said, and it was more colourful, that I was an ‘old coal burner’. Now if that is not name calling, I am not sure what is. These sorts of puerile comments really do demean the minister, but it doesn’t worry me at all and in fact what I have learnt over the last couple years is that you can actually track his public comments, either on radio or in his media releases, and when he gets into those sort of names, I smell blood, I know I am onto something, so it certainly does not worry me. When he starts with the name calling, I know that my course of action is clear and I know that I am onto something.
I could not let his comment today pass without my own comment in response. However, what I said in relation to fire safety and other safety issues at the Alice Springs Hospital is that the minister has some questions to answer, and I outlined a number of questions last night. Those questions, in essence, relate to his conduct. I said, and I repeat, that there is an aroma of skulduggery surrounding the timing of his announcement of $8m only three weeks after the Alice Springs Hospital gaining accreditation. He does need to report to parliament about this matter. He does need to account to the people of the Northern Territory, and in particular the people of Alice Springs. I note that he made some comments on radio today, and I will get to them shortly. I make the point at this stage that when I raised this matter in adjournment last night, I went down to the last two or three seconds of the time permitted to me. I fully intended last night to make further comments tonight, so I am glad, while the minister has not reported to the parliament, at least he has done a radio interview because, interestingly, even more questions arise from his comments.
The minister said on radio today that the accreditation team at the Alice Springs Hospital were:
I ask the following questions of the minister: What was the additional information to which he referred? Did it include provision of the April 2003 report? Did it include provision of the other 24 reports and assessments that the minister says exist? If not, why not? Since June 2004, has the minister received any more reports and assessments about safety or fire safety issues? If so, what were they and were they provided to the accreditation team and will he make those reports public? Can the minister also advise when the survey was completed in June 2004, why there was no mention anywhere in the report to non-compliance with building codes?
The minister made much of the part of the report dated June 2004 by the accreditation team in the debate we had earlier today when he went off on a bit of an excursion. At least it was something, but it certainly does not amount to providing anything in the way a full series of answers to any of the questions I raised last night. The minister referred to part of the report in an earlier debate. I thought I would put it on the record for the purpose of this debate tonight.
On page 4 of the accreditation team’s report dated June 2004, it states:
I ask the following questions of the minister: why did the review team refer to a fire department report in October 2002 elsewhere in its report when, as the minister would apparently have us believe, the more recent information was provided to the accreditation team? What was the date of the ACHS last survey to which the author referred on page 4 of the report? Was it prior to June 2004, and if so what was the date? What was the date of the ‘subsequent fire inspection report’ to which the author refers on page 4, and will the minister table it?
I have just quoted from the report, which states that:
It is worth repeating. I remind members that the accreditation team report was dated June 2004. At that time and, in fact, only one month before, in May 2004, the minister announced $2m in funding. The question has to be asked whether that was in anticipation of the accreditation team’s report. Further, the review team apparently believed that the funding of $2m was enough for all outstanding building deficiencies as commented upon on page 4 of the report. It appears as though all of the outstanding building deficiency repair works would commence in 2004. There is an inference that it would probably be completed in 2004, but I will leave that for another time.
The facts are clear. At the time, the accreditation team had certain information, but we do not know what it was. What we do know, however, is that they could not have had details about the extra $8m worth of funding the minister announced in February this year because it was announced some eight months – I will repeat that - some eight months after the accreditation report was completed. If the ACHS team members did know that another $8m was needed, why did the minister wait until February this year to announce the $8m? If there is another conclusion to be drawn, I invite the minister to tell me what it is.
In addition, just in case the minister is in any doubt as to how peculiar his conduct appears, the ACHS said in their report that they thought that all building repairs were to occur in 2004. It is now 2005, and we know that certain works are commencing this year, not last year. I ask the minister: did the ACHS know what the minister knew? I suggest that that is the most pressing question that arises from this issue.
However, there are more and I will continue to ask them with a view to the minister coming into parliament tomorrow and providing the answers. Can the minister categorically say that the accreditation review team was provided with any information after the date of the report in June 2004? When the minister announced in his media release of 2 February that a detailed examination has revealed that the problems at the hospital are even ‘more serious than first thought’, was the accreditation team made aware of this, even though his announcement was made three weeks after accreditation had, in fact, been gained?
I also ask: what the nature was of the ‘detailed examination’ to which the minister referred in his media release of 2 February? Was that detailed examination in the form of a written report? If so, what is the date of that report and will the minister table it? Did the minister know when he received the accreditation report in June last year that there were more reports being obtained? If so, did he advise the accreditation team to inform them that contrary to the view expressed in their report that everything would be done in 2004, or at least started; that more assessments and reports were actually being prepared, and were those reports conveyed to accreditation team?
The minister said on radio this morning that the accreditation team:
In response to that, I ask the minister: was that ‘very detailed repair plan’ the same plan that the minister referred to on radio today as the ‘detailed examination’, and was that also the same as that referred to in his media release of 2 February? Is it the same plan? If so, will the minister table it?
I said last night that the chronology of events raises some questions, and I repeat that. I also ask the following questions: on 7 February, the CEO of the Health Department was reported in the NT News to have said that some defects have been repaired, but others had not. Based on Mr Griew’s comments, can the minister confirm that, despite knowing since April 2003 about the faulty switch board, it is now ‘due to be redesigned’, the faulty hospital pager system is now ‘set to be replaced’, and that the entire electrical system is now ‘being reviewed’ and why have these not been repaired almost two years after the minister knew about them? Did he assure the accreditation team that these would be repaired and, if so, what, if any, time frames were provided to the team?
In today’s Northern Territory government Gazette, under the heading Contracts Awarded for Various Departments, there is a reference to the Alice Springs building ‘replace existing fire detection system’. In relation to this, I ask the minister to confirm whether the replacement of that system was discussed with the review team. When was it reported to the minister that the system needed to be replaced and what was the reason for the delay from the time it was reported to the minister and the awarding of the job?
Moving to another matter the minister raised in a radio interview today, I was concerned, to say the least, and I hope the minister has received advice on this, and I am pitching to him in his capacity as Attorney-General, the Territory’s first law officer. The Attorney-General today referred to pending legal action as a result of various defects at the Alice Springs Hospital and the Attorney-General named present and past members of the Assembly. The Attorney-General said: ‘They are in the frame’. I ask the Attorney-General: has legal action been commenced in relation to the refurbishments at the hospital? If so, who are the parties named as defendants? If legal proceedings have not been commenced, when does he expect a Statement of Claim to be filed in the Supreme Court? Are members he named in the radio interview today going to be named as defendants? If the people he named are not going to be joined in legal proceedings, does the Attorney-General concede that his comments as the first law officer of the Northern Territory were unwise, imprudent and politically motivated?
I say that the minister as Attorney-General and Minister for Health is sailing very close to the wind with those comments. He may wish to consider withdrawing them or at least not repeating them publicly. I suggest that the minister is in a bit of trouble about his conduct and handling of the refurbishments at the Alice Springs Hospital and to become carried away and outrageously naming members of the Assembly and saying that they are in the frame, the minister does a disservice to himself, and clearly demonstrates that he should not be the Attorney-General of the Northern Territory if he is going to be coming up with claptrap like that.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I pay tribute to Neville Walker. Unfortunately, I was not able to contribute to the condolence motion this morning, and I extend my condolences to Joanne and the family on the loss of a great Territorian, a Territorian who made things happen, a true pioneer, a man who, with Frazer Henry, built a great company, Henry and Walker, from the ground up through hard work and determination.
There is an old saying that I have not heard for a while: the harder you work, the luckier you are. Certainly, you can say that of Neville Walker.
I did not know Neville Walker very well or as a great personal friend. He is a man I have admired since my time in the Territory by just watching the success of the company. Since coming to government and attaining the portfolio of Business Minister and the Economic Development Summit, I did come to know Neville Walker fairly well and had a number of very interesting discussions with him. A great regret is not finding the time to take up his offer to take my boys out to Marrakai and to spend some time on the flood plains, on the jet boats. Sitting in the cathedral yesterday during his funeral, I regretted that I did not find the time in a busy life to take up that opportunity.
Much has been said about Neville and his contribution. Those words will stay on the public record forever through the Hansard of this parliament. However tonight, as well as me passing my condolences to Joanne and the family and saying Vale, Neville Walker, one person who has asked government to put his testimony on the public record for Neville was a very good friend of his, Wal King, AO, Chief Executive Officer of Leighton Holdings Limited and President of the Australian Constructors Association. Wal asked that this tribute be read into the Parliamentary Record as his tribute to Neville Walker:
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am sure there are many more hundreds of people who would like their testimony also placed on the public record, but I am pleased that I have been able to do this tonight on behalf of Wal King, the CEO of Leighton Holdings and, more importantly, the President of the Australian Constructors Association.
Neville Walker was held in very high regard by many thousands of people around the world. He will be sorely missed. Vale, Neville Walker.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, one of the great joys of being a member of parliament is that occasionally you get to abuse your position, and I am going to abuse my position tonight insofar as I get to speak directly to the minister about the day-to-day complaints about the operation of government departments as they affect you.
To shed some light, I want to raise the matter of a bill from the Power and Water Corporation today, according to my other half in Alice Springs. It is a final demand for my power and water. I have never in my life failed to pay my bills so to receive final demands causes me concern.
I wondered whether I had missed the bill. No, I have not missed the original bill; it was never sent. This, of course, leads me to the more general problem of the billing problems in the Power and Water Corporation. And the general billing problem is simply this: the billing system is failing. I can suffer this and cop it on the chin. I can reach very quickly into my pocket, grab the $350-odd, whatever is outstanding, and I can pay it.
However, there are many Territorians who cannot readily reach into their pocket and grab their $350 or whatever they have to pay for their bills, and I wonder how many other Territorians, because of the faults in the billing system, are receiving final demand notices or risk having their power cut off, which is what is being suggested on these final notices. I am deeply concerned that there are many Territorians who are receiving these notices. Now, I do not know what has gone wrong with the billing system in the Power and Water Corporation, but I do know this: I did not receive any other form of bill other than the final demand. If I am any yardstick to go by, there are many other Territorians in the same boat. I wonder how many Territorians who are trying to support families, single income families with two or three kids, mums at home, or dad at home with one spouse working - I wonder what they would be feeling if all of a sudden they started getting those little red notices in an envelope with a little window on it.
Mr Wood: No pink slips any more.
Mr ELFERINK: Whatever form they come in, I have not seen this final notice; I have simply been told over the telephone.
I also wonder, because I have been away for a few weeks, if the Power and Water Corporation were going to action this final demand, and if, all of a sudden, I come home and find that my power had been cut off. Now, it would not take that much for me to get it back on, but I wonder how many other Territorians have been in a position where it would affect them because they have gone on holidays, and they come back thinking that they do not have a problem.
This is a problem that the government has to get across, and it is not a small problem. Income for the Power and Water Corporation has been seriously affected, so this must be happening to thousands of Territorians, and even through a few conversations I have had today, companies are receiving major bills for power consumption. There are questions hanging over accuracy and amounts of power and water used, and this is a very serious issue. Because the revenue income is so badly affected, it must be Territory-wide, endemic and affecting thousands of Territory families. I urge the minister to and explain what on earth is going on because, clearly, the situation has gotten out of hand.
I am also advised tonight, and I seek some correction, but the member for Fannie Bay, as Chief Minister, has announced to the Waratah Sports Club that she will never allow the Waratah Sports Club to go to the wall. The rumour I hear is that Waratah Sports Club does have financial difficulties at the moment, and I am curious to hear from the Minister for Sport and Recreation how much this is going to cost the Territory taxpayer in relation to the Waratah Sports Club if a bail out package is proposed, and out of what budget or whose budget that amount of money is going to come.
I do not know what the case is for the Waratah Sports Club, it might be a very good case if, indeed, they are in this trouble. But if they are and the Chief Minister has made this promise, I would like to know from which budget it is coming, which other sports club may miss out as a result of this, and what processes are going to be gone through to help the Waratah Sports Club. I know that the minister is very keen to help the Western Bulldogs, and is keen to have other members of this House help the Western Bulldogs, but I remind the minister that charity starts at home.
Clearly, the member for Fannie Bay, the Chief Minister, seems to think so. I urge a clear, open and honest account as to what money is going to be forwarded to the Waratah Sports Club and who else as a result of that is going to miss out.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the Darwin Surf Life Saving Club is within my electorate and provides a valuable service to both my constituents and the wider community and, as Patron of the Darwin Surf Life Saving Club, I am always pleased to hear of the success of our surf life saving representatives at national competitions, and to be able to share with you their recent successes.
In January this year, members of the Darwin Surf Life Saving Club travelled to South Maroubra Beach in New South Wales to contest the interstate championships. The Australia Day weekend carnival is second only to the Australian Championships and attracts some of the best in the country. The team comprised many Darwin Surf Life Saving Club members, some of whom were very competitive in the challenging seas. The Darwin men’s open surf boat crew shocked the most experience states by placing well in damaging 3 m waves.
Stand-outs were 17-year-old Haley McKinnon in the surf races where she gave her team the edge, and many of the youthful competitors. She followed this up the next day by winning the Under 19 women’s surf race at Manly Beach against some of the more fancied competitors. Haley McKinnon’s background as a NTIS scholar, and her strength in pool swimming prepared her well. She had a gruelling week at the AIS in Canberra in December 2004 before first competing in January 2005 at the Queensland Swimming Championships. Then she flew straight to New South Wales to contest their state swimming championships, where she finished with three medals in the company of some notable Olympic swimmers – and all this, only days prior to the surf triumphs.
I am very proud to be involved with such a dedicated group who are committed to developing our youth for sport and community involvement by giving them the opportunity to learn new skills and gain a community spirit.
I would now like to speak about two young people, one of them living in my electorate the other in Wanguri. First, I would like to speak about Simone Liddy, a very young constituent of mine, a Dripstone High student who has the classic combination of brains and athletic prowess. The Territory hockey star has become the first indigenous Territorian to score a pharmacy cadetship with the Department of Health and Community Services that includes 12 weeks annual work placement at Royal Darwin Hospital for each year of her four-year degree.
Simone is 17 years old and achieved a tertiary entrance rank of 87.9 last year after completing Year 12 at Dripstone High School, and credited her teachers at Dripstone High for helping her to fulfil her academic potential. She now has her sights firmly set on a career in pharmacy, despite some initial doubts. When I spoke to Simone, she told me that she was very scared at first about leaving school and having to make a decision that will affect her life. Becoming a pharmacist will provide her with a lot of opportunity in life, and is a stable, well paid job. She said:
Simone will receive a $12 000 scholarship per year, and she will commence her studies at Charles Darwin University this year before moving to Curtin University in Perth to complete the final three years of her pharmacy degree. One advantage of moving to Curtin University is that Western Australia’s domestic hockey competition is one of the world’s best and is played at the Curtin campus.
Simone is a current NTIS scholarship holder and has represent the Territory at junior level without fail since wearing the black, white and ochre uniform for the first time seven years ago as a primary school student. She said moving to Western Australia could also improve her chances of fulfilling her hockey dream of playing for the Territory Pearls in the National Hockey League.
Simone’s cadetship is funded by the Department of Health and Community Services Human Resources and Work Force Development Branch under the National Indigenous Cadetship Program. I would like to wish Simone, first of all, congratulations and good luck with her studies. I would like to assure you her that CDU will offer fantastic studies for the first year and that Curtin University is a fantastic university. It is one of the universities from which I graduated, and will provide not only the educational background, but also the opportunity to train and perfect her hockey because I know Simone is a fantastic hockey player.
Another young person, Susan Farquhar, is a 19-year-old former Dripstone High School and Casuarina Secondary College student. Susan is the first recipient of the Minister for Mines and Energy’s Earth Science and Geology cadetship. Last year, when I attended the Geology NT Chapter dinner, one of the things that was discussed was the lack of young people to study or to work in geology in the Northern Territory. At that dinner, I promised that I would work with my department to find a way to attract young people into geology.
Following a few exciting moments with the department, we managed to come up with the idea of providing a scholarship of $12 000 per year for three years for young people to study geology in the Territory for the first year, at another university for the next two years and then come and work in the Territory. We will provide work experience during the long holidays in the summer time either in the department or with the mining industry. The department will provide a mentor to support the person in his or her studies. I was very pleased when we had about seven applicants. Six of them were interviewed and Susan Farquhar, a 19-year-old lady was the first person to receive this cadetship. It is exciting because usually geology is a field that men are attracted to, but this time we had a young woman who applied and received the cadetship.
I extend Susan Farquhar my best wishes for successful studies and I am looking forward to her coming back and helping the Territory to achieve its goal of growth and help the mining industry by being a successful geologist.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to talk briefly about a number of subjects.
I would like to thank Karen Ralphs for organising the Litchfield Region Australia Day Awards recently. She always does a great job. There was quite a large crowd at the Freds Pass Reserve this year and, as usual, she organises it with finesse and it always goes off well. There was certainly plenty of food to eat, like the Australia Day cake. I did see one kid take the whole of Tasmania with him. He was, obviously, very hungry. You get that with fruit cake on Australia Day. There was plenty of other food like lamingtons and other traditional foods.
A member: Vegemite sandwiches.
Mr WOOD: I am not sure whether there were vegemite sandwiches, but there was plenty of food.
I should mention those people who won the awards. The Young Citizen award went to the Howard Springs Scout Group, which I have a fair bit to do with from time to time. Our Citizen of the Year was Sylvia Pratt, known as Pepe. Pepe has worked with the Humpty Doo Volunteer Fire Brigade for years and years. She is a great worker, giving a lot of her time in that area of volunteering.
Ron Thomas is also in the fire brigade. He helped establish the Berry Springs fire brigade and I believe he is still involved in that. The Community Event of the year went to the Mango Ball. That was a great event. I know it very well. I had to dress up in a silly suit that made me sweat all night. It is a wonder I lasted. The people who organised that Mango Ball are Lee Berryman and her committee. They did a marvellous job. Ted Egan came to that ball and gave us a couple of his tunes, which everyone thought was great. That is what it is like when you have a great Administrator like Ted Egan attend some of your community functions. Senior Sportsperson was Teresa Lee Cunnington. Teresa was actually one of the founding people for RDA, Riding for the Disabled. I remember when that first started in the McMinns area. Barry Coulter and I went down there for the official opening and that is were it originally started. Now I think it is based in Palmerston.
Junior Sportsperson and Achievement awards went to a family: Kay Argent, Joy Wood and Ron Love. They are all part of the archery club called the Wandering Archers. They have set up a club in Humpty Doo and if you would like to learn to fire an arrow as well as Robin Hood or William Tell, I can tell you that they are the people to go and see.
We also had an Australian citizenship ceremony and a number of people –Belio Mariagrazia, Jannett Fidock from the Philippines, Pauline, Ida, Ilona and Ivy Mutuku from Kenya and Pamela Rogers from Britain. You may know Pamela Rogers. She drives a courier vehicle labelled Penny’s Couriers. You will see it flying around everywhere. She has lived in Australia since she was two years old and she thought it was about time she became an Aussie. I have checked her out for Vegemite, pies and sauce and words like ‘sheila’ and ‘you beaut’ and she passed the exam quite well. She is now a dinky-di Aussie and she is very proud of it.
On the more informal side of it, we did have Mick Dennigan doing whip cracking and a thong-throwing competition. For those who wanted something a little more adventurous, they could pop down to Howard Springs Reserve that afternoon where we had a boule competition, which is like French bowls or bocce. We had $400 for first prize and $100 for second prize, so we had 66 playing in that competition, which was open to everyone. We had 50 year-old people playing 10-year old kids. It didn’t matter; everyone had a great day. In the end, Aaron Scott, who is 16 or 17 years old, took home $400 in prize money – just for throwing a big, heavy ball after a little, heavy ball.
We also had our cricket match, with our sea gulls all over the Howard Springs Reserve cricket ground, and I thank Greg Owens for helping out with that. It was a very hot day, and he made sure all the kids and parents had a hit or a bowl and enjoyed themselves.
We had a cold pie and hot Coke competition. It might sound easy, but it is tortuous. You have one cold pie and one Coke, and you have a time to eat and drink them. I thank Howard Springs Bakehouse, Ray, who donated 50 pies and Andy Steel from Parmalat who donated the Coke. The junior competition was taken out by Pete and Chris won the senior event. The junior time was quicker than the senior time at 1.03 seconds to knock down a pie and a Coke.
I thank our sponsors Finn Bins, Mitre 10 Howard Springs, Howard Springs Post Office, Howard Springs Supermarket, Shorelands, All Earth Industries, Saddleworld, Chianti and Coffee, Arthur Evans who made up a nice trophy with a boule on a nice timber frame, Howard Springs Tavern, Reidy’s Lures and a special mention to Howard Springs volunteer firies and the Southern Districts Cricket Club. We all got together and had free drinks and meat for the BBQ. The whole day was free, which was the way to go for Australia Day. Many families today cannot afford to go out to some of this entertainment because it costs a lot to get in and then you are charged for being in an event. In this case, the whole day was free.
There are a few historic things happening this week. The Litchfield Times published its last edition and today or tomorrow, we should see the newly established Territory Times, which I believe is going to be delivered throughout the Territory. It will be interesting to see how it goes. I am not sure how the Katherine Times people will like it, or the Tennant and Barkly Times …
A member: Healthy competition.
Mr WOOD: I believe the same in Darwin, actually. Competition in the media doesn’t do any harm. They are certainly changing, and I wish Val and Leanne all the best in this new venture and hope it is a great success.
There are a couple of other issues. The member for Johnston may be interested in this: I have received a letter from the department over a couple of issues on which I have written to the minister. One was about the road signs on the corner of Howard Springs and Whitewood Roads. I recently took a photo of those signs and sent it to the Chief Minister, hoping that something could be done in the budget.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Planning has kindly sent me a letter saying that all those messy signs are coming down and they will be erecting an arch. I thank the minister very much for that. I did ring his office today to remind him that before they pull all the advertising signs down, we may need time to talk to the people who own the signs so we can exercise some diplomacy so they are aware of the replacement. That will be a great improvement on the corner of those roads. Anyone who has seen it would agree it is a bit of a disgrace. So many tourists use it in the Dry Season and must wonder whether they have come to a hick town.
On the opposite side of that, the minister wrote to me about the re-alignment of Girraween Road and the possibility of that road joining the Stuart Highway at the intersection of Henning Road near Woolworths Coolalinga. I thank the minister for his letter in response to a petition signed by about 650 people who asked that Girraween Road be re-aligned in the next budget. Unfortunately, the letter says it is not a priority at the moment. I am hoping that the government will change its mind on that. If we are looking at new landscaping for Litchfield, we are looking for changes to the roads, certainly the changes to Girraween Road are overdue. We thought it might have happened under the previous government, and it did not. This government has had a lot of people go out there and look at it, and have some preliminary design, but it is one of those areas where road safety is important and it makes a lot of sense because we do not want another set of traffic lights in that area. Here, we can combine one set of traffic lights to handle the two roads. I hope the minister will reconsider bringing that project forward.
I will now talk about some Power and Water issues. It was the member for Macdonnell who reminded me of a complaint I received today. I had a gentleman from the rural area ring me and say that he used to pay his power and water bill using a Budget Planning Service. He discovered the service ceased last year. This gentleman is a pensioner and the scheme was helpful financially. It allowed a payment to be made on an estimated bill sent out by Power and Water monthly. He has just received his first three-monthly bill, which he said would be difficult to pay. He contacted Power and Water regarding the bill and the reason why he received a three month bill and not the usual monthly bill. He has been given time to pay the account and was told that the Budget Planning Service has ceased due to it not being used by many customers. He would like to see the monthly payment scheme reinstated.
I could have raised it as a question but, unfortunately, there is never enough time in Question Time to ask all the questions you would like. That is an interesting change. I was going to ask is whether the problems we have with the billing system at the moment- and there are problems even on minor matters. I came home late last night and opened up two reminders for the same account that had come to my place. I admit I paid the bill last week, so I was running a bit late and, obviously, was going to get a reminder, but I got two of them.
I wonder whether the closure of the Budget Planning Service has occurred simply because Power and Water have changed their computers and they may not have allowed for this service to continue. What I gather is that the gentleman could pay a certain amount of money ahead so that when he received his bill, he paid it and he said he always had a bit extra, which went into credit for the next month. It was a way of making sure he never ran behind in his payments. I ask the minister whether he could look at that and see whether there is any chance of reinstating it. Was it the new computer system that stopped it?
On another issue, I received a phone call this afternoon from a constituent whose wife had gone into hospital earlier this week. She has been very sick. She was in a bed for 30 hours, waiting for a bed in a ward. He told me there were 28 people on Monday waiting to move into beds in the hospital. Why is that so? You could imagine occasionally there would be a couple of people waiting. Things like that can happen, but 28 people waiting for a bed! I know this particular lady. In fact, her husband, who rang me, has cared for this dear lady for many years. She has an illness that confines her more or less to bed. She does not walk around much at all. He takes her in the car wherever he goes. He has cared for her a very long time. He is not the sort of bloke who would complain normally. The Minister for Health should at least be looking at the reasons why 28 people were waiting for beds last Monday in hospital. He said this was not the only time. At lunchtime, there were still 26 people waiting.
He did say that the nurses in the hospital were just great. He could not give enough praise to the nurses. Even when I was there, they work extra, extra hard. I ask the minister to look at the reasons, and will he say what he is trying to do to make sure there are not large numbers of people waiting for beds in the Accident and Emergency area, which is where I believe they were waiting.
Perhaps the minister could come back to parliament and say what has happened to the Filipino nurses who were trained in Ireland and were to come to Australia to relieve some of our nursing shortages? Have they come? I have noticed many of the nurses are working such long hours that they are finding it difficult to continue working in these conditions. I hope the minister can respond to some of those issues.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to add some comments to those of the member for Araluen regarding the Alice Springs Hospital, particularly about the comments made by the Health Minister this morning on talkback radio with Daryl Manzie.
I refer, specifically, to the issue of the hospital refurbishment and what has to be done. I will read a few quotes from what he said to Daryl Manzie:
He was then interrupted by Daryl Manzie, and then he went on to say:
Maybe the minister is not aware that I was not made Minister for Central Australia until 2000. In fact, it was the end of 2000 before I was made minister, so how I could be the ‘man on the spot’ as the Minister for Central Australia in 1998 is beyond my comprehension. There already lies a significant error by this minister. If that is the inaccurate way that he does his business, obviously, there are difficulties for him. Talking about surgery at the hospital, he went on to say to Daryl Manzie:
Let me talk about waiting lists and elective surgery. Since Christmas last year, elective surgery has been very sporadic. I believe only day surgery is allowed to be performed and that, again, only sporadically because there is not enough nursing staff in the theatre suite to ensure that elective surgery is being conducted. What is elective surgery? Elective surgery is for conditions such as hernias, tonsils, orthopaedic conditions such as joint problems, or even total hip problems, cataracts, trachoma, conditions that are not life-threatening.
A hernia is a condition whereby the bowel comes through a hole in the groin and, if it is not treated in the early days, it gets bigger and bigger and the day will come when the hernia is strangulated. When that happens, it becomes an absolute emergency. If you do not conduct the surgery quickly, the hernia, once strangulated, will start to swell and may rupture. If you put off elective surgery time and time again, one day the elective surgery becomes emergency surgery. That person then requires more surgical services, more support from medical services and sometimes the patient will develop an infection. All sorts of extra services are required to support emergency surgery because it was not done as elective surgery in the early days. It is a stupid way of caring for patients in that you are robbing Peter to pay Paul, but this time, paying Paul a lot more than you can rob Peter of.
The waiting list at Alice Springs Hospital has gone to almost 1600 over the last three years. This is getting beyond a joke. This is hospital service that this government says it is going very well, is going hunky-dory, we have lots of nurses, we have recruited all these nurses to the Northern Territory yet we do not have enough nurses in theatre to perform what is required in Alice Springs.
This government needs to be told in no uncertain terms. As I said last night, as demonstrated by letters written by Pam Hooper, there is a huge problem and this minister has to deal with it. Tell us the truth, tell us what you are honestly doing, and if you do not know how to do it, move aside and let someone else do the job. I talked about doctors and I do not want to name them. I have had communications from them about what their problems are at the hospital. They are not prepared to be named in public because they know that they will be targeted by the administration. I know there are lots of overseas qualified doctors in Australia on temporary visas working on short term contracts with the hospital. These contracts are held over their heads: behave yourself or those contracts will not be extended. I was advised by a doctor at the hospital whose name I shall not mention that some of the doctors have had their contracts withheld. You start to wonder what is wrong with the administration that they need to use such tactics to coerce doctors at the Alice Springs Hospital.
It is no wonder the morale of the whole hospital is so bad. It is no wonder that nurses are not so much on strike, but have taken industrial action and are working to rule. When we told the minister that the nurses are working long hours, when you tell the minister that doctors are working long hours and are running up to 30 hours at a time, he says everything is fine. Nothing is fine and the more he procrastinates in his decisions and planning for the Alice Springs Hospital, the worse it gets.
I told members last night that the Director of Medical Services is on long-term stress leave and now I find that the administration of the hospital is planning to keep the position vacant for as long as possible in the long-term hope that they will do without a Director of Medical Services for Alice Springs Hospital. It is beyond belief that the government would allow such a thing to happen.
The Alice Springs Hospital is a major hospital. It services up to 50 000 people for the whole of Central Australia, which includes South Australia, parts of Western Australia, even parts of New South Wales and Queensland. It is a major hospital that does a lot of surgery, particularly trauma. It provides a lot of medical care including high dependency and intensive care services. The hospital needs to have a strong Director of Medical Services who can look after the medical interests of the Alice Springs Hospital community. To think that this government is going to try to get rid of the Director of Medical Services position all together is beyond belief.
It is no wonder all the doctors are running around not knowing what they are going to do, how they are going to ensure that good medical care continues at the hospital. It is no wonder we hear daily of the complaints in the hospital. I look forward to the minister telling me what he is going to do about that tomorrow.
In the next six minutes I am going to talk about an issue that the member for Nelson raised a short while ago. It is a bit of a coincidence that I received a call from a constituent in my electorate of Greatorex regarding the Budget Planning Division of Power and Water. She is a cleaner at the Alice Springs Hospital. She suffers from severe asthma and she requires the use of a ventilator or an aerosol Ventolin pump every so often when her asthma gets very bad. She has had this condition for a long time. She has lived in the farms area of Alice Springs for many years, and in the years when Power and Water was called NTEC, the CLP government provided this person with a trip switch attached to her main so that whenever there was a mains power black out, the switch would trip and her emergency generator would switch on, ensuring that she had 24-hours of power at all times in case she needed to have Ventolin.
Because she lives out at the farms area, it would take her at least 20 minutes, if not more, to get from her driveway to the Alice Springs Hospital in the event that she needs emergency medical help for her asthma.
She received advice from Power and Water that her pattern of payment, which was $100 every fortnight, will no longer be acceptable to Power and Water, and that she now has to pay her bill in full. She is a cleaner. She is on a low income and is a single-income family. That is all she can afford. She has always managed to pay her bill before the next bill arrives. That has been the pattern for many years and within the period from one bill to the next, she is able to pay the bill.
She received a call from Power and Water saying: ‘Sorry. This is no more. You have to pay your full bill. We will give you up to a month to catch up, and from then on, you have to pay your bills as they arrive’. Minister, I am saying to you that this lady cannot afford it. If you insist that she pays the bill up-front, she will end up having her power cut off and she cannot afford to generate her own power using diesel indefinitely or until a time that she has saved enough money to get up front.
This person has a long history of paying her bills on time and has done that consistently. She is not a bad debtor by any definition, and there is no reason at all for Power and Water to deprive her of the facility to pay off her bills over several fortnightly payments.
I ask the minister to intervene in this case. She is prepared for me to give you her name and address. Her name is Mrs Denise Purdue and I will give you her address. I told her that I will raise this matter in parliament for her this week, and I trust this can be resolved within the next few days so that her power supply is uninterrupted. Otherwise her life will be at risk and that is what is important. It is unfortunate that the minister is asleep …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, withdraw that.
Dr LIM: He is asleep.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Withdraw it, please.
Dr LIM: All right. I withdraw. I hope the minister hears what I have said and, if not, his advisers in the office upstairs will monitor what I am saying to ensure that the minister’s attention is brought to this case so that a decision can be made before Power and Water cuts off the supply to this person.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I spoke last week in the debate on drug-related crime about how the Northern Territory government should look at how victims of crime should receive compensation for the damage that has been caused to their property.
Victims should not be disadvantaged because of some other person’s unlawful destructive behaviour. I have always believed, and my position has not changed, that perpetrators of the crime are the people responsible to pay for any damage caused. There should be much harsher penalties meted out by the courts to deal with people who cause damage to other people’s property and, most of all, those who cause the damage should have to pay for it.
I am sure most members of the community are sick and tired of the lenient penalties that are handed out to the likes of these people. I know I am. In some cases, the penalty is barely a slap on the wrist and, of course, gives absolutely no reassurance to the community. If the perpetrator is receiving Centrelink payments, there are procedures in place that allow deductions to be made from a person’s payment and that is one certain way that restitution can and should be made. I am hopeful that if those people causing the damage have to pay for it, maybe it would be a deterrent to future unlawful and destructive actions.
During the debate last week on drug-related crime, I talked about an incident in Katherine that involved the Crotti family, and especially Darren having the windscreen of his car smashed when a man deliberately jumped on to the bonnet of the car. Darren and his wife could not afford to replace the smashed window. As a result of this incident, the Crotti family car was defected and put off the road, which was a huge inconvenience for this family of five.
I am happy to report that Nick West of Katherine Crash Repairs has come to the aid of the Crotti family and replaced the windscreen in their family car for free. It is the very generous support of people like Nick that gives one heart and shows that there are some very caring people in our community. Well done, Nick. I know that your generosity is very much appreciated by Darren and Anne.
However, that brings me back to my point: the people who cause the damage should be paying for their actions. It should not be left to the victims and other community members to pay for unlawful property damage caused by others.
I place on the record some history of the Katherine Cultural Centre Precinct, which is an exciting development that is in the planning stages for Katherine. It was approximately five years ago that I was present at a function at the Katherine Visitors Centre, at which Mike Reed, the then Minister for Tourism in the CLP government, was the guest speaker. At that meeting, Mike was presented with a proposal for the development of a cultural centre precinct by two members of Arts Katherine, Debra King and Jenny Madden. It was obvious after listening to their presentation to Mike, and reading the information that they had provided for us to take away, that there had been a considerable amount of research into cultural precincts and the benefits of having one in Katherine to support the strong Katherine arts community. I have to say that I was very excited by the proposal then, and I still fully support the development of a cultural precinct.
A Katherine Regional Cultural Precinct Action Group was formed in May 2001 to put into action an arts and cultural centre that would benefit the Katherine region culturally, socially and economically. The group identified a need for cultural facilities that would provide opportunities for the presentation and participation in the cultural and creative life of the Katherine region. These facilities would also broaden the tourist experience and present a unique insight into the contemporary life of the Katherine region and the Territory. The action group was incorporated late in 2002, and represented a cross-section of the Katherine regional community.
A feasibility study completed in 2003 consisted of some community consultation. The outcome of this feasibility study proved favourable for the concept of the precinct, highlighting the need for cultural facilities of a regional standard, including a welcome centre, indoor and outdoor performance space, and a gallery as well as workshop spaces, office space for arts organisations, a retail outlet and a caf; a pretty grand vision.
The Northern Territory government endorsed the project with in-principle support as a project that would benefit the Katherine community. The site selection process was undertaken in 2003 and 2004, with recommendations from the external consulting firm, Positive Solutions. The outcome of that was that the Katherine Regional Cultural Precinct Action Group chose a site on the corner of Chambers Drive and Stuart Highway, which is in the sports and recreation area. The area chosen by the action group was on the baseball diamond. This site was suggested by the CEO of Katherine Town Council, Terry Bus, without consulting the rest of the council or any consultation with the community.
In early 2004, the Northern Territory government announced $500 000 for headworks in preparing the site for construction. The action group developed a Plan of Management with recommendations of ownership, a management structure and costing, and established a key partnership with the Katherine Town Council in their decision to contribute land, namely the baseball diamond.
The uproar from the community began when Katherine people realised just what was happening. They were going to lose their baseball diamond. I attended a public meeting where the community were invited to put their views on the proposed site, and the meeting did nothing to assure the people present that their views were going to be taken into consideration at all. As a matter of fact, the decision had already been made by council and the meeting was merely tokenism for anyone who wanted to have their say.
It was disappointing at that meeting to hear some members of the action group and arts community who had, of course, been involved in the planning to date put down people present who are asking for further community consultation. I heard several say that there had been plenty of opportunity for members of the community to have had their say before, and that those people should have become involved earlier.
I cannot let it go unsaid that not everyone in a community can be involved on every single committee, but they have every right to make constructive comments about what happens in their community and, in this case, with such a major development.
Following on from this meeting, a group of concerned Katherine people started lobbying council to reconsider their decision; to keep the baseball diamond and the sporting grounds for recreation and to find another site for the cultural centre precinct. A petition that attracted over 700 signatures protesting against the baseball diamond being given away for the precinct was presented to council, followed by meetings by the concerned community group with council and members of the cultural precinct.
The aldermen of Katherine Town Council are divided over the issue of the baseball diamond site and the motion to go ahead with the offer of the baseball diamond to the cultural precinct was only passed with the casting vote of the Mayor, Anne Shepherd, who did not even wait to see how the aldermen voted before she voted.
To add weight to the dissent in the community, this vote was rushed through the council on a late agenda item and before the Katherine Town Council by-election. Candidates for the by-election had publicly expressed their views on the site for the precinct, so it makes one wonder as to why the big rush. Since that time, members of Katherine Town Council, including the aldermen, attended a meeting at which a public servant from Darwin advised that unless the precinct was going ahead on the baseball diamond, Northern Territory government funding would be withdrawn.
I have deliberately kept from making too many comments about the location of the precinct, and my personal opinions are well known in Katherine. I do not believe that it should go there, but I have not formed part of any of these groups because I believe the decision should be made by the community that will be utilising this great facility.
I fully support the development of the precinct, and I believe that the community fully supports it. I have not heard of one person who doesn’t want it for Katherine. The issue to be resolved is the location. It can be win-win if commonsense prevails and the community can sit down rationally and work out a site that will keep the arts community happy as well as the sporting community.
The purpose of putting this on the record tonight is to have the Martin Labor government reassure the Katherine Town Council that funding for the development of the precinct will not be withdrawn if the development does not go ahead on the baseball diamond.
The aldermen and mayor of Katherine Town Council need reassurance that their vote next Tuesday night at their council meeting is a vote of conscience and good governance, and not a vote made under pressure of having funding withdrawn by the Northern Territory government. I hope the Martin Labor government can give such a reassurance to Katherine Town Council this week.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
CONDOLENCE MOTION
Mr Neville Walker AM
Mr Neville Walker AM
Neville Walker and Frazer Henry were the founders of Henry Walker Eltin, a company which we in the Territory like to think of as our own. It started here, it prospered here, and it lives here still. When he died last week, Neville was the Chairman of the Board of Directors of a company in receivership, but behind the scenes, he was working tirelessly to help it survive its financial crisis.
Neville Walker was not known as one who walked away from a job. His son, David, recalled a time during the Wet Season when Neville went out to do some road repairs at his Noonamah property. A lifetime heavy machinery operator, he drove the grader to do the work, but bogged it. He then took the tractor out to free the grader, and bogged the tractor. Then he took the bulldozer out to free the tractor and the grader, and bogged the dozer. Then he took the scraper out to pull the rest out, but was finally persuaded to give up on account of darkness. He was not a man easily defeated.
Fiercely independent, Neville Walker came to the Territory in the late 1950s, putting as much space as he could between himself and the family dairy farm in Bunbury, Western Australia. Young and fit, he saw the Territory as the land of opportunity for those unafraid of a hard day’s work. It was the start of a life-long love affair between Neville Walker and the Territory. He loved its easygoing lifestyle, the Wet Season and the way the country changed when the rains blew in. He loved the space and the work in bush construction camps.
It was in one of those camps along the Western Australia border that Neville first met Frazer Henry, a young man fresh from the Queensland cane fields. They hit it off from the start. They shared a dream: to put their mechanical skills to work in the civil engineering bonanza which was happening right around the Territory. It was a time of exponential growth in the bush. In the 1960s, when the American export market for beef opened up, improved road infrastructure was essential to move cattle by road trains from the remote stations to urban markets.
Neville and Frazer pooled their savings and bought a grader in 1962. With the grader, they were able to secure their first contract grading the beef roads north-east of Alice Springs. They also put a deposit on an old utility to carry food and water and, along with two dogs, they went bush. It was the start of a partnership that would last 43 years.
The pair stayed out bush as long as they could to keep one step ahead of their creditors. They remember it as ‘glove box accountancy’. They stuffed all the invoices that accumulated over the months into the glove box of the ute and paid them off when they went to town. They worked on such slim margins that on their second job, they were forced to drive a grader 800 km rather than add the cost of the trailer to their tender. They did anything to get work. After a couple of years, they bought a few more machines, established separate camps and started hiring people. They graded roads and cleared airstrips. There would hardly be a road in the Territory that Frazer and Neville did not build or maintain. In those days, life in the camps was rough. Frazer recalls he and Neville going ‘shopping’ for dinner - bush style. That was in a ute with a .303 rifle and a skinning knife. They pulled up at a water hole where cattle gathered; always glancing over their shoulder looking for passing pastoralists.
After Neville married in 1967, he and Frazer became brothers-in-law when Frazer married Neville’s wife’s sister. They often took the families along on bush jobs. Neville’s first daughter, Danielle, remembers a lonely camp in Arnhem Land. Her mum decided to go down to a billabong to do the washing, with a dog racing along, carrying baby Danielle in one arm and the wash in the other. As she put the baby down on the bank a giant crocodile sprang from the water and took the dog in one gulp.
They lived for years in tents and swags, often trading station owners with quality road grading for a ‘cartoon’ of green cans, as it was called in those days. They would often spend their bush weekends aboard their dozers and scrapers cutting a remote community athletics field or a football oval, many of them still in use today.
Business was good and the partnership prospered. They both moved into Darwin, buying three houses in Nightcliff. Then came Christmas Eve 1974 when Cyclone Tracy came to town. Neville and his family had their house collapse around them. Nine people congregated in the bathroom. When the walls collapsed, Walker family members piled on top of each other. In the morning Frazer Henry walked from his house across Nightcliff through the rubble to find the Walker family huddled in a car beneath the house. They then drove on four flat tyres to Noonamah, where they have lived ever since.
After the cyclone, Neville and Frazer had their hands full cleaning up all the rubble around town. It took six weeks to clean up what was once Darwin and take it to the dump. Then they returned to the bush to continue their road work. Neville and Frazer hired employees like them; country people who could turn their hands to anything and liked working in isolated remote areas. Many of them remain loyal Henry Walker Eltin employees today, decades later.
Des McKay is the longest serving with 38 years service, but Robert Wilson is not far behind. Back in the 1970s Robert was a teenager at the Darwin Wharf when Neville Walker approached him. Neville looked him over and finally asked: ‘Can you take that truck to Bougainvillea Street?’ The boy said: ‘Who are you?’ He said: ‘My name is Neville Walker. Don’t you work for me?’ Robert said: ‘No,’ to which Neville replied: ‘If you want to work for me, take that truck to Bougainvillea Street’. New to Darwin, Robert found a map and drove the truck to Bougainvillea Street, even though he was too young to have a licence, but he never regretted it. Thirty years later Robert Wilson is the company’s Darwin Manager.
Henry and Walker, as they were known then, started developing land in the late 1970s. They bought Nathan River Station in the Gulf Country. They raised two prawn trawlers sunk in the cyclone in order to get their licences, and bought two more. They bought land just outside the edge of suburbia knowing its value would one day sky-rocket. They acquired the leases on two gold mines, Mount Bonnie and the Tanami Gold Mine and operated them themselves. Neville bought Woolner and later Marrakai Stations on the Mary River flood plain, where he raised his children.
The pair became partners in the Territory’s first crocodile farm and it all started because Neville hated wasting anything. His friend, Malcolm Eardley, had a chicken farm outside Darwin, and one day Neville watched in horror as Malcolm disposed of waste chickens he was unable to sell. How could they make use of those chickens? Feed them to the crocs was the answer, then raise the crocs, sell them for skins and meat, and let the tourists see them as well. So the Walkers and the Henrys and the Noonans went out, armed with government licences, and captured crocodiles, big salties and little freshies, and so was born another sustainable Territory industry with which Neville continued to be involved until his death.
He was a practical man, always on the lookout for a bargain. Life-long friend, Dick Griffiths, remembered taking a call from Neville informing him that ‘they’ had just bought a-ton-and-a-half block of lead at an auction. ‘What are we going to do with a-ton-and-a-half of lead?’ asked Dick. ‘Make sinkers, of course!’ replied Neville, who set about with a blowtorch making hundreds of fishing sinkers. Those who have been lucky enough to wet a line with the Walker family since know that they are never short of a good sinker.
The late 1970s was a period of intense growth for Henry and Walker until 1981, when they decided that the company must go public to capitalise and expand into the next phase. The long-time partnership went public. It had been a partnership built on mutual trust, honesty and integrity - old school values. They trusted each other like brothers and it was that trust which laid the foundation for the successful public company.
A public share float took place, and Henry Walker became the Territory’s first home-grown publicly listed company. They became the Henry Walker Group Ltd and began to expand. The group acquired air charter operators, Airnorth. They became gaming entrepreneurs in Darwin and Alice Springs. They bought heavy machinery dealers, AgServ Industries, as well as a majority interest in Territory Asphalt Roadways, and later bought one of Australia’s most successful Toyota dealerships, Bridge Autos. The Henry Walker Group could never be accused of not investing in the Territory. The group consolidated its holding over the years, divesting themselves of some of those businesses, and even those that were sold remain major Territory companies today. Their growth was due, at least in part, to the time they were owned and operated by the Henry Walker Group.
His wife, Joanne, said: ‘When Neville saw an opportunity, he didn’t think about whether it fit their corporate portfolio or not. All he thought about was whether it would be viable and good for the Territory’.
The 1980s saw the company take the expertise they acquired operating their own gold mines and expand into contract mining. Their first mining contract came in 1987 and they quickly moved from civil road building projects to long-term mining projects for companies like BHP. They even began operating internationally, first in East Timor and then in Indonesia and Chile.
All this time, Neville Walker split his time between acting as the company’s Chairman of the Board and being a father and Top End property owner. He was a man who was happiest at the controls of a large machine. It did not matter if it was a grader, Land Cruiser or an airboat racing across the Marrakai flood plain. Driving relaxed him. Friend and pastoralist, Robert Townsend, once wrote Neville a poem:
- With a grader and a dozer you have no peer;
but with you in an airboat, I have great fear.
A dozer driver to the end, Neville Walker’s motto remained:
Your work day isn’t finished until you run out of daylight or you run out of diesel.
Neville Walker was first and foremost a proud Territorian. Joanne said that Neville was the greatest non-politician of all time. He was a never a member of a political party, but his first concern was whether a policy was good for the Territory. If it was, he would back it, no matter who was in government. When I asked him to co-chair this government’s Economic Development Summit in 2001, he had no hesitation in accepting. The summit proved to be an emphatic success, with business people and economists joining forces to chart directions for the Territory’s economic future. Neville was also pleased, hoping that the summit would have a positive influence on the Territory’s economic future.
Neville’s life changed when he met Joanne in 1996. He spent his last years working as Henry Walker Eltin’s Board Chairman, whilst travelling between her home in Las Vegas and Darwin. At 68, he began to speak of retirement, but that was put on hold when the company’s financial problems emerged. He continued working behind the scenes to get the best possible outcome for his employees, of whom he was so very proud.
Our thoughts today and for the last week are with Joanne and Joanne’s family; Neville’s children, Danielle, David, Lee, Clint and Christina; his brothers and sisters and his multitude of friends at this very sad time.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for this most appropriate motion.
As I considered my contribution, I quickly realised that there is no speech which I could write that could adequately express the loss suffered by all Territorians with the passing of Neville Walker or the contribution he has made to the Northern Territory.
The new part of the Walker family, the Munos clan, who have come from the United States and are part of a very large clan, might know these words because they were spoken by an American when speaking on behalf of another great American some time ago. He said: ‘Great men are the property of the nation’. It was in that context that a State Funeral was held for Neville Walker and those who attended, and I am sure, those who could not attend, had the opportunity to express on behalf of all Territorians what Neville Walker meant to us all.
- If you can … walk with kings - nor lose the common touch …
Territorians were grieving because they had lost a great friend and a great mentor. Some might say that we will never see the like of Neville Walker again. I do not agree with that because what I saw were his children and grandchildren. His son, David, spoke magnificently at the funeral. They were there and the blood of Neville Walker flows through their veins. I believe we will see the like of Neville Walker again. We will see part of that family who will exhibit the qualities that Neville Walker imbued in them. The blood that flows through their veins and the example that he set is too strong never to be seen again, and it will be.
I will not recount the experiences of Neville Walker because it has already been said, but he touched the lives of everyone in the Northern Territory in some way or another. He touched us in business. He essentially built the road network of the Northern Territory. He was involved in many activities from barramundi fishing to crocodile farming, involvement of MGM in our casino and before that, the waterfront development, the Chief Minister’s Economic Development Summit - there was not anything in the Northern Territory that Neville Walker did not either pioneer, become closely involved in, or provide advice and mentoring to governments, whatever side of the political fence. The bottom line was whether it was in the best interests of the Northern Territory. That was Neville Walker.
At the State Funeral was a smaller man, just as tough – you only had to look into his eyes to see that - and that was Frazer Henry. I watched Frazer Henry shedding a tear as he walked down the aisle and I thought: ‘What a legacy to leave: to have a mate, after 40 years, who is there with you so closely, so strongly, and so courageously’.
In the ceremony yesterday, we saw what Neville Walker epitomised to Territorians, and the grief of those who knew him far better than I. The Greek philosopher and dramatist Sophocles once said:
One must wait until the evening to see how splendid the day has been.
Neville Walker gave the Territory a splendid day and we thank him for it.
The opposition joins the government in extending sincere condolences to Joanne, Neville’s sons and daughters, and to his new family. We shall deeply miss him.
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak about a great Australian, a great Territorian and a good friend.
Neville Walker was a man of the Territory. Originally from Western Australia where his family had a dairy farm in the south-west, he came to the Territory because, as he told me, he did not want to be a dairy farmer. He came from the same area as my wife’s family, and it was this common geographical origin that was the catalyst for our friendship.
For Neville, the Territory was not simply a place to make your living or to take advantage of economic opportunities; it was a place to raise a family, a place he could immerse himself in the countryside as an observer, a developer, and as a participant in the environment.
His properties on the Top End flood plain, Marrakai and Woolner, were his pride and joy. They were places where he ran cattle and buffalo, but also places keenly protected. He allowed no hunting on the properties, and took great delight in the diverse wildlife that cohabited with the workers. He was particularly concerned about salt water intrusion problems at the top end of the Mary River, and was active in building barrages designed to stop the salt water spilling into the flood plain.
Always keen to show off the properties, Neville was often called upon by various governments to take visiting dignitaries out and give them a taste of the Territory and the Top End. He was always keen to do that, piling luggage into the back of his Land Cruiser and, guests in hand, shooting off to the bush. Soon they would be seated on an airboat racing across the flood plain amongst the magpie geese and jabirus, with guests gasping at the size of the crocodiles.
Neville’s sons and daughters - Danielle, Lee, Clint, David and Christina - recalled a large contingent of two plane-loads of Japanese investors whom Neville escorted to the flood plains. He proceeded to take them out to the buffalo yards where he introduced them to modern Australian high-tech mechanical miracles such as bull catchers and bionic arms. Neville was not averse to bouncing around a herd of buffalo in his brand new Land Cruiser, as long as it gave the visitors something to remember. He was a man who broke down barriers between people.
He was not interested in only enjoying the company of globe-trotting VIPs; he was interested in everyone he met. He often picked up backpackers on the Stuart Highway and his son, David, recalled him dropping a couple of hitchhikers at the Noonamah property, telling him to look after them and to be sure to show them around. On other occasions he asked hitchhikers if they were looking for a job and, if they were, he gave them one and drove them to the job site.
Neville Walker was a great ambassador for the Territory and immensely proud of it. Joanne remembered that whenever he travelled abroad, he kept a folder of Territory photos handy, shamelessly showing them to anyone at the slightest excuse. He had one photo of which he was particularly fond: his daughter, Christina, holding a crocodile. He told everyone that, in the Territory, we make pets of crocodiles.
An American from Las Vegas, Joanne met Neville while she was visiting a friend who worked for the MGM Grand Casino in Darwin. He had been asked to escort the girls to the Darwin Cup Ball, and it became an evening to remember and treasure. She thought people seemed to light up when they were around him. It was not until much later when the couple decided to marry that Joanne discovered the regard with which Neville was held by Territorians. When they decided to have their wedding in Las Vegas, they were concerned about whether friends from Australia would come. In the end, 48 people flew from Australia to the wedding, along with many others from different corners of the globe. For Joanne, it was a measure of the esteem in which Neville was held, especially by fellow Territorians.
Neville and Joanne welcomed Margaret and I into their home, and Margaret and I enjoyed Neville’s smile, his humour and his friendship.
Yesterday, I heard many prominent people speaking about Neville, but I must say that the best eulogy I heard was from a group of Greek construction workers. They had met Neville at my place at my 20 years in Australia anniversary party two years ago. They did not know who Neville was, but soon they were chatting together like old mates, exchanging stories of the old Territory. The day after his tragic death, the same people told me that when they saw the photo in the newspaper, they realised who Neville was. They commented on how humble he was, how he joked with them, and the stories they shared. One of them summed up everything about Neville by saying: ‘He was a top bloke’. This was Neville: a top bloke.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I am not entirely comfortable with making statements in parliament that relate so closely to my personal life. A person’s private life should remain sacrosanct, but there are exceptions, and this is one.
I have known the Walker family for my entire life. I went to school with David, Clint and Lee both at Howard Springs Primary School and Taminmin High School. I recall Neville and his first wife, Dawn, were always supportive. I recall them being a typical rural family. They made sure the kids made it to school. Neville worked very, very hard. Most people may not realise this, but the Walker family did it tough in the early days. There was lots of hard work. Neville was always away on jobs and often Dawn had to pick up the children and conduct the home affairs.
It is an almost impossible job to summarise succinctly what Neville Walker meant to me, my family, and the rural community. It is hard to think of something in the rural area in which Neville was not involved. For example, he was one of the foundation members of the Northern Territory Polocrosse Association, a very family-oriented sport. Neville was always there; he made the time.
I recall Neville took David, his eldest son, and I to the polocrosse nationals in Warwick in Queensland in the late 1980s. He was the chaperone and I recall him pulling me aside and telling me that there was only one rule: do not make too much noise and have fun. I ran riot. Neville was great. He was not the harsh disciplinarian that I thought he might be. He enjoyed a tough reputation in the business community but, as a chaperone, he was great. We did what we wanted. If we wanted something, we went to him and he looked after us.
As a child, at Christmas time we would have the usual family soire. The city Maleys would visit the rural Maleys and after we did the family thing, we would go down to Neville’s place and catch up with Dave and the lads, and eat what scraps we could find, and play a few games and some sport. That is just what we did. I look back on those days as the best days of my life and realise that perhaps I took them for granted.
Neville was a great business person, first and foremost, but he was also a consummate politician. I watched him engage and entertain politicians from both political persuasions. I accompanied him on several trips to Channel Point, dozens of fishing trips to Woolner and Marrakai in the airboats, and people from Chief Ministers to bank managers to business people were treated like royalty. All those people left with a positive impression of the Northern Territory and all left with a renewed passion for what the Northern Territory stood for. Mr Walker, as I always called him, was an excellent ambassador.
Madam Speaker, all things considered, the only true measure of a man’s life is the calibre of the children he leaves behind. I stand quite proudly and say that Neville Walker was a huge success. All his children have matured into good people. I loved growing up with you guys, particularly Dave, Clint and Lee, who are around the same ages as my brother and I: Easter camping trips at Douglas Hot Springs, polocrosse carnivals, the shed parties at my place, pig hunting on Marrakai and Woolner for over a decade, the barmaids at Corroboree – I would not change a thing.
Danielle is the eldest and was always the very sensible one. She was, I recall, a bit of a mother figure to me - not that she is significantly older than me, but she always had kind words and a warm smile. Little Christina I remember as a baby, with my dad and Neville sitting on the verandah discussing her future. The only thing they were interested in was what they could best do to make sure that this girl had all the opportunities that life can offer. The Walker family has grown to include other people, wives and girlfriends: Lynley, Casey, and Corney just to name a few.
Neville married Joanne six or seven years ago in Las Vegas and I can say, quite objectively, that he certainly had spring in his step after meeting and marrying you and, from what exposure I have had to your family, I can see why he held them in such high regard as decent people.
So, Neville Walker, your family is a true testament to your success. I am very sad that I did not have the opportunity to say thank you and tell you these things personally. I just imagined that you would be there forever.
However, I am proud to have the opportunity to state the case for Mr Walker. To Mr Walker’s family, on behalf of the people of Goyder, you have, of course, our sincere condolences. On behalf of every decent born and bred Territorian, you have our condolences. On behalf of the Maley family, you have our deepest and most sincere condolences.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the condolence motion and those who have spoken so eloquently.
I did not know Neville Walker very well, but I do know what he did in the Litchfield Shire. I thought I would make a few comments on his pioneering legacy to the shire about which many people who are newcomers to the area do not know. I cannot always separate Neville Walker from Frazer Henry, so in some cases I am talking about one and the same person.
Litchfield Shire probably would not be there today were it not for people like Neville Walker. He was part of the Rural Advisory Committee, the group that negotiated setting up local government in the rural area with the government. At that time, it was quite controversial. There were many people in support of it and many people against it. He was part of the steering committee which eventually allowed Litchfield Shire Council to come into being. I may be biased as an ex-President of the Litchfield Shire Council, but it is one of the best municipalities in the Northern Territory. I can guarantee it is the best shire in the Northern Territory because it is the only shire here.
Freds Pass Reserve is one of the best community sporting facilities you will find anywhere, and much of it is due to Neville Walker: the Aussie Rules football ground, the polocrosse pitch and the dam. You might ask: ‘What does the dam have to do with it?’ I gather it was built as an afterthought one afternoon. Maybe if I had been around, I would have said: ‘Hey, you had better get an environmental impact statement’, but they built a dam, which is there today and used for irrigation to keep the ovals bright and green. The legacy of Neville Walker is a place enjoyed by many young and older people be that playing polocrosse, soccer, Aussie Rules, cricket, rugby, rugby league and the many other sporting activities that occur at Freds Pass. It is because of people like Neville Walker that we have such an important facility. He has left that legacy. I believe the member for Goyder would agree that we should be talking to the Freds Pass Management Board about a permanent memorial to Neville Walker so that people do not forget.
He was also a pioneer in subdivisions, and subdivisions are probably a favourite area of mine. Members know I bored them to tears yesterday talking about planning. Neville designed one of the first subdivisions in the rural area that had bitumen roads before they were needed and town water. I am referring to the Nottage and Lovelock Roads area. He was a pioneer in good subdivisions. He produced a subdivision in which people would want to live, and he led the way. Today, of course, all subdivisions in Litchfield Shire must have bitumen roads and many of them must have town water. Again, he showed the way as a pioneer.
He was certainly a person who liked his polocrosse, as the member for Goyder said. He also created employment in the rural area through the Crocodile Farm, which also had spin-offs into tourism.
I suppose I can say I had one thing in common with Neville: both of us were involved in the chook industry. He must have been a man of good taste if he understood poultry, but, of course, poultry is one of those industries that has suffered because of changing prices and circumstances. Even in the poultry industry, he created employment for locals. To some people, these might seem minor things, but it was because of his vision that other people were able to obtain work.
As a shire president, I did not always agree with things that Henry and Walker did. I certainly had my moments when I disagreed with them. However, I found that if you were straight and honest and gave a logical argument as to why you disagreed, Neville and Frazer would respect you for what you said and there would be no hard feelings. You could discuss issues with them at any time. I respect both of them, and I respect Neville especially for being able to do that. I had a job to do, they had a job to do, and there were no ill feelings. That really reflects the sort of bloke he was. He was tough and I did not always agree with him, but he was fair and he respected you. That is how he should be remembered.
Madam Speaker, on behalf of the people of Litchfield Shire, to which Neville left a great legacy, I extend my condolences to Neville’s family.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I thank honourable members for their comments, and wish to convey to the family the sincere sympathy of all honourable members and the staff of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.
Members rose and observed one minute’s silence.
Motion agreed to.
RESPONSE TO PETITION
Petition No 65
Section 7.6 of Gunn
Date Presented: 14 October 2004
Presented by: Mr Mills
Referred to: Minister for Lands and Planning
Date response due: 24 March 2005
Date response received: 10 February 2005
Date response presented: 16 February 2005
Response:
The land in question was previously approved for subdivision to create 17 lots (and 13 other allotments
within another sub-stage) through Development Permit DP99/0382 dated 21 September 1999, which has
since lapsed.
On 3 September 2004, the Development Consent Authority approved the subdivision of part of Lot 4640
Town of Palmerston, comprising Stage 7 of The Chase, into 132 lots through Development Permit
DP04/0259. The approval excluded the creation of 17 lots in Stage 7.6 upon the request of the developer.
At this stage, the developer has not reapplied to develop this stage.
The tree Eucalyptus (Corymbia) atrovirens is a local variation of the common Corymbia dichromophloia.
It is not recognised as an entity in the current Northern Territory checklist of plant species and subspecies
known in the NT. It is not listed as a threatened species in the NT or at national level. The tree is largely
confined to the escarpment and, therefore, will not be affected by the development of Stage 7.6.
The ‘pygmy goanna’ Varanus primordius (northern blunt-spined monitor) has a limited distribution in the
Top End of the Northern Territory, including Kakadu National Park, south to around Pine Creek. Although this
distribution is small relative to that of many other goannas, it is still so extensive that the loss of the population
around Palmerston will not have a significant impact on the species. Varanus primordius is not listed as threatened
at NT or national level.
Lot 4640 is subject to the conditions of Crown Lease Term 1662 to Delfin Lend Lease Pty Ltd, and the developers
have a realistic expectation to apply to develop the land for residential purposes. However, following concerns
raised by residents, I have had discussions with Delfin Lend Lease senior management to negotiate a solution for
the future of Stage 7.6. The Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment will undertake further
negotiations with Delfin in February 2005.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Student Behaviour
Student Behaviour
Alternative Education Provision also links DEET resources with those in the community and business sectors, including the Northern Territory Police Juvenile Diversion Unit, Family and Children’s Services, Youth Beat run by Mission Australia, Corrugated Iron Youth Theatre, NT Stock Cars Association, Harmony Group and Larrakia Nation. The program is currently working to capacity with over 60 students involved. Alternative Education Provision is also established in Katherine, with an Alternative Education Provision teacher partnering with the exiting school attendance officer. An Alternative Education Provision coordinator is now in place in Alice Springs, and will manage the many innovative and successful programs that have been operating in Alice Springs for some time.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the government continues to provide a quality education system for all students.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I congratulate the government on its activities to re-engage students with education. Obviously, it is very important.
However, sometimes one wonders whether that is a band-aid. I have asked the question before about bringing these kids back to school: what is the attrition rate? That also needs to be seriously addressed.
It all starts from primary education. This government must concentrate on that, and ensure that every child goes to school and gets the basic education down pat so that they see value in education. If they see value in education, they will continue on in a serious and meaningful way. Then you will find that they will continue to be engaged with education throughout their lives.
It is when education is not being valued and does not seem to be meaningful that students ask the question: ‘Why should I go? What is the point? What is the value?’ Until the government understands that they have to provide education in that manner, children will not want to go to school.
I remember, when I was a child, not wanting to go to school until it suddenly dawned on me that going to school gave me the means to be what I wanted to be. If you can do that, if you can show the children, whether they are indigenous or otherwise, that education gives them the means to be what they want to be, then they will grasp it with both hands and you will never have to worry about them not attending school.
In regard to attrition, or in a more positive sense, the retention of those who are re-engaged, I asked DEET last week to prepare information around attendance officers: what they have done location-by-location in raw numbers coming back in but, more importantly, what has been the retention rate beyond that re-engagement point.
Motivation around how you can get these students re-engaged is always a question and is probably different for a whole range of people. One of the issues which we have still to come to grips with and that the shadow minister well understands is the question of the 11 to 14 year-old group where we sense, and we are told, that there are real engagement questions of getting them through the attitude of: ‘What is school for? It is boring; I do not want to go to school; why do I have to go to school?’ Those issues are there for us to come to grips with, particularly with that group. I do have information coming back and I am prepared to share this as soon as I receive it.
Residential Land in Alice Springs
My colleague the planning minister has kept the House abreast of the detail of the ILUA negotiations with Lhere Artepe and the staged release of land coming out of that process.
In exchange for the surrender of native title rights, the government issued a development lease for one of two parcels of land in Larapinta Stage 4. This development lease was issued in November to a Territory consortium, Asland Pty Ltd. If you go on the Larapinta Road to the Stage 4 development, you will see full-scale work putting in the headworks, essential services and, at this stage, despite the fact that the initial sales period coincided with the relatively quiet Christmas period, more than half the blocks of the first subdivision have been sold off the plan. There is no doubt that the uptake will be rapid and complete on these subdivisions.
The suburb of Stirling Heights is a reality. As a matter of interest, it is named after the chairperson of Lhere Artepe, Brian Stirling, who, along with his executive, put a huge amount of work into these agreements.
A lot of work is going on and contracts are about to be let for the headworks for the second parcel of land to the north of the original release. We expect those contracts will go out very shortly, and the second part of the Stage 4 development will proceed.
As well as the 80 to 85 residential blocks in this first release of land, work is proceeding apace to open up the Mt John Valley land release. The surveying of the initial 100 blocks has been completed. Draining consultancy is being done throughout the area of planned land release so we know how to deal with drainage issues as that release is rolled out. We expect in the near future that negotiations for the release of that land will be successfully concluded.
What we are seeing is trades people coming back into town, drawn by the big public projects such as Desert Knowledge, the council and, sadly, the much-needed repairs on Alice Springs Hospital, alongside many private developments such as the land releases I have been talking about, plus the Red Centre Resort redevelopment and the rural block development south of the Gap. We have a very high level of construction activity in prospect in Alice Springs, and this is very good for the town.
I want to put on record the principles we are following to progress these land releases. It is a whole new situation for Alice Springs because the CLP was never in the position to talk about land releases, certainly not in the last 10 years of their regime. When you release land, you have to get it right in the amount of land that goes on to the market. We are very aware that half of the people living in Alice Springs are landowners and, while price rises might create difficulties for land buyers, it certainly is not bad news for people who already own land.
It is a question of a balance between not unduly undermining property values in Alice Springs and making sure that there is accessibility to the market for everyone right down to the most disadvantaged of potential home buyers.
The way the government is proceeding with this is on classic economic principles of supply and demand. We are seeking the best advice on what impact various levels of release of land will have on the property market in Alice Springs. We are consulting with the industry on the issue and we are using our very highly taken-up First Home Buyers Scheme to protect the most vulnerable people from losing access to the market.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, we are on track. We are very pleased with the fact that we have made progress. We are moving straight on to the next land releases and we believe that by paying careful attention, we will keep the market where it should be in everyone’s interest.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): If you are on track with releasing land, obviously you are going to get it done at the right time. I recall a comment made by the minister who promised to sell his home if he did not get the first block of land released from Larapinta Stage 4 by January last year. It was not until this year that he finally managed to have some land released.
Mr Dunham: For sale sign up, is it? Has he put up a for sale sign?
Dr LIM: Definitely not, picking up on that interjection from the member for Drysdale. The For Sale is definitely not up. I know that the minister did sell his house not to help with the housing shortage; he has moved into my electorate.
Ms Carney: Oh, Limmy! You have an extra vote!
Dr LIM: Yes! Down my street. It was interesting to note that various other members across the Chamber have - the member for Lingiari, the former member for Macdonnell and now the member for Stuart all live in my electorate. It must be the best electorate in the Territory.
Coming back to Larapinta Stage 4, I would have thought that the government would have released both the blocks that were dedicated to the Lhere Artepe and the other 45 blocks together to maximise the cost-effectiveness of a developer turning out all the blocks at the same time. But no, the government decided to hold on to only the 40 blocks initially. What that has caused is the blocks now costing $110 000 to $140 000 each. How can first home buyers afford to buy a block of land at that price and then be expected to pay at least another $150 000 to $200 000 to build a home on it? That is where this government has gone off track. They do not understand how to do it. You do not understand business, and that has been your problem all along - but welcome to the electorate of Greatorex.
Dr TOYNE (Central Australia): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I can only say that the member has just proven that he can pat his head and rub his tummy at the same time, because he not only managed to land-lock Alice Springs during his time in government, but wreck the hospital at the same time.
_______________________
Visitors
Visitors
Members: Hear, hear!
________________________
Lyons Housing Subdivision
Lyons Housing Subdivision
Dr BURNS (Lands and Planning): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I had great pleasure last week in announcing zoning changes for Darwin’s newest suburb, the suburb of Lyons in Lee Point. I should clarify that the name Lyons honours Tommy Lyons not Joe Lyons, but that is another issue.
The creation of this new suburb is clear confirmation that Territory economy and population are healthy and growing. The suburb of Lyons will be the first residential development in Darwin’s northern suburbs for some 20 years. The new suburb will ultimately be developed to contain over 600 housing lots. This means jobs for Territorians and Territory small business. This development is a clear demonstration that the Martin government’s policies are moving the Territory ahead.
There is a lot of interest in the community about what this new residential subdivision will look like and when it will start to be developed. The lot size under the new zone is established as a minimum of 600 m2, with an average of 700 m2. Obviously, this means that a considerable proportion of the lots are greater than 800 m2, and they will be going up to 1000 m2, I am advised. This range of lot sizes provides choice. Many people these days, and certainly many Defence families, do not want the larger blocks with their high maintenance commitments. For those who do want larger lot sizes, they will be available, too.
There is a lot more to this new development and suburb than lot size. The specific use zoning I have placed over the site is effectively a mini-town plan. The controls on future subdivision and development go much further than the regular Darwin Town Plan requirements regarding site layout and housing design.
Lots must be oriented correctly to take advantage of prevailing breezes and solar access. The local road network is to be designed to discourage excessive speed, and to give priority to pedestrians on local streets. The street network has to be capable of easily accommodating bus routes. The majority of houses will be within easy walking distance of a bus stop. It is a requirement of the development that pedestrian and bike lanes are included.
The suburb of Lyons will be well endowed with open space, a minimum of 7.7 ha of it. The open space will have to include large parcels of recreational space as well as neighbourhood parks. In addition, the majority of houses will be within 400 m of a local park.
The zoning provides for a medical clinic, a child-care centre, a community centre and a service station. The zoning also provides for a school or a small corner store if these are required in future stages. All of these uses are allowed within the consent of the DCA.
With the zoning now in place and the guidelines for future development established in the Planning Scheme, the suburb is closer to becoming a reality. In the next week or so, DHA hopes to announce its joint venture partner, the company which will undertake the development for the Defence Housing Authority. There will then be a subdivision application submitted for consideration by the DCA. Once approved, construction will start.
The Territory is indeed moving ahead, and this will be the first residential subdivision in the northern suburbs, as I said, for many years. I am told the first blocks will be available in the middle of this year. My ministerial office has taken calls from many people who enquired about where they can go to put their name on a list for future purchase. The community is ready for this development. I am confident that Lyons will become a very popular place to live, and will contribute to the social fabric of Darwin in a very positive manner.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the Minister for Central Australia congratulated my colleague from Greatorex for being able to pat his head and rub his tummy at the same time. Unfortunately, that cannot be said of the current Minister for Lands and Planning, who seems incapable of doing two things at once.
This is a squandered opportunity. Had the CLP been in government, they would have purchased that land from the Commonwealth, and the government would have had a say in when it is developed, how it is developed, the packages in which it is developed so that it could be spread across lots of other people.
We could have looked, for instance, at whether we could build a resort facility there, such as the one that might be built at ‘Little Mindil’. It would have given the government a lot of options. It is a site right next to Royal Darwin Hospital. It is in close proximity to the beach. It is in close proximity to, arguably, the centre of town, which is Casuarina Shopping Square, and it is in close proximity to the university. This is strategic land. It is land that some time was spent negotiating with the Commonwealth about. We got to the stage where we could easily have purchased that land, and for reasons only known to this government, they ducked, and they said: ‘Righto, Defence Housing Authority can do it. Over you go; you go over there and we will just be the regulator’.
We now have this strange situation where the minister is attempting to boast about being someone who is regulating this land rather than someone who is actively developing it in the interests of Territorians. The various descriptors he has given us about the lots could be up to 1000 m2 - ‘I am advised’. He is an innocent bystander who is watching someone else develop land in which we could have had a very participative interest.
He does not know and, for some reason, he is taking calls in his office from people who are interested in buying this land. I would be interested to know what he tells them. So, when people ring and say: ‘Look, Burnsie, we want to buy a couple of blocks of this land’, what are you saying to them? ‘Go and see K G Young; it is nothing to do with me. I do not want to have anything to do with it. Go and see DHA’.
Do not come in to this parliament and squander opportunities that you have been given, opportunities to benefit this place and move the Territory forward, and then parade them as your credentials!
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, last week during the housing debate, I raised the issue of the price of land and how it is becoming unaffordable for many first home owners. I am interested to know whether any of the land in this new suburb will be set aside at special prices for people who are buying their home for the first time, as used to occur in places such as Palmerston and the northern suburbs years ago.
The other question I ask of the minister is: hypothetically, if the neighbours nearby this subdivision do not like it, are they entitled to make a third party appeal?
Dr BURNS (Lands and Planning): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, first, to address the issues raised by the irascible member for Drysdale, who does not seem happy with anything, the government has promoted this development. We have entered into an MOU with Defence Housing, and this represents an investment by Defence Housing in the Territory. This is what we are trying to attract …
Mr Dunham: It has nothing to do with you, has it? Nothing to do with you!
Dr BURNS: It has a lot to do with us, and through the town plan and the specific use objectives, we have been able to set the shape of this development.
In relation to what the member for Nelson said about price and first home buyers, this is one of the rationales for having a range of block sizes from a minimum of 600 m2 up to 1000 m2. The smaller block sizes, I would hope, would be in the price range that first home owners can afford. Therefore, there are a couple of elements there. In answer to his second question regarding third party appeals, I answered that last night, and the answer is no.
Memorandum of Cooperation
with Sabah, Malaysia
with Sabah, Malaysia
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I report to the House on the recent memorandum of cooperation signed this week by Datuk Haji Abdul Rahim Ismail, Minister of Agricultural and Food Industries of Sabah, Malaysia, and I, representing the Territory, concerning our primary industries.
The memorandum of cooperation formally recognises our commitment to an ongoing working relationship that will be mutually beneficial to the future economic development of both regions. In particular, this agreement will strengthen ties, identify and develop opportunities for economic cooperation, and facilitate trade and investment opportunities between the Northern Territory and Sabah, Malaysia.
The live cattle export industry continues as an important contributor to the Northern Territory economy. Last year, over 210 000 cattle were exported through the Port of Darwin, with Northern Territory producers supplying 98% of the cattle exported. Another 10 000 Territory cattle were exported to Wyndham in Western Australia. This represents sales of around $125m to Territory producers. The Northern Territory Cattleman’s Association tells me that 305 000 cattle were sold interstate last year. Live exports of Northern Territory cattle in 2004 were about 6500 head above the 10-year average.
Indonesia continues to be a key market for live cattle, taking about 70% of Territory exports. The Northern Territory government, in partnership with the Northern Territory Cattleman’s Association and the Northern Territory Livestock Exporters Association, continues to look over the hill in examining other opportunities for export of our live trade industries. Malaysia is one of a range of options we are examining.
It is for this reason that I led a delegation, together with the NT Cattleman’s Association and the Livestock Exporters Association, to visit Sabah to examine export opportunities. The Northern Territory government’s Livestock Export Unit within DBIRD has been working with Sabah in examining opportunities to run cattle in existing palm oil plantations, and in developing a local food technology centre. The Malaysian market will provide opportunities for the export of Northern Territory live cattle for fattening and processing, as Sabah is not self-sufficient in cattle production.
Charles Darwin University, in partnership with DBIRD, is also exporting training services in tropical cattle production and improving diagnostic testing facilities for their local cattle industries. Already, Sabah officials have participated in training at the DBIRD vet laboratory. This support has led to the memorandum of cooperation with Sabah, which places Northern Territory producers in the front row for supplying the Malaysian market.
Growers in the Northern Territory have expressed an interest in assisting with horticulture, and have identified possible opportunities for cut flower stock to be developed here in the Territory. Sabah has a diverse range of tropical flowers, but has not developed a cut flower industry and provides a potential source of new varieties. The Sabah Minister for Agriculture has expressed his interest in examining opportunities for partnership with local producers to commercialise some of the tropical flower stock. The minister also learnt of our rambutan industry’s interest in alternative cultivars and indicated that he was happy to discuss all opportunities for tropical horticulture under the memorandum of cooperation.
A number of buyers also accompanied the Sabah minister, and have a keen interest in sourcing live buffaloes in the Territory for their food market. The NT Buffalo Council is working on further exports of buffaloes to Malaysia.
The memorandum of cooperation provides opportunities for our live cattle and buffalo export industries, and, in the early stages, will assist the further development of our tropical horticulture industry. It also shows that we are moving the Territory ahead in partnership with our key industry stakeholders in examining potential markets and opportunities for our pastoral and horticultural industries.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I welcome the report from the minister.
The Sabah delegation arrived here for the signing of the memorandum of cooperation, but what has this minister done to secure the sale of cattle to Sabah? Last year, we had 346 animals go to Sabah. I know they have facilities to handle 400 to 500 at a time. I know that is small, but it is very important to the cattle industry in the Northern Territory.
This year, Sabah has money from their government to purchase 2000 head of cattle. Has the minister secured the sale of those cattle from the Northern Territory? We need assurances in the cattle industry to make sure that that sale comes to the Territory. We know that cattle exports are worth $150m to the Territory and this minister needs to strengthen and secure the markets that we already have in Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia.
I suggest that the minister take a leaf out of the Queensland government’s book, which is pouring a lot of money into the Vietnamese industry, to make sure that we get a lot of cattle sales to Vietnam. Please do not waste opportunities to make sure that the Northern Territory Cattleman’s Association is well represented in Vietnam as well as securing the industry that we already have, which has been supported by the CLP over many years.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I mention to the member for Katherine that it is a good idea to have a look at the history of Vietnam exports, and how much money from the Territory was lost in the Vietnam venture.
However, I inform the member for Katherine that 300 buffalo have been purchased by Sabah industries; I was advised by the buffalo industry. I have also been advised that the state government will purchase 2000 cattle this year, with another 2000 to be purchased by private investors. These private investors arrived in the Northern Territory to have a look at our cattle and to make the necessary arrangements for the purchase of these cattle. One limiting factor was the lack of money last year, the rising value of the Australian dollar and the fact that they had not developed the feed lots yet.
Now that they have progressed with the development of feed lots and the Australian dollar is at a reasonable rate, they are proceeding to purchase cattle from the Northern Territory.
As for Vietnam, it is one of the markets we have in mind, together with Indonesia and other areas in South-East Asia.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
MOTION
Metis Consulting Pty Ltd and Banscott Pty Ltd – Motion to Refer to Auditor-General
Metis Consulting Pty Ltd and Banscott Pty Ltd – Motion to Refer to Auditor-General
- That the Auditor-General investigate and report back to the Public Accounts Committee on the following matters for the period 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2004 what:
(a) contracts were approved by government for Metis Consulting Pty Ltd and Banscott Pty Ltd;
(b) contracts were approved using Certificates of Exemption;
(c) expressions of interest, tenders, applications from other companies were received for any of the contracts.
If no other tenders were south, why not? Why were any other tenders rejected?;
(d) were the requirements for due process and probity under the Procurement Act met during this process?; and
(e) in relation to all the above contracts, were the cases where a conflict of interest could have occurred?
Was that conflict of interest declared before any of the contracts were approved?
The Treasurer believed that Auditor-General was quite clear in stating there was no conflict of interest in respect of the CEO of Health. I beg to differ. The basic premise of notifying a conflict of interest is that it needs to be done before any considerations on the relevant matter are under way. Relating this to the tender and award process, it means that anyone with a real or perceived interest would need to notify that interest before any deliberations on applications. This is backed up in the Procurement Review Board’s Guidelines on Ethical Behaviour, which state that early and open disclosure of any interest will allow for prevention of any conflict of interest.
At page 12 of the Auditor-General’s report, he said:
- … I was informed that the Chief Executive Officer…had advised the Minister of the existence of the
relationships during discussions immediately prior to the awarding of contract to Metis.
This suggests there had already been deliberations on the contract up to the time the CEO notified his interest.
It is for this very reason that the Auditor-General recommended at page 16 that any potential conflict should be disclosed prior to contracts being considered.
The Treasurer stated in this House last week that the department’s response to this recommendation closes any question of whether the CEO declared an interest, but this response merely states that the CEO notified the two ministers of his interest.
If we go back to page 12, we find that this disclosure was made just before the contract to Metis was awarded. There was no early and open disclosure. Further, on page 17, the Auditor-General stated that he does not know if the CEO notified the Procurement Review Board of his potential conflict. It was this board that awarded the Department of Health tender to Metis.
Let us remember that the Department of Health approached Metis to submit a tender: all the more reason for transparency and the need for the CEO to notify his interest before there were any deliberations on their submission.
I do not agree with the Treasurer. From my reading of the Auditor-General’s report, it is clear that the CEO notified his interest after there had already been some deliberations on the tender and there was no evidence that the CEO notified the Procurement Review Board of his potential interest.
I am not making a judgment on whether the CEO did anything wrong or right; I am asking for a commitment from the government to look at the issues I have raised and whether there needs to be clear guidelines, especially in a case where a CEO has a conflict of interest but the CEO is the one who can approve the tender. That is what I am getting at today.
I ask the Treasurer whether he will commit to taking up some of the issues that I have raised and seeing whether those issues can be clearly defined within Procurement Review Board guidelines.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I will speak briefly on this. I have some sympathy with the position of the Independent member for Nelson.
As members are aware, the Auditor-General was quite critical of some of the shortcomings of government in how the procurement process works, although the minister told this House in debate that he had been advised by the CEO of the conflict of interest that potentially existed. What is unclear is when.
The suggestions proposed by the member for Nelson have merit and are worth investigating. I do not intend to go through the whole Metis review again. Everyone in parliament knows my opinion and the CLP’s opinion on that. Suffice to say that clearly, some shortcomings have occurred in the system. The Auditor-General identified that and the Treasurer acknowledged it. Anything that can tidy this system up is worthwhile.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their comments. We will not be supporting this motion and we have indicated that to the member for Nelson.
We have a fairly straight-forward position in relation to it: we believe the Auditor-General has looked closely at the issues involved in the contracting of the Metis Consulting group and we believe the Auditor-General did confirm breaches of the procurement guidelines had occurred and suggested remedies for these breaches. They have been readily accepted by the agencies and the government.
The Auditor-General found, though, that those breaches were technical in nature. They didn’t show any ill-intent or, in fact, impropriety. That is a critical finding because it goes to the core of the debate. There was no impropriety.
He did find that the actions of government did not depart from the spirit of the procurement policy. He found that Metis had the expertise to do the work contracted, and he found that agencies generally complied with the Procurement Act and its policies. However, the Auditor-General did point out some exceptions which did not fully comply with the process.
Failure to comply with the process occurred only in the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment and the Department of Employment, Education and Training. The Auditor-General found that the requirements of the Procurement Act were generally adhered to, though he did identify specific issues for each agency to address, and the government will be vigilant in ensuring that these sorts of matters do not occur again.
Treasury is currently conducting a fairly major exercise in simplifying all of the rules and procedures that agencies need to adopt. I can understand members’ concerns regarding how chief executives or, indeed, other senior staff alert people to potential conflicts of interest. We have accepted the principle that chief executives should put their conflict in writing and advise others as necessary.
The member’s contention that notification should perhaps also go to the Procurement Review Board, and it is a review board, let us be clear about that, we need to test that position against existing practice and whether that is necessary. Generally, I would say chief executives do not take these decision-making powers lightly and they are pretty vigilant in ensuring that they do not cross these sorts of lines. The Public Sector Code of Conduct does compel chief executives, in fact, all public servants, to declare a conflict of interest.
I understand the member for Nelson, and probably the member for Macdonnell, want more to be done, and I will be asking Treasury, in their role as procurement policy people, to advise whether there could be should be more explicit instructions to chief executives on conflict issues. They are already doing this work, so we will build that into that process and they will come back to government, to myself, as minister responsible for procurement, with a range of options and recommendations on the way forward.
I can assure both members that what you are asking for will be put to Treasury in the work that they are doing, and I would expect that to come back at a future time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s response and appreciate where he comes from. I hope that the minister, when he has decided on what options he will accept, brings the decision back to parliament in the form of a report so that we can assess it.
I believe we have achieved, to a large extent, what we set out to achieve. The member for Macdonnell raised this personally with the Auditor-General, and I have it on the Notice Paper. We were probing to make sure that the processes were correct. If we can improve the processes, we improve the way government spends its money, we improve the public perception of the way our public service and government operates. If that is what we have achieved with this debate, we have gone down the right path. Madam Speaker, I am willing to let the motion lapse.
Motion withdrawn.
MOTION
Low Security Correctional and
Rehabilitation Centres in Regional Areas
Low Security Correctional and
Rehabilitation Centres in Regional Areas
- That the government investigate and, independently or in partnership, construct and manage in appropriate
regional areas of the Northern Territory low security correctional and rehabilitation centres suitable but
not exclusively for juvenile offenders, low risk prisoners and people affected by substance abuse.
Before I begin, I will flag that the government is going to move an amendment to this motion, but I would like to speak on the motion before that takes place.
For some time, I have been concerned about the state of prisoners and prisons in the Northern Territory. As the Attorney-General knows, I have concerns about Wildman River, and he has received many questions about that. I am a supporter of places such as Wildman River which, unfortunately, is now in mothballs. I am interested to hear about the future of Wildman River.
Simply put, we have the highest number of prisoners per capita in gaol than any other state in Australia. The estimate is 520 per 100 000 compared with the national average of 150. That is over three times the average. Further, 79% of our prison population is Aboriginal, or approximately 570 out of 719 prisoners. Since Labor came to power, this has gone up from 62% or 419 out of 671 in 2001-02 to 530 out of 715 or 74% in 2002-03 to 79% for 2003-04.
These are alarming figures for a population group that represents around 25% to 30% of the population. Of course, when it comes to committing crimes, race should not necessarily come into it. If you bash the missus, steal a car or break into a house, there needs to be a punishment which, in serious or repeated cases, should be gaol. The one thing we do not want is these people re-offending and coming back to our prison system.
One way we can put a dent in that is by creating jobs for prisoners, improving their skills, lifting their self-esteem and integrating them back into society I know there are some jobs in our larger gaols - I have been to the Alice Springs Gaol - but they are very limited. It is a fairly stark environment in which to live. I am not saying it should be much more that that since it is a prison, but there are limited opportunities for prisoners. Of course, in areas like Darwin, we have daily work gangs that go out into the community mowing lawns for pensioners and that sort of thing, and that is very good. However, I wonder whether we should be starting to move that along a different path.
Many of our residents in Her Majesty’s gaols come from a long way away. One of the things that prisoners find hard is that if they are living many miles from their family, it is very difficult for the family to visit. I have an interest in whether we should look at regional low-security prisons for some time.
As a member of the substance abuse committee, I felt there was a possibility of these types of camps having some role to play in issues relating to substance abuse. I know the minister is going to introduce legislation some time in the future in respect of the government’s policy on how to handle people who engage in substance abuse. Of course, in that legislation, there will be safe houses and places where the courts can send people if they believe they would be better off there than in their own community.
We should be looking at places where we can get offenders far enough away from their community, but a distance where they can be visited by family and still be involved in the community.
I was lucky enough to discover that Mr Jim Bryant was coming from Western Australia recently. He is a member of the Department of Justice in WA. He has been involved in a project of work camps in Western Australia. The program is called Repay Western Australia and it is a great name. It sends the message that we are punishing prisoners, which is part of law enforcement. At the same time, they are learning, as part of that punishment, that they are repaying Western Australia by doing meaningful work, improving their skills, raising their self-esteem and, hopefully, by not re-offending and coming back into the criminal justice system.
Western Australia has six of these camps. I will make a couple of points about them. According to the figures, the average cost of keeping an adult offender in custody in Western Australia is $246 per day. This compares with $18 per day for supervising an offender in the community. If you were not worried about the social justice side of this issue and were just a bean counter, you would say: ‘Why aren’t we operating more community work camps if that is the cost of operating them?’.
The work camps are generally a reasonable distance from a community. One of the reasons for doing that is not necessarily because the prisoners are high risk prisoners; it is simply to keep them away from temptation because if you are that close to family and there are girl friends or beer or something else involved, it is that much harder for those prisoners to stay in that work camp. These camps do not have fences; prisoners are kept there under trust. Generally speaking, they are near a community but not that close to it that they put the prisoners more at risk.
The work camps engage in community work projects. I will give you an idea what they do at Wyndham, for instance. This is what they have done over about the last six to 12 months: fencing and general assistance with upgrading of station infrastructure at Home Valley Station, which is about 120 km from Wyndham; ground and garden maintenance at the Tally Centre and the Jardamu Safe House, the Community Club, the Catholic Church and school, St John Ambulance and the Marlgu Old People’s home; street numbering for the Safer Western Australia project at Wyndham and Kununurra whereby they stencil the number of all the houses on the curbs; maintenance at Wyndham Police Station; ground maintenance and stable repairs at the Turf Club; cleaned up the local football club; cleaned up the outdoor movie theatre at Wyndham; maintained buildings at the golf course; ground maintenance at the CWA and the Anglican Church; worked at the high school; ground maintenance at the museum; ground maintenance and painting at Wyndham swimming pool; and various projects for the Shire of Wyndham as well as for CALM, which is the equivalent to our Parks and Wildlife Commission.
That gives you an idea of the range of work they do and it should be noted that work undertaken by the offenders must not be work that would be normally undertaken by paid employees in a commercial arrangement, so for those people who may think that they take work away from them, that is not the case.
I drove to Wyndham about two-and-a-half weeks ago. I did not realise there was a work camp so close to the Northern Territory, and I was given permission to visit. It is a very interesting concept. It is a set of demountables with an office and a shed where they can play a game of pool or darts - and that is it. The prisoners have to get up at 6 am. They make their own breakfast, wash their own clothes and basically have to get ready as if they were going to work like anywhere else in Australia. They make their own lunch. Sometimes, especially in parts or places like Wyndham and Kununurra where it is very hot, they are allowed to go fishing late in the day. All the time, they cannot go away from their designated camp.
If you were to escape in the case of Wyndham, you would be very quickly in the Kununurra Court and you would probably get something like eight months prison for escaping from lawful custody. There is a lot of responsibility on prisoners to stay within that community.
I will give you an idea of the type of prisoners. First of all, the prisoners have to volunteer to be in one of these camps, and second, they have to be assessed as suitable. You might have a range of low security prisoners who are fine defaulters, or you may have prisoners who have been in gaol for quite a while and are in their last year or so and are preparing to move back into society. There are low security prisoners. By mixing the two groups, you have what they call ‘peer support’.
This was off the notice board at the Kununurra Work Camp:
- Peer Support. You can ring the peer support prisoner.
It was an extremely enlightening visit for me. Prisoners were given responsibility, but they were also given assistance.
I should mention the prison officers who work there, and this is potentially an issue for the Northern Territory. They are a special type of prison officer, not necessarily a prison officer who is generally used to dealing with inmates in a large gaol, but a prison officer who may have experience working with Aboriginal people, who has a good rapport with people. You would have to have prison officers who are willing to work with the prisoners. The prison officers in these community work camps do not stand around and say: ‘Do this, do that’. They get out and dig the holes as well, and they work out in the sun. It has to be that type of partnership. That is what makes these community work projects a success.
I will talk about the work they have done. There is potential for such work camps, whether they are in mobile or permanent form. They used to work on pastoral stations. Many Aboriginal people have great skills - or used to have great skills; not so many of them work on stations any more - working on cattle stations. A group at Wyndham worked on Home Valley Station. It is probably a bit hard to see, but these are some of the prisoners working there. They enjoyed the work they had. They had freedom to be out in the open, they were fencing the airstrip, and achieving something.
In fact, I have a letter from the station manager. He said that after working with them, he saw there were quite a few diamonds among the rough stones. He came to appreciate the people who were working for him. In fact, the prisoners started to offer to do servicing on the vehicles, although he does make a note that one vehicle did not go any more, which he said with a chuckle, but he certainly enjoyed having them out there and appreciated the work they did.
There is a different approach in these regional work camps to visitors. At the Wyndham work camp, visitation was on Sundays, although you could make an appointment for other days, but you could come on Sunday between 12 and four, so there were four hours when family could come and visit. They also encouraged elders of the community to work with the prison officer to discuss issues, especially when it dealt with Aboriginal people in whose country they were working to help the prisoners, especially reintegrating them back into society.
I was given the Season’s Activities for Christmas, New Year, Australia Day Wyndham Work Camp which features the menu and recreation they were allowed on those days, and it is quite impressive. I will table it. It shows the relationship between the community, the elders, the prison officers and the prisoners. That is what is so different about these camps; it is a relationship that is different from a regular prison.
As I said, you can escape, but you pay the consequences. Here you have an opportunity to do something worthwhile, to build up your self-esteem and to help the community. Of course, if we are to establish one of these, we need community support. I would be interested in seeing one of these work camps based on the Western Australian model trialled in either the Katherine or the Barkly region.
You would need the support of the community because, naturally, some people would fear a prison camp close by. I will read some of the comments from different communities that have these people working nearby. The City of Joondalup:
- For almost 15 years, offenders have clocked up $3m-worth of work for the local community as part of the
City of Joondalup Green Plan. Offenders have undertaken gardening, painting and fence and construction
projects such as building retaining walls. Offenders have also planted thousands of plants back into the
local bushland.
From the CEO of the town of Claremont:
- Thank you for the great job being performed by work crews. The work performed by them has been
instrumental in the control of the exotic typha reeds that have been steadily encroaching the Lake
Claremont area. This is a very labour intensive job and their contribution has been invaluable.
I look forward to being able to continue this relationship.
With this package of materials I received from Jim Bryant, there were a number of videos that describe what is going on. I noticed in one town where one of these work camps operates, the prisoners were part of the indoor cricket team. That is the sort of trust that is given to prisoners in these places. It is a breath of fresh air that Western Australia has gone down this path.
The Northern Territory government, when it first came to power, said that it was going to look at rehabilitation prison farms. I have a print out from ABC News on-line, which reads:
Aboriginal group welcomes plans to create rehabilitation prison farms.
The Northern Territory’s Aboriginal Justice Advocacy Committee has welcomed plans by the incoming
Correctional Services Minister, John Ah Kit, to establish rehabilitation prison farms.
The committee’s Eddie Tailor said once a proper rehabilitation program is established, prison numbers
will drop significantly.
Minister, I know that your government received the CAALAS report, which recommended, basically, having a farm, but also recommended having a type of work gang building houses or repairing houses out in communities. My feeling, after talking to the Wyndham community, is that you have to be careful how close you have them especially to people who might be relations who might put temptation in the way of these prisoners to leave that work camp. I am not saying that that would not be good work for them, I believe it would probably be excellent work for them, but I would envisage that the work camp would be situated perhaps 30 km out where it was not easily accessible.
You have to bear in mind that if there is a relationship between a prisoner and some other people close by, it makes it difficult for prisoners. Although Wyndham has a work camp that is close to the town, that is an exception to the rule, and it was circumstances that ended up allowing that work camp to operate so closely. I would be little wary of going in and setting up a work camp in a community; it would be far better off to be out of the community, but within reasonable travel distance of the community.
There is great potential for places like Katherine and Tennant Creek, if there is the opportunity to involve people who are long-term alcoholics, who have been through the revolving door so many times and have reached a point where they cannot or are not willing to change their life, this may be the place for those people to receive some treatment or at least have an option to get away from it all.
The same with petrol sniffers or substance abusers: is there the potential for places like this also to be used for people with those problems? That would have to be carefully assessed. I am not saying we should do this carte blanche. You would not want to upset the existing prisoners by putting troublemakers among them. You would have to screen them.
If anyone suggests that these are boot camps; they are not. These are definitely not boot camps, and to put that connotation on this type of camp is wrong. I saw young people working, mixing cement and putting in pickets building a fence on a cattle station. That is not a boot camp; that is teaching people skills. When you see people out there with the whipper-snippers and lawn mowers cleaning up the Wyndham women’s refuge, as I saw, that is not boot camp treatment. I saw the boat ramp at Wyndham where there would be about 500 m of paved road way beautifully done by the prisoners with interlocking bricks. If you go to the Bastion, which is the lookout at Wyndham, the footpaths which have been built all the way up have been done by work camp prisoners. The barbecues and the seating areas were all been done by prisoners at the work camp. They have added something to the community and the Wyndham community accepts that as a great contribution.
I know I have rattled on as usual; but I am passionate about this and it is long overdue. At the moment, we seem to have two alternatives: Alice Springs or Darwin. We need more humane options, and our goal should be to reduce the number of people in gaol, particularly the number of indigenous people, and hope that we can lower recidivism rates.
It is very strange but at the moment, under a Labor government, we have more prisoners and more Aboriginal people in gaol than ever before. I am not saying those people are not there because they should not be. From my own experience, many Aboriginal people are not what you would call hard and fast criminals. They have got on the grog and done something stupid. In many cases, it might be the only bad thing they do in their life. Let us give them an opportunity to pick up their self-esteem. Give them another form of punishment, if necessary; that is, working somewhere other than being stuck in the big concrete and steel blocks in Alice Springs and Darwin.
I am hoping the government will support this initiative. It may not agree totally with what I am proposing, but at least look at a trial in the Katherine or Barkly regions. Give it a go and come back in two years time and say: ‘We have tried it, this is the response and we might do more’. At least let us give it a try.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I will be brief. At the outset, I do not know who should be more worried: the member for Nelson or me. I find myself increasingly agreeing with some of his views, which, given the differences which we have had, I do not know who should be more worried about it.
In any event, I welcome his motion. I agree with the sentiments and the way in which he has outlined not only his passion for improvements in the justice and correctional service systems in the Northern Territory generally, but what he said about places such as Wildman River. I share the member’s sentiments and I, too, hold those views very strongly, and have for some years.
We are supportive of the motion. I have spoken with the minister and I know that there is an amendment to it. I do not think that anything swings on the amendment. It is a bit wordy, but I do not think anything important swings on it.
We are concerned about the future of prisons and other such facilities in the Northern Territory. Part of our concern came to us late last year when the Tungsten Report, or the Asset Strategic Plan 2004-2015, was released. I know that the Attorney-General has since replied to some questions I asked of him by letter, but the Tungsten Report referred to the fact that a bigger gaol would need to be built in the Territory by 2014. There is a clear recognition that there will be even more people in gaol. They are likely to be indigenous Territorians. I am not sure what government proposes to do about that. No doubt that we will be hearing about that perhaps this year, an election year, or sometime afterwards, but this is a long-term problem.
I note that the Correctional Services Review that was finalised in the middle of last year, perhaps in May, dealt with adult offenders only. The minister, I am sure, will disagree with me, but I do not think that juveniles have had great attention by this government when it has been looking at correctional facilities.
I am concerned that Wildman River is, for want of a better description, in mothballs. I remember going out to Berrimah early last year and I spoke with the relevant officers there who gave me some information as to why it is that Wildman River is in mothballs. I would be grateful to hear from the minister as to why he thinks that Wildman River is in mothballs and what his plans are for Wildman River in the future.
As to the particular parts of the member’s motion, I will make this point, and to some extent it is academic, noting the amendment, but for the benefit of the member for Nelson, we do have difficulty with your wording because you seem to have thrown together a low security facility for low security offenders and those affected by substance abuse.
We are on the record as saying that those affected by substance abuse should have a separate facility, noting the particular challenges and needs that people affected by substance abuse have. I do not believe that they should be in a facility with other offenders, albeit low security ones. I note that in relation to people affected by substance abuse, the government has picked up on our policy, they would probably disagree, but there is a common element, a common sense of purpose in this parliament from both sides of politics to assist sniffers and we proposed last year that a separate facility, a specialist facility, be built for sniffers. As I understand the government’s proposal, it was subsequently announced that they have that idea, too. Member for Nelson, both sides of politics are of the view that people affected by substance abuse should have a separate facility.
As I said at the outset, I welcome debate any time on this subject. I do not think that there is more I can significantly add at this juncture and I look forward to hearing from the minister.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, with the member for Araluen expressing anxiety that she and the member for Nelson have reached agreement, we have probably reached a point of terror because I agree as well. So we have a three-way agreement here, and that is probably a first.
We are not far away from the member for Nelson’s proposed motion. We are seeking to amend the motion for one reason, and that is simply to link it to the existing prison reforms that are under way in Correctional Services.
We have been looking at the Western Australian model of work camps. I pay tribute to Steve Russell, the department’s Liaison Officer who is working in my office at the moment, for the work he has done on this. I am sure he has the same set of videos as the member for Nelson from the same source. I can report that we are bringing Jim Bryant up this month to have further discussions about the programs that are running in Western Australia.
It comes down to the logical sequence to work to, hence, we want to include in the motion a mention of the current reforms in our prisons.
Madam Speaker, I move that we omit the words after ‘that’ and insert the words:
- … recognising that expansion of the Community Work Program is a critical element of the government’s
prison reform, extension of prisoner community work projects to regional areas of the Northern Territory,
independently or in partnership with communities, is a logical future step in this approach - providing reparation
for the community and assisting in rehabilitation of prisoners.
Members will see from that we want to relate the two potential reform processes that are being discussed.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, before you go on, could we have that amendment circulated, please?
Dr TOYNE: Yes, Madam Speaker. With that amendment, we are quite comfortable with the proposal. If we can work in a bipartisan way on this, Independent and both parties in this House, we can look forward to progressing it.
The issue that we will be considering in our planning and implementation process is: at what stage have we reached the point where the in-prison programs, including work parties that will go out from our two prisons in greater numbers than they presently do, including the in-prison programs that prisoners might require access to for their rehabilitation - things like basic educational programs, sex offender programs, violence abatement programs; there is quite a range of programs being developed and introduced to the two prisons.
Our top priority remains to have the living unit structure in place within both gaols, to get the prison officers as a work force across the case management methodologies that we want to introduce as part of the reforms, and to have individual prisoners under case management so we can then make judgments about the best place to put them.
Both gaols have done work fairly similar to the work camps. One example I can give is the Alice Springs Prison and the work that they have at Ntaria, which is 130 km from the prison. That is a day visit program so that the prisoners remain in the low security area of Alice Springs Gaol overnight. That has been very useful work; it is very much reparation work in the community from where offenders involved in the program come. There has been no problem with that at all. In fact, there have been good outcomes all the way around.
It will also come down to issues of classification within corrections: the health of prisoners, which is a significant issue, particularly with our indigenous prisoners, but probably all prisoners. The health profile of prisoners Australia-wide is inferior to the general health profile of the community, so we have to be pretty careful not to put people in jeopardy for those reasons.
To touch on Wildman River, it was superseded as a juvenile facility by the major expansion we put into Don Dale. That has been universally acclaimed by the juvenile corrections staff as being a major benefit in the work that they can offer juvenile detainees, and it gives them far more flexibility in keeping different juveniles apart and customising their programs to their rehabilitation process. That is why Wildman River went off-line as a juvenile facility.
We are probably using the same logic as the member for Nelson outlined in his contribution. We will look for the reparation element to be far more apparent in programs than simply putting people in a fairly isolated facility that does not have a direct relationship to any of the communities around the Northern Territory. I am not saying we will not use it as a facility; it is still under consideration. However, if you are going to go in the direction of work camps, I do not think Wildman River would be where you would establish a pilot. We would be much more likely to park the pilot next to a living, breathing community somewhere in the Territory and undertake reparation work back to the community rather than have the activities of the out-posted correctional program done in total isolation.
We will look at all these issues. I will keep both the opposition and Independent members across what we are doing as we move into the first stages of the reforms. I have provided regular reports to the House as we have gone through it, and I will continue to do so. It is on the radar screen. Let us listen to what the Western Australians tell us in their next visit here. We will certainly give it our serious attention. With that, I move that we put the amended motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am happy with the motion. It covers the areas about which I was concerned.
Amendment agreed to.
In his initial comments, he did not make it clear to us as to whether or not this substance abuse rehabilitation situation was intended to be incorporated within the punitive Correctional Services side of things or whether they were two separate entities. I see them as two separate entities.
I will confine my comments to the correctional services aspect of the motion, which the minister has picked up on in his amendment to this motion.
Everyone in the Northern Territory, and particularly those of us who are members of parliament, would genuinely like to see a reduction in crime, and it cuts both ways. Criminal activity affects those of us who become the victims of crime, but it also is a very unpleasant life experience, I would expect, for people who do commit crimes in very many ways. For young people, in particular, to find themselves on the treadmill of criminal activity must be quite an unpleasant experience and, really, it just writes them off, probably, for the rest of their lives.
Anything that can be done to prevent crime, and when it is happening, particularly with young people, to nip it in the bud by creating a Correctional Services system that specifically addresses their needs in a creative way, which I feel this motion does, needs to be tried at the very least. There have been times when this has been tried, Wildman River being an example of it, and it is something that we need to look at in greater detail.
The role of these places, of course, is to achieve a number of things. The first is that they remove the perpetrators from the community, and this is both valid and necessary. I note with interest from time to time, people convicted of crimes sometimes are sentenced to what is known as home detention. Quite frankly, the last thing I would want to have is to share my home with someone who is forever there, miserable as sin, bored to tears, complaining about everything, and looking to you to keep them entertained.
Those who would suffer the most in a home detention scenario are the other people in the household who have to put up with it. It would be pretty rare for me to be saying: ‘Oh, that is a good idea, dear. Come on home for six months on home detention’. It would be a most unpleasant experience. There is a role in the corrections system to remove perpetrators from the communities and put them in a place where they have an opportunity to reflect on what they have done. For those who have not yet committed a crime, something for them to reflect on is that the outcome of their activity could put them into that place.
I know, in many circumstances in the community, the victims of crime - and they sometimes are people who live with the perpetrators - are looking for a break in the cycle of the criminal activity, particularly in violent and abusive crimes, and get them out of their house and the community.
The other thing is the role of Correctional Services to punish criminals. I do not think we should shy away from the fact that it is retribution and revenge, that we are unhappy and in a pretty bad mood about what they have done to us and our community. Who cares if their bottom lip is going to be dragged all the way from the court house to the cell block? They can sit there and think about it for a due course of time. Punishment is important, and we should not be ashamed to consider that it is exactly what we are trying to do in many circumstances.
For young offenders and those who have committed crimes on the lesser scale of magnitude, there should be a real effort made to try to help these people turn over a new leaf so that they are given skills, opportunities and abilities so that, once they leave the Correctional Services area - hence the name ‘correctional services’ - there is a chance that they may never return and go on to have a fulfilling life. That is what the member for Nelson’s motion sought to do, and what the minister’s amendment seeks to do.
If you take a normal gaol experience - not that I have ever had one, but my expectation would be - one of the main problems that faces people in gaol is extreme boredom. When people are bored, it is a very unpleasant experience. That is not something we need to compound their Correctional Services experience with. The type of facility that we are talking about is one that provides activities and work to prevent boredom. Activities and work should be developed in a way that helps the person who is incarcerated to develop skills that can be used, once they leave their imprisonment, and to help them re-enter society in a productive way.
For many people, it could well be that the activity needs to centre around schooling, regardless of their age, so that they can develop literacy and numeracy skills.
I note with interest the minister’s comment - or it may have been the member for Nelson – that participation in this sort of activity should be voluntary; that people would enter a facility such as this on a voluntary basis. If they are not happy and they do not want to go there, there are other places they could go as an alternative, and I would argue they are more severe places. However, if they are prepared to volunteer to go to a facility such as this, part of the activities for those who need it would be literacy and numeracy and other life learning skills to enhance their abilities. Life skills may be required as curriculum. That would be, for example in many instances I would think, discussing and seeing whether there is anything to do if the person has problems with drug abuse, for example. The other area, obviously is, where possible, to provide these people with an opportunity to learn skills that will help them get a job upon release from the facility.
I agree with the member for Nelson’s view that facilities such as these should be placed in regional areas wherever possible, particularly to expand the work opportunities for people living in those regional areas, and Katherine and Tennant Creek of course are obvious places for such facilities.
I have already mentioned my concern with regards to the word ‘rehabilitation’ captured in the substantive motion. I have addressed that sufficiently. I support the amended motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I am mindful of the time. Are there any further speakers on the amended motion? Member for Nelson, do you want to sum up?
Mr WOOD (Nelson): I will keep it as short as I can, Madam Speaker. I thank the member for Araluen for her comments. Believe it or not, there is no ill-feeling on the cross-benches. I appreciate the comments she made and, believe it or not, I listen closely to many of her contributions in debates. Sometimes she is a bit more enthusiastic than I would like, but I listened to her speak about the hospital in Alice Springs last night and thought her argument sound.
I do appreciate the comments from the members for Araluen and Port Darwin. I should say to the member for Port Darwin: the work camps in Western Australia also allow for long-term prisoners who have moved from a classification of medium to low security to come in to these camps so they are integrated in to the community. They get ready to come out of the prison so they have some work skills, they are getting used to dealing with people, to making their own breakfast, and doing their own laundry. That is one of the great things about it and, as I showed in the slides in the PowerPoint presentation, some of the prisoners are used as Peer Prisoners within the community. If a young bloke thinks he is going to nick off, you have an elder person saying: ‘Do not nick off. I can tell you first-hand what the big prison is like’.
That mix is great. Just talking to one person and going to visit Wyndham work camp for half-a-day, it is a long way to go, but it left me with strong impressions. You might say I have not had enough time to take it all in, but I saw enough to know it is a great concept. Whether it needs adjusting for the Northern Territory, I do not know, but the top of Western Australia is not much different from most of the Northern Territory so why should it be vastly different?
The minister mentioned Wildman River, and whilst it may not be classified as a work camp as we are discussing today, I still think it has a role for juveniles. I know there are issues about how many juveniles would be available to go to Wildman River and there are issues of cost and staffing, but to some extent, when you have urban juveniles who have been in a bit of trouble and there is a possibility that you can nab them before they go too far, to take them out to a bush setting where there is work, education, recreation and peace and quiet. You are taking them out of that intense urban atmosphere from where many of them have come, whether it is with a gang of kids in the suburbs or hanging around with people they should not be. The Wildman River process can give them a break. It can give them a bit of time to think about where they are going. It has a role; it may not fit the work camp concept, but it still has a role and I hope it can continue.
I know we are getting close to adjourning. I thank everyone for their comments. I know this is slightly off the subject, but the senior prison officer at Wyndham left the day after my visit to return to Albany. He was not a prison officer; he was a manager. One of the difficulties they had in the Western Australian justice system was that because he did not have a classification as a prison officer, he was not allowed to say there any longer.
I raised the issue before that when we look at staff to work in these camps, we may need a new classification that does not necessarily mean a prison officer as we know in the big gaol who locks the cell and has skills to deal with people in the big goal, but has other skills that do not necessarily have to be the same, and can be a prison officer with a different classification.
Just quickly, the senior prison officer at the Wyndham camp is Paul Colby. I wrote his name down as K-O-L-B-I. When I met him, I noticed his name is spelt C-O-L-B-Y. I commented that it was unusual spelling and he said he is of Polish-German extraction. I said the only other person I know as Colby is spelt K-O-L-B-E, and that is Maximillian Kolbe, a priest in Auschwitz who was canonised because he swapped places with a married man and died in the camp from starvation. I asked if he was any relation, and he said that was his uncle.
So I travel to a prison camp, of all places, in Wyndham and discover that the senior prison officer happened to be related to a person who was canonised and whose life ended in gaol. It was an interesting coincidence.
Madam Speaker, I thank members for their input and move the motion as amended.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Media Arrangements
Media Arrangements
VISITORS
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Establishment of Oncology and Radiotherapy Facility at Royal Darwin Hospital
Establishment of Oncology and Radiotherapy Facility at Royal Darwin Hospital
There is no doubt that an oncology and radiotherapy unit is something that is desperately needed in this part of the world. I do not believe that you need to be Einstein to see the problems and stress caused when families have to travel to Adelaide to receive treatment. For many Aboriginal people, being far away from home in a foreign land with no friends must be extremely distressing.
Minister, I know that you are considering the Barton Report by Professors Barton and Frommer entitled Options for radiation oncologist service in the Northern Territory, dated August 2004. Hopefully, you will be releasing that report, or at least telling the House the findings of it, as soon as Cabinet has considered it. Without seeing the report, I understand that there are two main issues that may cause the government to hesitate on this matter and use as a reason not to develop an oncology and radiotherapy unit: money and staffing. There may be other issues, but I know of those two.
In relation to the first one, it is obvious that to build the unit would cost a considerable sum of money. The amount forecast in the Mini-Budget was approximately $15.5m over three years, with most of that money being spent in the second year. From where would that money come? One source could be the extra money that the government has received from the GST, as shown in the just released figures for the Central Holding Authority. Look at the extra money the government received in GST revenue: $166.4m. That was the increase from 2002-03 to 2003-04. Notwithstanding some of that money was used for reducing debt, there is ample money to put aside for an oncology and RT unit.
Regardless of the money, aren’t we making a mistake when we use viability as an excuse for not doing something? Since when is health just a matter of viability? An oncology unit should be available for all people and not a price that stops that happening. If the reason the government is uncomfortable about going ahead with this project is because the numbers did not quite add up, when you see how much extra taxpayers’ money the government is receiving in GST, surely the taxpayer has a right to say: ‘We would like some of our monies spent on this project regardless of viability’.
The other matter that could be an issue is staffing. This was highlighted in the minister’s report, when he said the risks include being able to recruit and retain staff that are in short supply nationally and internationally. I was speaking last year to Dr Michael Penniment from the Royal Adelaide Hospital, who will be here tomorrow. He addressed the staff issues thus:
An NT consortium …
… would be backed by a major hospital such as the Royal Adelaide Hospital. In the current market RT staff
are at a premium and small, unconnected units in Australia struggle with staff at all levels. However, the Uni
South Australia Radiation Therapists course is becoming a staff exporter. Royal Adelaide Hospital projections
suggest that RT staff numbers will not be a local problem in two to three years.
If it is to be successful, we have to develop a partnership agreement with organisations such as Royal Adelaide Hospital so that the issue of obtaining staff can be dealt with more efficiently by dealing with institutions like Royal Adelaide Hospital.
Another issue you raised in your report, minister, is a possible private-public unit. Whilst this may be the only way for such unit to eventually be built in Darwin, such a unit should be available for all people of the Northern Territory and not just for those who can afford to pay.
I have raised the issue today because I know that the present system of sending people down south for treatment is not appropriate. It is time for the government to change its mind and make a commitment to an oncology and radiotherapy unit. To have such a unit would not only serve the Territory, but also northern Western Australia, parts of Queensland and our neighbours to the north.
I would like to hear the government say that it is committed to an oncology and radiotherapy unit, overturning the announcement by the Chief Minister that it is not to go ahead. I hope that the government will soon release the Barton Report and will give us a date when the community can expect this long awaited facility to finally be built.
Madam Speaker, I note that the minister will be proposing an amendment to my motion, and I will make further comments at that stage.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I was unaware of a proposed amendment to the motion, although I suppose I should not be taken by surprise.
I will deal with the motion in its present form. The thrust of it is that the government keep an election promise. We had the Chief Minister, in Question Time today and preceding days, and her colleagues assuring us all that this is a government that keeps election promises. Well, it has been caught out on this one in a very significant way.
There is no doubt that this government does have the financial capacity to do what it told Territorians it was going to do. In fact, I know that many people, certainly in the Top End, took the Labor Party seriously when it promised to construct an oncology unit. I know it was a factor in the way that some people cast their vote. Yet in its third year, the Chief Minister, no less, said that she is not prepared to honour that promise.
Off the top of my head, since this government has come to office, there has been $500m provided to it from the Commonwealth by way of GST receipts. That is an awful lot of money in anyone’s language. Why this government cannot find $14m for an oncology unit, I do not know.
I note that, in my reading of public statements both of the Chief Minister and the Health Minister, no good reasons have been provided as to why they have taken this decision. Members will recall that in parliament last week, I discussed the hospice in Darwin and how the minister said he was going to build it. He obviously is a fairly literal fellow because, yes, he is going to build the hospice, but, as we know, he is not going to furnish it with the sorts of things that all Territorians thought he might, such as curtains and chairs and clocks and crockery and things that the average Territorian would have assumed would have been provided.
We do not even have the construction of a facility that they said they would provide. There has been no satisfactory reason outlined as to why they have reneged on this promise. We know that the government has an ample opportunity to do what it said it would because there is not shortage of money. I do not know why it is that the government has fallen so dreadfully and embarrassingly and appallingly short on this matter.
In relation to the member for Nelson, with respect: welcome aboard! We raised this matter in late October, I think, last year. The member for Brennan made public comments, I did a couple of radio interviews and I issued a media release. I note that the timetable of parliament was such that the member for Nelson gave notice of this motion after all of that. We welcome you on board, member for Nelson. The more of us, as members of parliament, who jump up and down about astonishing breaches of election promises, the better. We are pleased that you, the member for Nelson, share our outrage and indeed the outrage of thousands of Territorians about this government’s breach of promise. So thank you for putting it on the Notice Paper, but the CLP has been out there well before you had gave notice of this, well before discussing it in parliament today. We have been talking to people, dealing with them and telling them that we will deliver where this government has not.
Madam Speaker, I have a document, which I am happy to table it if either the member for Nelson or the minister wishes. I should say that I have pretty much taken out this person’s identity. I have his permission to table this letter provided that the identity is not disclosed. I received a letter and perhaps other members in the Chamber received it; I do not know. This is a man who went around and got a number of people to sign a document; it was not a petition. I understand he did not want a formal petition, but he has the names of many people who signed up to share our collective disgust about the Chief Minister’s and Health Minister’s breach of an election promise.
This man tells his personal story. He had to endure Christmas and New Year away from his family, and that he suffered as much as they did. He said: ‘We need this oncology unit. I will not go to Adelaide again without my next of kin. It is not fair to separate you from your loved ones’. I expect that the Minister for Health has received quite a lot of letters of this type. I have others, but this is one of which I am happy to table a copy.
This is a very serious issue. People put up with politicians doing almost anything, however, there are a couple of things they do not like: politicians, and governments in particular, breaching promises, and they do not like it when they know that there is enough money to provide a service but government refuses to do so. I remember that, in one of the radio interviews I did, the minister came on after me. It does not always work out like this, but I had the benefit of staying on the line and listening to what he had to say. I nearly fell off my seat. It was political puffery at its best, but as he was trying to justify in a fairly pathetic way, I thought, why it was that government had reneged on its promise, he then introduced the Commonwealth government and asked me to help him work with the Commonwealth government to get the money to provide the very thing that he and his colleagues said they would provide.
You can fool some people, but goodness me! It was an extraordinary thing for the minister to say. They went to the Territory election and they told people they would deliver. After we put the minister and his colleagues under the pump, from left field and using political spin at its best, he then tried to bring in the Commonwealth government and ask me for help. The minister is on his own, and I suggest he is well and truly out on a limb because he has been caught out. People know that (a) this was a significant promise, and (b) there is no rational reason as to why it cannot be delivered.
To suggest that the Commonwealth has a role to play and can I please help is an attempt to deflect attention away from him. This is a promise. This government should meet the promise it made. Members on the other side of the Chamber probably pride themselves - I would say they are delusional - on saying that they keep their election promises. I would like to hear not only from the minister, but from other members of the Northern Territory Branch of the Australian Labor Party about how they feel about this significant breach of an election promise.
Welcome on board, member for Nelson. We have many people on this issue with us. We will continue to show Territorians how the Minister for Health could be described as the Draco Malfoy of Territory politics. For those who read Harry Potter they will know that Draco Malfoy is a slippery character and a person who simply cannot be trusted.
Dr TOYNE (Health): Madam Speaker, if we are name calling, which is the member for Araluen’s habit, she might start to stick to the topic instead of personal abuse which, I can say, has absolutely no effect on me and my concentration on doing my job as a minister well. However, if it gives you satisfaction, fine.
What the member for Araluen is very good at is selectively quoting from the facts. We had a great example of that last night. I will diverge for a moment from responding to this motion in the main by saying, in she comes: ‘Oh, we have this report on the Alice Springs Hospital and it is from the Australian Council on Health Care Standards’, immediately making allegations about me as a minister withholding information from the survey group, which she repeated in the media this morning. The document she was holding actually states:
- A significant issue was raised in the last survey in regard to fire systems certificates of occupancy
following the redevelopment of the hospital. The resulting ACHS priority rating and subsequent
fire inspection report has ensured that the fire safety issues have received extensive action since
the survey.
All recommendations have been addressed and are on target for completion this year as per the Fire
Action Plan. Extensive engineering reviews of the hospital redevelopment have revealed further building
deficiencies. The government has announced funding to repair all outstanding building deficiencies
commencing in 2004. The fire department has provided a report to satisfy patient and staff safety concerns.
Those words from the report did not leap out in your contribution last night ...
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister is quoting from a document. I ask that he table that document from which he was quoting in some detail.
Dr TOYNE: I certainly will. This selective use of facts is okay in this Chamber. We will deal with that under parliamentary rules, but when you go out to the media, I give some very strong advice …
Ms Carney interjecting.
Dr TOYNE: I will give you very strong advice: you retract what you said this morning or there may be some consequences.
Ms Carney interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr TOYNE: I turn to the motion before us. Again, we are seeing a very selective reconstruction of what has actually happened. Certainly, we acknowledge and continue to commit to delivering a radiation oncology unit for Territorians.
Since coming to government, we have done what government has to do when it is looking at a major initiative such as this. It is a project that could cost up to $15m, with $2m of recurrent funds every year. What do you do? You go to the experts and get their opinion about the best way to proceed. The question has never been that we would renege on providing a radiation oncology service in the Northern Territory; the questions have been: how do you make it safe sustainable, and make sure that, when you go Territorians and make a promise of a service, you can actually deliver it in a safe and sustainable way?
We asked the Bansemer review to look at that in February 2003. Bansemer came back saying an external specialist should be commissioned to provide advice and options on the provision of a radiation and oncology service in the Northern Territory over the next 10 years. In the meantime, there are sufficient concerns about the sustainability and clinical safety of a new radiation oncology service for the NT to warrant its deferral until that consultancy work was done.
The consultancy work was subsequently put out and resulted in the Barton and Frommer report. What the Barton and Frommer report said was yes, there is certainly a need for a radiation oncology service within the Northern Territory. They identified roughly 350 treatments a year that would be appropriate to apply to Northern Territory patients. They also identified that of those treatments, some 90 patients would probably not come to Darwin for treatment even if there was an oncology unit here. That gave a nett of 260 treatments that would be sought by the current known patient load within the Northern Territory. That is the scale of the need as the consultancy scoped it out.
There were two elements arising from the consultancy: yes, you can set up a free-standing radiation oncology unit here in the Northern Territory if you put the money in and, if you are successful in getting staff and the number of patients to make that service sustainable, probably well above the inherent demand from the Territory itself, and they suggested that we would need to look further afield for both patients and some aspects of service delivery, then they cautioned us. They said this is going to be very difficult to sustain in a safe way if we go by ourselves. They said equipment maintenance is extraordinary expensive and if equipment is not used at a high level, the whole formulation of maintenance and support for the unit starts to look very wobbly. They said that we would almost certainly have major problems in recruiting and retaining specialist radiation oncology staff required to run a unit like that.
They also said if we are going to go ahead, we have to change the model. The model that they strongly commended to us was not a free-standing radiation oncology unit; they said go in with a major centre somewhere else in Australia and enter a hub and spoke arrangement with them to spread support of the project to take advantage of Commonwealth input. Why not? Why would you not want to approach the Commonwealth? There is nothing wrong with that. What we have said is that we have committed to a radiation oncology unit. That does not say that we cannot go and talk to the Commonwealth government or to the private sector.
Following the Barton Frommer report, we have made two announcements. The first one was made by the Chief Minister, as was correctly pointed out, to the effect that no, we cannot do a free-standing radiation oncology unit. That is the expert advice we have been given. I might say that the member for Drysdale is on record as agreeing with us on that. I could source the quote for you. We have already used it in the House. What we then announced is that on this model of a hub and spoke arrangement with potential private sector and Commonwealth involvement in the project, potential drawing of patients from elsewhere around the Territory and perhaps the Kimberley and off-shore, there is the basis of a viable initiative for the Territory.
My agency right now is working towards that end. They know that it is a key election promise from the last election. They know that we as a government want to deliver on it, and we will progress that work as quickly as it can be put together. I can say to members that current indications are very encouraging that there will be a viable initiative put together.
It is always fun to score a couple of cheap shots and take the moral high ground, but it is my experience in discharging various responsibilities I have as a minister that it is seldom that easy. It is seldom a matter of just throwing a bit of money at something and you will fix it. You have to think through in detail the type of services you want for Territorians. They have to be safe, sustainable and defendable as a use of public money and as a public activity. That is what has led to the time frame we have now.
We have had two major interventions with expert advice and we are still on track. We have not given up this task at any stage. I cannot get up in front of the Territory public and say: ‘Yes, we will just chuck some money at this’ when I know from expert advice that there would be real problems with the operation of a unit as we first envisaged. Our promise stands: we will put a radiation oncology unit in place in the Northern Territory. What has changed is that on the basis of expert advice, we are now very close to putting together a proposal that will be sustainable, safe and cover the needs of at least Territorians in the Top End. As a Central Australian, we also have to point out that it is more than likely that patients from Alice Springs will continue to go down to Adelaide. Some may come up to Darwin, but it depends on where they prefer to be to have these treatments. This does not solve the problem for Central Australia and it was never going to, so we have other issues to sort out there.
I believe that with an amendment to the current motion, the government can support it. The amendment is to omit all other words after ‘that’, which is the first word of the original motion, and substitute the words:
- … given that two independent reports by health and medical experts have found that a ‘stand-alone’
radiation oncology may be neither safe nor sustainable. the Northern Territory government remains
committed to and continues to work towards the establishment of a safe, sustainable and high quality
radiation oncology facility at Royal Darwin Hospital to serve the people of the Northern Territory,
northern Australia and neighbouring countries so that they can have access to these facilities without
having to travel long distances interstate to receive treatment.
That does not challenge the original aim of the member for Nelson’s motion. We are confirming that we are still committed to the facility. We are qualifying the proposal so that it reflects what we are trying to do, and we will come back to this House when we have further news on the development of this unit.
Taking a couple of points made by the member for Nelson, this would be a service committed to all Territorians with this need. There would be no point of installing a high level facility such as this in our health system if you were in some way curtailing access to it for some people. It shall not and will not depend on the financial circumstances or location of a patient. If they need radiation oncology, they will have access to this unit if they choose to have treatment in Darwin.
I am disappointed with the member for Araluen who tends to view bipartisan support of anything with high suspicion. I am simply saying that the Commonwealth government is of the same complexion as the Territory opposition, and there are always ways in which opposition members can prevail on members of their own political persuasion to help the Territory. We are talking about the Territory having a high level facility.
We are not trying to duck the issue or renege on our commitment to this project, but, surely, if I am going to see Tony Abbott, as I have done on a number occasions on this and other issues for the Territory, it is not too much to ask the opposition to use their contacts within the federal government to help us along. That is all I am saying. It is not a dire crime against the integrity of the political process or of this parliament; I am suggesting that we work together on this to get the feds to play a role in setting up this facility.
The federal government will not fund recurrent aspects of this initiative. We know that and we expect to pick up the recurrent costs of running such a service, but the federal government can and does fund start-up capital costs to get the facilities set up in the early stages. That is what we are saying. Madam Speaker, I move the amended motion.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I will make a brief contribution. I was waiting for the minister to respond to debate so far because I was interested to hear what he had to say. Gee whiz! I tell you what: no wonder you use words like ‘practical purpose’ and people do not understand what you are talking about. Your response today started out saying you could not go to the public and give a commitment to build a radiation oncology unit but ended up by saying you remain committed to it.
What your position is, heaven knows. I can tell you what you are asking us to accept: you are asking Territorians to accept the fact when you are in opposition, you can make promises. You may not have the information, but you can go out in an election and say: ‘These are the commitments that we make to Territorians’. You can even go as far as publishing and saying: ‘This is my charter, this is my manifesto, this is my commitment to public servants’ and all in an atmosphere of not knowing what you are talking about.
Dr Toyne: I did not say that at all.
You stand exposed as a government that not only cannot deliver on a core promise, but has the gall to say to Territorians that they should not even expect you to deliver on a core promise because you now have further information that the core promise is dead. I can tell you what the CLP’s position is, and this is not the member for Drysdale’s position, it is not the member for Araluen’s position, it is the CLP’s position …
Your Bansemer Report says that there are 260 treatments. Have you ever heard of a thing called ‘unmet need’ in the Northern Territory? Are you seriously suggesting, as the Health Minister of the Northern Territory that you have such a grasp on the health statistics of Territorians, particularly Aboriginal Territorians, that you can say definitively at this moment that there are about 260 treatments required now and, probably, they may not increase all that much in the future? Garbage!
Therefore, it follows, logically to me, that it becomes increasingly unacceptable to send people interstate for other than very complex treatment that cannot be done except by specialists who only reside in certain areas in the same way that South Australia may have to send people to Melbourne and Melbournians might have to travel to Sydney and vice versa because those highly-specialised people only reside and practice in those areas. That is a different thing to what is becoming more and more accepted in Australia as basic services that major hospitals should provide. Oncology and cardio services are two of them.
Oncology and Radiotherapy Unit, Royal Darwin Hospital:
Territorians have a high incidence of cancer and yet have to travel interstate for radiotherapy.
Labor will establish an Oncology and Radiotherapy Unit at Royal Darwin Hospital. This unit is
part of Labor’s plan to make RDH a comprehensive care centre for Northern Australia and the
region to our north.
As well as installing the appropriate equipment, the unit will require ongoing funding for
specialist staff. The additional nursing staff will be met from Labor’s commitment to provide
75 additional nursing staff. The estimated capital cost of $14m is included as part of Labor’s
commitment to health capital works of $25m a year.
It is anticipated federal assistance towards the capital costs of up to 50% may be made available,
but this has not been factored in to costings to date. Current amount 2000-01 budget is zero;
2002-03 $2m; 2003-04 $12.47m; 2004-05 $0.96m.
I looked at this matter because, I, too, was keen to stop the necessity for people to fly south for this treatment, and in the structure that I was provided, staffing was $120 000 for a radiation oncologist, you would need eight radiation therapists at $360 000, two medical physicists at $120 000 and $1.5m for nursing at $50 000. Then there are two admin staff at $60 000. Nursing is the smallest component of those. The cost to run it – maintenance, support, CT, planning, water, power, sewerage, laundry, security, medical supplies – was about $560 000. Nursing is the smallest component, so the ongoing costs were conveniently swept under the mat and we were told that the promise on nursing would be sufficient to cover the ongoing costs of this facility.
These are your legacies; they are not mine. However, I will say for commentators and people who look to these debates that, yes, it can be done; and yes, it can be done to the extent that all of those hurdles - and some of them are enormous - can be addressed. However, the first thing you have to do is make sure it is safe; that there is competent practice available. It is not just a matter of building monuments, it is a matter of the human resources that go within those monuments and dispense a service for the benefit of Territorians. I would suggest that you get to work on that because you are well overdue.
Madam SPEAKER: We now have an amended motion. Member for Nelson, your closing debate.
Dear Dr Toyne,
I must say I am bitterly disappointed with your government’s decision not to pursue the establishment
of a radiotherapy unit in Darwin - on the same day, I might add, as I opened the paper to discover that
the government were going to spend $5m on a soccer ground.
There are many of my chemotherapy patients who are also upset with the decision to keep sending patients
to Adelaide or elsewhere for their radiotherapy treatment.
I also have several Aboriginal patients who have declined further treatment for their cancers because it
involves travel to Adelaide, enduring cold weather, and long periods away from country and family.
The timing of this decision so close to the end of the Cancer Council of Australia’s conference on Aboriginal
issues, which identified the need for culturally appropriate services near to people’s homes and family as
important.
For women, Aboriginal or not, needing six or seven weeks away from spouses and family, this is extremely hard.
Not only is there the diagnosis, surgery and possible chemotherapy to deal with,; there is also the added stress
of loss of income, extra expenses and separation from family to content with.
For others needing palliative care and radiotherapy for relief of pain, this involves a long, uncomfortable
plane journey south, and then they must fight to take spouse or carer along with them.
I realise that a unit will be expensive, but surely our isolation and special circumstances necessitate that we
should have one.
Labor came to power pledging support for both a hospice and radiotherapy service for Darwin. I don’t see the
evidence of either of these being fulfilled by the next election, and I and others will remember.
At present, like the nurse who wrote to the minister, and I will quote her words again: ‘I and others will remember’. She deals with these people day in and day out. So it is not about politics, it is about the reality of life. The government should take that into consideration and, hopefully, in Alice Springs we will see a change.
RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES
AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 276)
AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 276)
With the exception of Territory Housing, landlords are in the business of leasing premises because it provides an income. I do not believe that they will, as a general rule, use this legislation to hassle those people who help put butter on their tables, namely their tenants. I accept that there have been some overbearing landlords in the past, however, nothing in this amendment provides any greater power to a landlord to become more difficult. It does, however, provide flexibility for actions, and it provides a court a wider power to look at the behaviour of tenants. For that reason, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.
MOTION
Darwin Wharf Redevelopment
Darwin Wharf Redevelopment
That this Assembly call on the government to divulge:
(a) when financial close for the waterfront development will occur;
Chief Minister, I am prepared to support the waterfront proposal and the way the government is moving, providing I get some answers to what I believe are genuine questions …
There are concerns about the consultation process. Those concerns, you say, have all been attended to. I do not believe that the consultation process has occurred in the detail that Territorians expect. You certainly believe that …
Mr BURKE: Is that a cost in the consortium’s costings? Is it real? The Chief Minister laughs. Stand up and categorically say that if the Henry Walker Eltin involvement is replaced, that replacement effort will not come at one dollar additional cost to the consortium. You are a partner; you are part of the consortium. You are not the supervisor that is watching this; you are a partner, so you are part of the consortium. Tell us what the consortium costs are going to be, particularly with the rising costs indicated by the Henry Walker Eltin change, as one example.
This Assembly acknowledge:
(1) the considerable work being undertaken by the Territory government to secure a
convention centre for Darwin and the redevelopment of the Darwin waterfront; and
after negotiations have been completed and financial close reached.
The Darwin convention and exhibition centre will be a world-class centre catering for up to 1500 delegates and one of the features is 4000 m2 of undercover, airconditioned exhibition space, something desperately needed in Darwin.
I would like to talk specifically to the environment because it is an issue continually raised by the opposition. The Opposition Leader has asked me a number of questions about it over the last week and a half; and I have dealt with them in detail. But, from what he said in here today, it has not gone in. It has gone in one ear and out the other because the Opposition Leader does not want to listen; neither do his colleagues, it seems.
Dr Nadebaum is an independent specialist who will direct environmental clean up operations to ensure there are no remaining threats to either public health or the environment as project development proceeds.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Daly!
Second, there will be an annual payment to support the ongoing operational and running costs of the convention centre. Convention centres cannot generally survive on convention business alone. However, the significant economic boost warrants government support.
Finally, we are not giving away the land, 25 ha, as inferred by the opposition so many times, nor are we going to sell it at a highly discounted price. Rather than just sell at the AVO value, we sought, as part of the competitive bidding process, proposals for a return of value to the government. I can confirm that the proposal under consideration is for a return to government by way of a percentage of the final gross sale value of the developments as they are sold over the duration of the project, ensuring we capture the increasing value of the development over the life of the project.
As I said at the start, I have already committed to providing details once it is commercially appropriate to do so. You will, of course, realise that this is the way business is done between governments and the private sector and to do otherwise would prejudice the Territory’s position and credibility for projects of this kind in the future.
We have come a long way in achieving a key goal for the Territory by putting in place a great project that will see Darwin become a world-class city. Once again, let me give my assurance that details of the commercial arrangements for the project will be provided to the Assembly, as I have said time and time again, after negotiations have been completed, just as we saw with the railway when financial closure was achieved.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the amended motion to members.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will start with some advice for the Chief Minister: when the Darwin City Council almost unanimously, PLan, a former Labor member of this House, Ms June D’Rozario, the CLP, the Darwin Business District through its various peaks, various commentators around town including people like Dwyn Delaney, all say there is a problem here, you should believe that there is a problem here. These are not people who generally hunt in a pack for political benefit. They are people who are coming at this from a lot of different perspectives, and they are telling you there is a problem. If you want to keep saying: ‘There is no problem, there is no problem, there is no problem; I will sign up and then I will show you the detail’, you do it at your peril.
Some of the people I have spoken to who are most passionate about this are people who have nothing to gain financially. They are Territorians of some standing. They have a connection to the area, they have a view of how our CBD should develop and they have a view about the heritage of problems that could be left behind for them. Some of those people are the most eloquent on this subject and I suggest, Chief Minister, that you start to talk to them.
It is all very well to say: ‘The CLP is against this because they are anti-development, anti-Territorian, they receive briefs and do not understand them’ but, really, there are an enormous number of unanswered questions. As much as you can say: ‘Look, I have told you in the parliament’ on other occasions: ‘It is commercial and I am not going to tell you’, and on other occasions: ‘I promise I will tell you in the morning’, which is a little bit like the old promise.
Let us go to some of the things you have said, Chief Minister, and let us start, for instance, with the environment. It was only recently you told us in this parliament, last week in fact, that every single aspect of questioning is not warranted because we will follow proper environmental process, of course we will. You also talked about a report from July last year: ‘There was a supplementary environmental impact statement produced in July last year. There was the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Report by the Office of Environment and Heritage based on the draft EIS and public comment in August last year. The minister made a determination on the basis of Environmental Assessment Report No 43 and the EIS in August 2004’.
Here is assessment report 43, which was done in tandem with the government seeking expressions of interest. So in some respects, it was a blind document. The document did not understand what would be developed there, and all the way through, it says that when there is a master plan, we have to revisit this. For instance, at page iv, it says:
The environmental impact of some options for the proposed development could not be adequately
assessed at this time and further environmental assessment may be required once the details of the
development had been finalised.
The Northern Territory government has undertaken to bear the cost of remediation of contamination
resulting from previous land use on the site, although some remediation works maybe carried out in the
future by the eventual developer.
To ensure the complete and rigorous environmental assessment of the proposed development, it is
considered that a number of these studies and commitments should be completed before the master
plan is lodged for approval and provided with the master plan as supporting information.
Generally, the results detailed EIS have indicated contamination varies across the site within the different
environs. Those contaminants which were identified include:
elevated concentrations of metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel
and zinc) above human health and/or ecological guidelines;
typical of heavy fuel oil and chlorinated hydrocarbons, potentially from fuel storage tanks;
and sulphur …
This report has been prepared working to an extremely limited project time line, where IT Environmental
was initially formally commissioned for the study after close of business, Tuesday 19 October 2004 ...
The first report was submitted 27 October 2004, eight days later.
Subsequent to the issue of this latter report, the following development applications were lodged: …
IT Environmental will not update the report and has not taken into account events occurring or information
becoming readily available after the time this report was prepared.
Although URS has, at this stage of the investigation, done its best to ensure that the document is accurate at the
date of issue, there is a chance that the opinions and conclusions contained in it are not comprehensive,
accurate or complete.
Accordingly, the document is provided for information purposes only. In particular, the document is provided
on the following conditions:
1. no party (including the NT government or developers appointed to develop the site) may rely on
this document; …
4. In the event that the NT government makes this report available to any third party, the NT government
will ensure that the third party acknowledges and accepts these conditions.
There is another problem they have and it goes to environment again. You have a pecuniary interest. You have to declare that so when you say: ‘I am the government and I want to make sure this is done in the best interest of the people,’ you are assuming the role as the guardian of the land, the people’s assets, you are assuming an audit and oversight role and you are making sure things are done properly. If you are also the proponent, a partner in your PPP, you have a problem because, essentially, you are promoting something, you are wedded to it to the extent that you virtually want to shoot anyone who makes any criticism about it, and it makes it very difficult for you to exercise that other role as the guardian of the people’s assets.
You have told us today that the land will not be sold. It was not that long ago it was reported that
Ms Martin said yesterday that the market value of the 25 ha was part of commercial negotiations and
would be revealed only when complete. The unimproved capital value is $25m.
You said to us: ‘Go and have a look at the plan and you will see the Defence staging area’. Here is a photo of the plan and the Defence staging area looks like a big balsa wood lump with a boat tied on it, which is what it is. It does not give you much detail. If you go the documents from which I have quoted, they give you a little detail on what is likely to happen on that staging area. I am quoting again:
It will require the movement of heavy machinery through the Darwin city waterfront site, such as
low loaders carrying armoured vehicles and trucks carrying personnel, equipment and supplies.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I speak against the Chief Minister’s amendment to this motion.
As you know, the waterfront proposal sits within the boundaries of my electorate. Over the last few years, I have been a supporter of the establishment of a convention centre in the CBD. Members will remember that in approximately the year 2000, there was a very strong proposal to put a convention centre right next to this building. My understanding was that when that happened under the CLP government, things did not stack up and the end result was that this exciting proposal fell over, but the reason was that it did not stack up and that is something we need to remember: governments do, from time to time, have to make a sad decision to say: ‘No, we cannot do it based on those numbers’. I thought it was a good site.
Putting a convention centre in this top area of the CBD would support a lot of businesses, including the mall. When submissions were called a couple of years ago about where people thought a convention centre should go, I submitted that it go somewhere along the esplanade so that the hotels on the Esplanade could be supported, the mall could be supported. I did not feel that putting it down at the Stokes Hill area would be a good thing because of the way it would cut it off, physically, from the CBD. However, history moves on, and the government has chosen to put a convention centre down in that wharf precinct area.
I have great concern at the way the government constantly howls down anyone who dares speak or raise concerns with regard to the wharf precinct. Every time that is done, a spin is put on what people say to try to make the media think that anyone who raises concerns is anti any development on the waterfront. That is not true. As the member for Port Darwin, I most certainly support the development of the waterfront, but I believe it must be done correctly. It is a one-off opportunity to develop this very important and impressive parcel of land, and it must be done properly. It is very disappointing to hear badgering of the opposition whenever we raise issues which are of great concern to Territorians.
In the Westminster system, there are two sides: the government and the opposition, each of which has a job to do. Both are valid and very important for the betterment of the citizens of Commonwealth countries. The opposition’s role is to scrutinise what the government is doing on behalf of Territorians. The government itself came to power saying that it was going to provide open and accountable - and I emphasise the word ‘accountable’ - government, the inference being that previous Territory governments had not been open and accountable.
The onus is on the government to demonstrate its credibility as an accountable government, and it has been doing a particularly poor job with this constant harping and carping, inferring and spinning that any valid concerns raised by the opposition are because we want to scrap the whole proposal. That is patently incorrect and terribly tedious. I hope that the media in particular are wary of the spin being attached to things. I hope the media and the public are very aware of the role of opposition. It is our duty to raise these concerns on behalf of Territorians.
These concerns are valid, and they are things that we should know about before financial closure occurs. They need to be negotiated during this time of financial closure because when the Chief Minister talks about the wharf precinct, she talks about the preferred consortium, the inference being that she still has an opportunity to step back from that preferred group and go to one of the other two consortia.
As you know, the public has not been shown what the other two groups proposed, but knowing some of the people involved in the other two proposals, I have every confidence that they would have been quite spectacular. One of the architectural groups was Troppo Architects and they are world-renowned for their wonderful designs and inspirational products, and I would have loved to have seen made public what the Troppo gang had put up for their proposal. I hope that one day we do get to see it. I hope the Chief Minister will be in a position to explain why the group that have currently been chosen won over the top of what I suspect Troppo would have put up, which would have been something really spectacular. Perhaps what has been chosen is better, but looking at the design of the convention centre as it is at the moment, I have my personal views on the matter.
There are things that need to be finalised before financial closure because they are terribly important. Of course, once financial closure is reached, the developers are going to have this government in their clasp. I suspect the government is desperately keen to see this proposal started and completed. It is the feather in the cap of the Martin Labor government.
I remember going to one of the public meetings about this wharf precinct development last year, which was facilitated by a lady whose surname I cannot remember, but whose first name was Sheila. After we had been at this consultation for an hour or so, I asked what time line she expected for this activity, and when she thought the first sod would be turned. Her comment was: ‘Well, the way it is going, I would think that the first sod will be turned in approximately May 2005 and, shortly thereafter, you will have an election’ and we all had a chuckle because I believe she is very correct. I am quite sure the Chief Minister is desperately keen to get this proposal cracking along so she could pop her hard hat on, jump in her little yellow Tonka toy, and turn the first sod with the cameras rolling, and we will have a great shot for those election commercials. I suspect that is going to happen, as we go to the election very shortly thereafter.
The developers have the government in their clasp, and the government is going to have to cough up. That is my expectation. We are going to end up with a convention centre down on the wharf which will cut it physically from the CBD, which is a disappointment. However, the proposals have been worked up, apparently with a view to facilitate travel between the wharf and the mall area, and let us hope that happens.
The member for Drysdale has spoken particularly well on the documentation available to the public through the planning department. I have been able to get some of these documents, too. On the matter of environmental clean-up, issues definitely arise.
For example, I was particularly concerned with this document: Technical Reports, Darwin City Waterfront put together by IT Environmental Australia. I know the member for Drysdale has spoken in some detail on this. However, it does talk about the very short period in which they were asked to prepare this review with regards to the environmental issues; it was only a matter days. After they completed their review, they suddenly became aware of the three very thick documents regarding the infrastructure works. They make it very clear, in their conclusion, the limitations that are evident now because their report was done before al these other reports came out and everything was done as a rush job.
When you read what is in these documents, as I have, with regards to the environment situation down there, and the fact that it is a long-term industrial site, it is apparently quite seriously contaminated with heavy metals and the like. It is going to have major problems with the leeching of contaminants into our harbour and, as the water table moves and rises, the movement of those contaminants back onto the ground level and, potentially, into some of the water facilities like the pool this site is going to feature. The environmental situation is of paramount concern. What happens regarding this site over the decades to follow, the Chief Minister, quite frankly, is going to have to deal with this herself, whether she is still in politics or not. I hope she is able to sleep well at night because I know if I was her and I had these documents, I would be thinking very carefully about the rushed processes on this project. These are serious issues.
I know the Chief Minister, when she was Leader of the Opposition, was very concerned about planning and environment issues and I hope that what is happening down there with the Wharf Precinct attracts the same level of concern from her.
As the member for Port Darwin, I have concerns about that site. You only have to look at the model to see the complexity of this project. Stage 1 looks very interesting, and I was pleased that changes have been made with the height level, particularly the hotel that is going to be built in front of the escarpment. If you go beyond Stage 1, which only has one row of apartment blocks, and you look at further stages and see the very high density nature of the apartments that are going to be built there, it truly raises issues of roads and people’s access to the area, emergency services access, such as fire engines and the like given the road structure, about which we have not seen much detail yet. If you look at the size of the land available and the significant number of buildings that are going to be squeezed onto it, these issues have to be considered.
The Defence Force situation has been mentioned by previous speakers, but they are issues that have not been resolved. Parking is going to be a serious concern. For example, a two- or three-bedroom apartment in any block in the CBD attracts at least two or three cars. I can tell you that on- and off-street parking in the CBD is a major issue. If you look down there, there is an expectation of 1400 units to be built. At least 1000 of them will be two bedrooms and that means that you are going to have thousands of cars needing to be parked in that area and parking will be a significant concern.
Another issue is noise. Obviously, with high density living, there are all sorts of noise concerns, particularly as these units are going to be surrounding an entertainment precinct. It has a sound shell by the look of things and it has a wave pool. I am concerned about the wave pool. These things need to be sorted out now before the developer has total control of the project and before financial settlement occurs.
This is a period of time where the government can negotiate and what we do not know, for example, is who is going to own and operate the wave pool? My expectation is that this is going to be a very expensive piece of infrastructure. It is going to need long-term maintenance, it is going to need long-term repairs and it is going to be expensive.
I understand Darwin City Council is very coy about this wave pool and the other pools because, of course, the council owns and operates or controls all the local swimming pools, which are wonderful. Is there going to be significant pressure and expectation put on Darwin City Council that they will have to take over the ownership and operation of this wave pool? Are rate payers going to be keen to have to subsidise the repairs and maintenance of this wave pool and the paying of staff who are going to have to look after it? How much is it going to be as an ongoing cost? Because …
Mr Stirling: So you do not like the wave pool, okay.
Ms CARTER: It is going to be an issue. It is situated right in the middle of a high density population group. I notice all their verandahs will face out on to the wave pool. In order for that wave pool to be financially viable and, given the clientele that it may attract, people having a fabulous time on a three- or four-day stop over in Darwin, cracking a tan and having a great social time, it will be extremely popular with our backpackers if they can afford the entry fee.
Given that and our beautiful climate, I can see pressure on the owner-operators of that wave pool in order to make it more financially viable – I am not suggesting it would ever be actually financially viable, although I look forward to whether or not the Chief Minister can allay those fears – but will that wave pool be operating until 10 pm and 11 pm under spot lights? I assume the motors required to generate the waves are noisy, so we are going to have a major noise situation within a high density living area. Eventually for the residents, the novelty of listening to backpackers shrieking and carrying on at 10 pm and the motors pounding and whirring as they generate waves, will wear off and they are not going to be too pleased about it.
However, if at some point in time the government and the Chief Minister can allay those concerns, because I do not think they have been addressed at all, I look forward to having them allayed. I do support development, but, as I say, it must be done correctly and we only get one go at this. Once you have gone in there and built things, that will be it and we will be all be living with this situation for many years to come.
On the issue of noise, city noise is a big concern to my constituents. Since I became the member for Port Darwin, I have been aware that the government – initially it was the CLP government, now it is the Labor government - have been developing noise regulations and I have pursued that, as the various ministers know, for years now, as to where are these regs and how are they going to help us. I note this document, Community Infrastructure Works, mentions on a number of pages, including page 3 of one of the reports at the back, item 2.3, that a discussion draft for the proposed Waste Management and Pollution Control (Environmental Noise) Regulations (2003), which none of us have ever seen, has been used as the basis of developing their proposal. I have asked the minister for a copy of those noise regs. I look forward to receiving it.
In conclusion, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the development. I have serious concerns about it. These concerns need to be addressed. The government has promised to be open and accountable; let us see their actions speak louder than their words. Let us hear someone address some of these concerns so that in 20 years time, we can all look proudly back to this period and say: ‘We all built a great wharf precinct’.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the first question I ask is: where is the planning minister in all of this? Surely, with a matter like this before the House, the planning minister would have a contribution. Many of the issues surrounding the convention centre are issues of planning. Indeed, the planning minister has made some comments in relation to this, especially when it comes to dealing with the negative political aspects of issues like height restrictions on buildings, something on which the government has had to do a backflip.
Immediately prior to Christmas, if memory serves me, when they suddenly announced that height levels on those buildings is going to come down because they exceeded the height level of the escarpment, which was a major issue.
The position of the government is becoming more difficult and desperate for them. The fact is that the longer this process goes on, the more that the Chief Minister is pulling and drawing into herself the issues, and controlling the issues, and allowing less and less latitude in respect of how this proceeds. This is clearly evidenced by the amendment the Chief Minister moved. Basically, what the Leader of the Opposition is asking is: what is the level of taxpayer exposure? How much it is going to cost? That is the bottom line of this, and the Chief Minister’s response is: ‘I will tell you afterwards; I will let you know after negotiations are closed’.
We have heard the usual tirade of abuse: ‘you are un-Territorian, you do not believe in development’. If you want to the CLP of not being development orientated, have a look around you. I remember tirades of abuse heaped on the government of the day for building this place. This place was built during the recession we had to have. That was the government’s response to an employment environment that meant many of the chippies, sparkies and the like were going to have to leave this town because there was just no money. The government of the day responded and built Parliament House. It is certainly a grand building, much loved and much admired, but the question of cost was raised repeatedly by the then opposition, and rightly so, may I say.
On all projects that any consortium partner enters into, until they sign bottom line, each and every negotiating partner should have an abort button built into what they are doing, a big red one, easily accessible because if the numbers do not stack up, if the exposure to the consortium partner does not look right then, before they sign off on it, they can push it.
The Chief Minister accused the former government of being unable to bring the project to fruition. In one respect, that might be true, in the sense that the government of the day was not prepared to commit itself to an untenable negotiating position, and so, as a consequence of the problems with which they were presented through the process, and they could not make the numbers stack, what did they do? They took a politically courageous decision, which is a very Sir Humphrey Appleby expression. They pressed the abort button because they knew that their responsibility was primarily to the people who were funding them as a consortium partner, and who would that have been? The people who were funding that consortium partner were the taxpayers, and there is no difference in this case.
The core of this process rests on the Chief Minister’s shoulders. So desperate is her desire to control the process, she is probably not allowing the Planning minister to make any statements today. She reads out her script and no one, but no one else from the Labor benches utters a single syllable in relation to this because she is in control of it.
Ms Lawrie: It is a fantastic project. I love the waterfront.
Mr ELFERINK: It is a good project. The project, in developing a convention centre and developing the waterfront - yes, it is a good idea. The point is, and I pick up on the interjection by the member for Karama, that the Chief Minister is drawing this into herself. The problem is that she is also making herself the focal point of the crash and burn approach to this. If she is unable to nail this thing down properly before the next election, whenever that may be, then she will be going to the next election with not a single project started effectively under her government.
The fact is that this Chief Minister is refusing to talk about the taxpayers’ exposure, and we have heard from the member for Drysdale about some of the issues surrounding the taxpayers’ exposure, and the fact is that the Chief Minister probably cannot accurately assess some of the quantum involved in assessing exposure, and indeed, the wild vacillations between the cost of this project, the original announcement of $600m to $1.2bn, clearly demonstrates the problems with which the Chief Minister is confronted.
She reassures us that the cost of this project will only be $100m from the taxpayer, plus $10m for the environmental work. It is very difficult for her to know this. However, rather than saying: ‘Well, yes, we have to allow for a certain amount of flex’, she is locking herself down tighter and tighter into a position of: ‘Give me the car keys and I will tell you where we are going once we are on the road, and I will tell you how much the fuel and repair bills are going to be’. Is that really the way that we want to do business? Everyone in this Chamber knows the Chief Minister is in an awkward situation.
Therefore, as time passes and she has this political imperative driving her, and her refusal to acknowledge the existence of an abort button before financial closure has been achieved, she has now exposed herself to a very vulnerable position. I bet London, to a brick, that the other consortium partners are trying very hard to squeeze the Chief Minister to make her - because they are fully aware of her political exposure in relation to this issue - pay for more and more. It is not she who pays; it is the taxpayer. That electoral pressure, her refusal to talk about costs, the fact that she is a consortium partner, and the fact that she has control of the planning process, ultimately - so if there is a problem with the DCA, the planning minister can override any ruling they make anyhow, which puts him in a precarious situation in respect of conflicts of interest - as well as the environmental issues makes me concerned that the future of this project is going to cost the taxpayer more and more. I am certain that is where the Leader of the Opposition is coming from.
The Chief Minister is saying to us: ‘Look, just do not worry about it. I will let you know after the negotiations have been completed’. I support, like all other members of this Chamber, development in the wharf precinct area. However, you cannot sensibly, in any economic environment, lock yourself into a position before you sit down at the negotiating table when the other partners in the consortium are bringing pressure to bear because they know you are vulnerable. It is an untenable situation. That pressure is going to increase and this Chief Minister may find herself in a position of negotiating to a point where she realises that there is no choice but the abort button because she has no ability to argue back effectively. If that is the case, the crash and burn approach is, very sadly, going to be a possible outcome.
There are issues other than cost that the Chief Minister needs to address including the mix of uses in the area. The current model has a certain disharmony and incongruity in its modelling because it has commercial fishing industry, Defence, high-rise residential, an amphitheatre, passenger liners, and a public beach all adjacent to each other, all concentrated into a small area. The approaches to the area are quite limited. For a large number of those buildings, it is Kitchener Drive or the road on the hill leading down to Kitchener Drive. I wonder how easy it is going to be to get things such as tanks on the backs of large trucks through residential areas into the staging area because they have to get there somehow. It is a question of legitimate concern. The response so far is: ‘Do not worry about it; you just leave it with us, she’ll be right’. It is something we have every reason to be concerned about.
There is also the question of the relationship with the CBD. I quote from the member for Drysdale’s submission to the DCA:
It was always intended that the waterfront development would complement and enhance the CBD. It appears
that there is now a real likelihood this government-sponsored precinct of 1400 units may well compete
negatively with an already struggling CBD.
The reason I raised the issue of the actual cost is that when do you get these documents, for instance, which make life very interesting: Supplementary Information Supporting the Development Application for the Marine Infrastructure Works, and there is the same for the Community Infrastructure Works, the Ecological Risk Assessment, and Work In Progress: Remedial Action Plan - they hit my desk the other day - there is a lot of information in those documents that one has to work through.
The information in two of these books concerns me. If we look at costs and then look at Darwin City Council’s concerns – and I will take one:
Council requests the authority requires the following information regarding the boardwalks is submitted to
the satisfaction of the relevant authority.
Negotiations between the Northern Territory government, the Darwin City Council and the consortium
will be resolved at a later stage. These arrangements should not affect the development application
being considered.
A Durability Plan shall, at a minimum, address the following durability aspects of all marine-related
infrastructure.
Council requests the authority requires a Precinct Management Plan, which includes a broad Community
Safety and Security Strategy and an estimate of costs.
Negotiations between the Northern Territory government and the Darwin City Council and the consortium
will be resolved at a later stage.
Council requests the authority requires the following information regarding the sea wall is submitted to the
satisfaction of the relevant authority:
Negotiations between the Northern Territory government, the Darwin City Council and the consortium
will be resolved at a later stage.
Council requests the authority requires the following information regarding public art is submitted to the
satisfaction of the relevant authority:
Negotiations between the Northern Territory government, Darwin City Council and consortium
will be resolved at a later stage.
Mr Dunham: The wave pool might.
Mr WOOD: The wave pool. It is a bit silent on the wave pool, except - I beg your pardon! I will look up my own submission. Gee, forgetting your own submission is a bit embarrassing. I did make a request on the wave pool and when you want it, you cannot find it.
Wave pool! I asked who was paying for the construction of the pool, who will maintain it and will the public be charged for its use, and the response was:
Please refer the above documents for information. Note that commercial operational matters are not
relevant to the DA assessment and have not been attended to.
You say we have the gall to come in here, even though this is the parliament of the people, and ask questions like, how much taxpayers’ money is involved. Somehow, that is unparliamentary. You should have some briefing at the side somewhere from some officers. This is the parliament of the people and this is where these questions are asked and answers should, rightly, be given.
You have an amendment that demonstrates the lack of interest you have in the motion, and you do not address any of the issues that are raised by other members, including the Independent member for Nelson. The fact that you were reading The Australian newspaper all the way through his presentation was an insult in itself.
You ignore the efforts of some to raise issues that they believe Territorians need to have made clear, and you ignore fact that we have tried to bring to your attention that we believe to push forward on this development with the speed that you are is asking for trouble, and certainly not giving any guarantees to Territorians that the project that you ask them to believe in will, in fact, be the project that is delivered.
You have said in the past that this is a similar public-private partnership process a la the railway. Well, on the railway, the checks and balances were provided by three separate governments: the Commonwealth, the South Australian and Northern Territory governments. There were checks and balances, and every dollar that was involved in that project was on the table for taxpayers’ knowledge right the way through that project.
We are being asked to sign off on a project that has a range of outstanding issues to be resolved, not least being that you are asking us to take on your word the monies you say are involved are actually involved and no one has any detail of what those monies are. It is a sham. It is unravelling, I believe, faster than it is coming together. It is disappointing that you have taken the attitude that you have, but we, as the opposition, have been joined by the Independent member and have tried to bring this to the attention of the House and, I hope, more and more to the attention of the Territorians.
I make the challenge again, Chief Minister: if you are confident that I am un-Territorian in what I say and in your strong support from the general public, let us organise a debate. Let us get up on TV whenever you like. I am sure the channels will help it. I would have thought someone who is so confident would not only look forward to the challenge, but look forward to what political mileage you can get out of it. I am happy to do it any time you want to arrange it. We will put these issues to Territorians and, if you cannot answer them, we will see what they think at the end of the day. I thank members for their contribution.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment to the motion be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Territory Parks
Territory Parks
I move:
- That this Assembly call upon the Chief Minister, who has carriage of the Territory parks handover, to outline
full details of the secret negotiations, the current status thereof to all affected parks. Further, this parliament call
upon the Chief Minister to detail her reasons for persisting with her parks handover offer when she clearly does not
have a mandate from Territorians to persist it with it
The Chief Executive Officer, Mr Norman Fry, today said the Chief Minister, Clare Martin, has done a
backflip on the parks negotiations.
Talks regarding Keep River collapsed because the Chief Minister belatedly advised on 23 November 2004
that the Nitmiluk model, touted as the template for negotiations, was unacceptable for Category 2 parks such
as Keep River.
This backflip is completely at odds with the Chief Minister’s advice to parliament one year earlier, on
26 November 2003, where she said: …
‘The model put in place by the Country Liberal Party for Nitmiluk is the one we are following’.
‘This is not the consensus approach and win-win situation which the Chief Minister espoused in 2002’,
Mr Fry said.
‘Nor will it produce the world-class system of parks and reserves which the Chief Minister hopes will be a
springboard for Kakadu and Uluru coming under Territory control …
It is worth reminding Territorians that, from the outset, Limmen, Keep River, Spirit Hills, Mt Nancar, Elsey and Litchfield parks were all included in this package about which the Chief Minister said: ‘I’ll get the deal on this package; I’ll get this deal in such a way, I am so confident, I will introduce legislation that puts statute around the whole deal, and if I cannot achieve that by 31 December 2004, all deals are off. That’s it’.
Mr Dunham: That is right. You put your reputation on the line.
Mr BURKE: Yes! The member for Drysdale said you put your reputation on the line for this and what we have seen is parks drop out, increasing disillusion with Aboriginal people, all of the time a charade being painted to non-indigenous people as to how great a deal this was, how much money it will save them by not going through a litigation route when we know that the Chief Minister was not telling Territorians was that for many parks, she was continuing to follow a litigious route. It is clear that more and more parks are going to follow a litigious route.
Not only do we have the same system in place for those parks that the Chief Minister has been unable to get a deal on, and that is they will use the court processes under the Native Title Act, notwithstanding the Chief Minister said that those days are over, but we now have Aboriginal people, more and more so, who are unhappy with the deal.
I am sure the Chief Minister will say that while we have substantive agreement with many Aboriginal groups, but only the Keep River now. The important thing about the Keep River people is, and the member for Arnhem will know this very well, it is probably only the Keep River people who know what they should be getting. I do not believe that the claimants of the other parks have a real understanding of exactly what is involved or the rights that they are expecting to achieve, but it is important that the Keep River people do, and it is also important to note, and I say this on hope, but I reckon that the Keep River people would probably speak highly of the way the CLP treated them.
The CLP certainly dealt with the Keep River people in a way that recognized their native title rights and gave them accommodation that is far better than anything that has been done by this government. The only thing that is being done by this government is to try to cobble them into a deal on this park’s handover, a deal they quickly realized was no good. I bet they are hoping that a CLP government returns because they will get a better deal under them.
That in itself should be enough to demonstrate to the government that this deal is a shambles; this deal should never have been put in place. There was no reason to hand over freehold title to any of our parks. There was an obligation for the Chief Minister to test this so-called authority with Territorians, something that she hasn’t done. It would appear on the face of it that the Chief Minister is going to seal up a deal very shortly in legislation in this parliament for the parks that remain involved. That is unfortunate because it will take a CLP government to come back and unravel this and provide better accommodations for the indigenous groups involved. It is unfortunate because, once these parks are handed over, it will be very difficult to hand them back. I have said this strongly, hold to it, will stand in front of Aboriginal people and say it, and I am sure that they will understand: there is no need to hand over any of these parks. There is no need to cut non-indigenous Territorians away from their rights with regards to what is Crown land in a deal that has not been tested regarding ownership, and which does not deliver any advantage in a real sense to anyone.
I have given an undertaking in this parliament, and I will hold to it, that the CLP could set up a Nitmiluk on those parks, and we could do it in a way that could achieve a Nitmiluk model without handing over one acre of Crown land. That is the position from which the Chief Minister should started, and if she had held that position, she would have ensured that not only the parks remain in Crown hands, but also that Aboriginal interests were accommodated fully.
Chief Minister, you do not have a mandate to do what you have done. You do not have the support of Aboriginal traditional owners on the important parks, particularly Keep River, where Aboriginal people are aware of what is occurring. You do not have the support of the Northern Land Council, which is one-half of the two large land councils in the Northern Territory and will be recognised by the Commonwealth government to be respected for what they say. They have certainly slammed your approach, slammed your misinformation, slammed your deception, and slammed your objectives by suggesting that this is a win-win, because their media release says there will be none of that.
I might add that I do not know what the federal minister has to say about this. I would be interested to know. I will certainly be making sure that the federal minister becomes far more aware of what is going on rather than the nice words that have probably been fed down to them. The federal minister has to check off and agree to the Schedule 1 agreement, if not have some involvement in the others. I can give a guarantee that we will be doing everything we can to ensure that this deal does not progress any further than it has.
I will give a guarantee to Aboriginal Territorians, the indigenous claimants and the groups that they represent and the families that they represent: a Northern Territory CLP government will be true joint venturers on any development that they propose on Aboriginal land, will do it and provide equity on a dollar-for-dollar basis for the Aboriginal people. We will enter into true joint management agreements not only on the parks in the Chief Minister’s schedule, but for every park in the Northern Territory. For every park in the NT, whether it is included in this schedule or not, a CLP government will enter into joint management arrangements that put in a true Nitmiluk model. We will do that without handing over one acre of land from the ownership title that is there at the moment, to change that title, unless it is something that Aboriginal people want, and then that will be done in a negotiated way if necessary.
That is the deal. That is a far better deal than you are achieving, Chief Minister. It is the deal that Aboriginal people want. It does not involve handover of our parks or any title to anyone. I will go out and debate that with Territorians. The challenge for the parks is the same as the challenge for the waterfront, Chief Minister. Let us go! Wherever you like: on TV, on radio, to Aboriginal groups, to land council meetings. You can talk and I will talk, and we will see who gets the support of Aboriginal people at the end of the day.
When you look at his public utterances in different parts of the Territory, and listen to some of the confused utterances that I have heard in here this evening, then, as I said today in Question Time, we have an Opposition Leader speaking out of both sides of his mouth and taking a hypocritical line dealing with these issues ...
The parks handover that Clare Martin is talking about is a poor deal for Aborigines. We can point to the
Nitmiluk deal that we did, and what Clare Martinis doing with her parks handover is not Nitmiluk.
It is a poor deal compared to Nitmiluk and what I will be doing is making sure that when we deal with issues
like the parks estate, issues like development of Aboriginal land, they will see a real partnership from
Denis Burke, a real partnership from the CLP.
Ms MARTIN: It is only one item of legislation. It is one transparent package that we have put to traditional owners through the mechanisms of the land councils.
We now have the Opposition Leader saying Aboriginal people are being disadvantaged and they are unhappy with what has been put to them. We are dealing with legislation tomorrow where, in 27 out of 28 parks, the deal that is being offered has been accepted.
On the other hand, the Central Land Council has also issued a media release applauding the package and calling on this House to pass it. I would like to quote David Ross, the CLC Director who says that the proposal before us is:
… a fair and equitable solution whereby Aboriginal people get a path forward through joint
management, employment, cultural protection and in a few cases Aboriginal freehold title of the
land they have had under claim for many years.
The wider community will continue to enjoy parks with no fees or permits for entry, and be able to
be proud of a world-class parks estate which will remain in the public domain for future generations.
I am very proud of this initiative and I have spoken about it many times previously in this Assembly, the parks framework. I am happy to talk about it again this evening. I would like to talk in detail because, obviously, the opposition still does not understand what it is about. We have an Opposition Leader who cannot decide what, in fact, he thinks about it and who changes his mind according to the audience.
The parks framework is about improving access for all Territorians to our unique environment and forging lasting economic investment partnerships with Aboriginal Territorians for the future. Importantly, it is about resolving uncertainty about land tenure as a result of the Ward High Court decision. Importantly, it is about avoiding costly and wasteful use of taxpayers’ money through needless litigation. We know that was the CLP’s method of operation in the past, and we said we do not want to go down that line. If you look at the options that we faced with the unexpected Ward High Court decision, you could either litigate and spend lots of dollars on lawyers and spend years going through the court, or you could work out a more creative solution.
Throughout this process, we assert the principles that access to parks for all Territorians will be guaranteed on a no fee, no permit basis. That puts an absolute lie to the Opposition Leader’s claims that we have given away parks and there is no access. In fact, this is about enhanced access. Business as usual would be carried on while the negotiations are completed. There will be guarantee of current mining and exploration leases and current tourism operation concessions, and where the titles did change in the offer that we made, it was conditional on being leased back to government for use as park and subject to joint management arrangements.
We know the opposition’s way: determine tenure by litigation. That would mean spending decades in the courts, and between $50m and $100m of hard-earned Territory revenue …
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: The opposition says: ‘You have had GST revenue’, well, this is what you wanted to do with any windfall …
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: … spend it in the courts, look after the lawyers. It is the way of the past. It is what yesterday’s man would have done. It is not the way of the future.
Mr Dunham: No, that is a lie.
Ms MARTIN: The parks framework is something that should be applauded as a genuine benefit to all …
Mr AH KIT: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! The member opposite just referred to the Chief Minister as a liar, and I ask that he withdraw that.
Mr DUNHAM: I did not, actually, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, refer to her as a liar. I said what she was saying was a lie.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, I ask you to withdraw that.
Mr DUNHAM: I withdraw the fact that what she was saying was a lie.
Ms MARTIN: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. The parks framework is something that should be applauded as a genuine benefit to all Territorians, unlike the opposition who would see us mired in expensive litigation, with no guarantee of outcome at the end of it, and that is a critical component. You go into the litigation, what would be the outcome? We could lose parks from the parks estate, we could lose access to those parks. Yet we have an opposition that says: ‘Do not go near that. Take the litigation route’ with no secure outcome.
Let me go through the processes again. The Opposition Leader’s assertions, when he is speaking to certain interest groups and certain communities, regarding the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) (Revival) Bill, overlooked the following: the act merely revives legislation that has been in the public domain since 2003. It was first released to the public prior to introduction for the purpose of consultation with key stakeholders, and those key stakeholders were miners, tourism interests, conservation groups, pastoralists and, of course, indigenous Territorians in September 2003. It was then introduced in October 2003, and fully debated, before passage in November 2003 and, as I said last week, I believe that was six hours of debate.
The only changes in the current bill, other than those gazettal notices authorised by the act, relate to extension of the compliance date to 2 February this year and the removal of Keep River National Park from Schedule 2. That is the only difference between the bill that is sitting in this House now and the one we debated in November 2003.
The opposition’s argument that the negotiations are secret, which is part of what they continue to say: ‘You are doing secret deals! You are doing secret deals behind closed doors’, depending on the audience, and that is completely fallacious.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Macdonnell! Allow the Chief Minister to speak.
Ms MARTIN: The government has gone to great lengths to be transparent and open through publicly announcing core principles on which negotiations had to be based and putting them into legislation, releasing draft legislation and conducting stakeholder briefings, passing legislation which sets out the full details of the government’s offer and the parameters of the negotiations - the full details of the government’s offer. How much more transparent can you be than put the whole lot down in legislation in this parliament?
For the opposition to assert that there is insufficient time to consult with their constitutions overlooks the fact the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act has been in the public domain since September 2003 and that I announced the government’s intention in respect of the Revival Bill on the 5 January this year even though the Opposition Leader refused to come to a briefing.
Furthermore, there have been various mail-outs to key stake holders and the general public and a web site maintained, as well as a question and answer booklet produced. I am pleased to see, even though he does not come to briefings, that the Opposition Leader has his question and answer booklet.
Let us look at the facts, which are that, as a result of the Ward High Court decision, 49 parks in the Territory were found to be invalidly declared ...
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: Legal advice was that - would you take a look at the booklet, rather then just interjecting? You might learn something.
Legal advice was that ALRA claims over 11 of those parks could therefore proceed to be heard by the courts and, as a result, those parks could be removed from the parks estate, parks such as the MacDonnell Ranges could be removed from the parks estate. Native title would continue to be an issue across the parks estate. In order to avoid uncertainty and costly, time-consuming litigation, the government moved quickly to address the issues by announcing that we were prepared to negotiate a resolution on the basis of core principles being accepted by the land councils. These included a ‘business as usual’ approach in all parks involved, continued public access on a no entry permit, no fee basis, protection of existing tourism and mining interests, and putting litigation aside while negotiations continued.
In addition, the core principles specified that any transfer of tenure must be subject to immediate lease back to the Territory for use of the park for a minimum of 99 years - Nitmiluk model, Kakadu, Uluru model.
The core principles are reflected in the relevant agreements, leases, ILUAs and legislative amendments which have been agreed. The opposition claims they are unaware of the status of negotiations. I wrote to the then Opposition Leader - I know you do not talk to each other much, but I did write to the then Opposition Leader on 31 December last year, not that long ago, informing him that full compliance had been achieved for 27 of the parks specified in the Schedules of the act.
Section 10 of the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act specifies the conditions which must be met for compliance with the act. These include:
that applicants have agreed to withdraw Aboriginal Land Right (Northern Territory) Act
claims over parks and reserves specified in Schedules 2 and 3. Those are the conditions;
principles and joint management agreements, ILUAs, have been executed on all parks in Schedules
1, 2 and 3, dealing with compensation and facilitating future development;
The opposition misrepresents the nature of the provisions of the act by describing it as ‘a handover’. The reality is that the bill will result in title for 17 parks being transferred subject to immediate lease back to the Territory, for a minimum of 99 years while, for another 10 parks, only joint management arrangements will apply and no tenure changes will occur.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, I am sure you will have your say.
Ms MARTIN: Moreover, we have avoided the prospect of …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: The member for Macdonnell should listen to this because he does not seem to understand. Just opening your mouth and letting words come out in an uncontrolled ramble is not contributing to the debate or demonstrating that you understand what you are talking about.
Mr Elferink: interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell …
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, it is one question and she refuses to answer it.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, just listen and let the Chief Minister give the answer.
Ms MARTIN: Moreover, we have avoided the prospect of possibly losing 11 parks from the parks estate including the wonderful West MacDonnells, which the previous government foreshadowed for amalgamation into a single park as park as far back as 1991. That is what this package can facilitate.
The Opposition Leader is stating on one hand that the government is giving away the parks estate to the Aboriginal interests, and on the other asserting that the arrangements are nowhere near as generous as the Nitmiluk agreement negotiated by the previous government. He calls it a poor deal for traditional owners. The facts are that the government has been able to secure agreement on 27 parks, thus achieving the benefits of securing agreement prior to costly court proceedings where no outcome is certain.
All the Opposition Leader’s statements do is vindicate this government’s approach. By going down this path, government has saved taxpayers millions of dollars in litigation, achieved certainty and resolution of outstanding claims in a very short time frame for 27 parks, and secured agreements which, in the opposition’s judgment, are less generous to traditional owners and the Nitmiluk agreement. What is the opposition alternative? Ongoing uncertainty, litigation and potential compensation costs across the parks estate.
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: Let me just say that again! The opposition’s alternative, depending on which audience they are talking to, of course, is ongoing uncertainty, litigation, and potential compensation costs across the parks estate, millions upon millions of dollars in taxpayers money wasted, foregone opportunity costs in economic and tourism development. I would have thought the member for Macdonnell would have been hounding us for this. There he is with a large Central Australian electorate, wanting to see those tourist developments. Did he ever raise his hand and say: ‘Get the Mereenie Loop sealed. It is going to really help my communities with tourism’? No! Silence, silence from him. Did he ever advocate on behalf of these types of economic developments and looking at ways to cut through some of the difficulties we have? Never! Silence on these issues. What else does the opposition promote? Ongoing adversarial relationships with traditional owners - again, depending on their audience.
I am extremely proud of the parks framework. It gives certainty to the future and represents a new approach that will be of lasting benefit to all Territorians. I want to go to the parks and so do you, Madam Speaker. We do not want to have this uncertainty. Parks are critical to building our tourism future and as tourism minister, I am very proud of the solution we found here.
The opposition is all over the shop on this issue and, depending on the day and audience, a different message is being given. Sadly, the opposition has no plans for the future and this yesterday’s man just wants to return to the old days of litigation and uncertainty.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, the Chief Minister finished on quite a good note about being all over the shop. I have never seen a series of bills before a parliament anything like what we have before us.
In the first place, in September 2003, we had a bill entitled – let us get the name right - Territory Parks (Framework for the Future) Bill. Now, that bill had two kill clauses in it. So confident was the Chief Minister of her option of negotiation versus litigation that she put two tests in there. One was the schedule some parks, and this was a once-off thing that she could do. She could schedule the parks that she knew she could get a deal on and one of those in that schedule was Keep River. Now, that is the problem she has with the potential for further litigation. So that was a kill clause. The fact that she had a schedule and Keep River fell out meant the legislation was in fact defeated. It was obsolete; it could not go forward. The second kill clause said that on 31 December, it would lapse. We had legislation with two clauses in it that took it off the books.
Last year, we had a bill introduced to parliament called the Territory Parks Wildlife and Conservation Amendment Bill 2004, Serial 237. That bill has yet to be debated. It is on the Notice Paper standing at number 5 so that sometime in the next day, tomorrow, we might debate it.
On top of that, we had the spectacle of the Chief Minister coming into this parliament last week and introducing yet another bill. We now have the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) (Revival) Bill 2005, which asks us to pass it on urgency, which means tomorrow we will debate this bill. In one of its clauses, it asks us to accept an action that happened on 2 February. I have never seen anything more bizarre.
We had a bill from the Chief Minister that had two switches to kill it, both of which were activated. We had a bill last year that has come over to this year and we are yet to debate. We have another bill introduced on urgency, all on this estate, and that bill we will debate tomorrow. It gives some sort of a legal status to an action that has happened in the past. When the Chief Minister says: ‘I have been open; I have told you all about this’, what was that action? What happened on 2 February? Where is the detail?
We have the Chief Minister with a request for urgency, which offends standing orders in any event. People would know that notice for bills on urgency has to include what the cause of hardship will be. That was not done with this bill.
You have an absolute legislative dog’s breakfast with this bill. We have three items of legislation trying to achieve the same thing. You have some of the groups that dropped out suggesting to the Chief Minister that what she has done might be actionable, and in the face of all this, the Chief Minister has the temerity to say to us that it is all sweetness and light. That is number one. Two is that she has involved us all the way and if we had come to get some briefings and checked our mail box we would know the full extent of it. Three is that it is the best deal for Aboriginal people going around. Four is it obviates any litigation that might take place. That is all wrong.
The Chief Minister, in her little litany, cited Ward, which found that there were 49 parks that were potentially in dispute. What she has before us covers 27 parks. Simple maths would tell you that Justice Ward of the High Court said 49 parks could have a problem. The Chief Minister is telling this parliament that she has a deal for 27. There is a question about the other 22. What has happened with the other 22? That is the first question.
The second question is that if she is so committed to negotiation rather than litigation, if litigation is so offensive: why is she pursing litigious means? Why is she pursuing litigation for settlement of some of these? I guess one of the reasons for that can be found in some of the earlier debates. There is a series of rhetorical questions put in this little booklet, which asks why we are doing this and does this seemingly stupid thing have a rationale to it. One of them at page 15 of this little book NT Parks and Reserves: Questions and Answers poses this question:
Why doesn’t the government follow the procedures that are laid down in the Native Title Act where
the government can freely negotiate but at the same time protect its interests to compulsory acquire?
Apart from that, as I said before, there would be enmity. There would be a bad feeling or a revival of
bad feeling that probably exists …
Dr Burns: There is!
Mr DUNHAM: We were asking why you didn’t use …
Dr Burns interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: We were asking why you did not use the procedures laid down in the Native Title Act, and we asked you in this one why you did not use the procedures under the Native Title Act. Okay, they were two different parcels of land. We are talking about process here.
Dr Burns interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: Process! The reason you did not use the Native Title Act has nothing to do with these dot points.
Dr Burns interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: Nothing to do with these dot points.
Dr Burns interjecting.
- Mr DUNHAM: It has to do with enmity and bad feeling or revival of bad feeling that probably existed during the CLP time. So we have gone down the path of negotiation.
The Chief Minister has to come much cleaner than she has been. The issue of value is something she knows. We know she knows the value of the parks because she is going to lease them back for us, and she has gone to a gentleman in the AVO. The Australian Valuation Office is actually a federal instrumentality, and they are a very clever people. They sit down and say: ‘This thing is probably worth this or that’ and they can tell you. At page 20 is question 31 of the questions and answers.
How much will Territorians have to pay for their parks …?
I certainly want to know what the repertoire of assets that this government had. When I was the Health minister there was a campaign run that I was going to give our hospitals which, of course, was nonsense and a lie and was perpetrated in a political campaign. Nonetheless, one of the questions would be: why would we hand over an asset of some worth to someone and not charge them? If I was so foolish as to do what I was being charged with, that would be a fair cop, a fair hit on me.
This is a very convoluted legislative process, which is arguably ultra vires. There are significant dollops of information that have not been put in the public realm. The original proposition of negotiating rather than litigating has failed because we are still before the courts on several of these parks. The testing of community attitudes has not been done, and this is an issue about which the community would want to know. The competence of the Chief Minister, who introduced legislation that had two massive challenges and, so strong were those challenges, that they were fatal to the bill, both of which were activated, leaves us where we wanted to take the Chief Minister up on her original proposition, which was: ‘This will be accepted in its entirety or all bets are off. We will take it off the table’. Well, it was not accepted in its entirety. The bill failed and we are still, later on, saying: ‘Well, maybe later, maybe tomorrow. We will give it another chance’.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, withdraw that!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, just cease for a moment! You are really getting way off the motion. Please start debating the motion.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, this goes to the very heart of the motion …
Mr ELFERINK: This is the house of debate. We are here to debate the motion and yet there is only one person and I pick up on that interjection because I have been waiting for it.
Madam Speaker, the minister thinks he can threaten me about my constituency and advising them of the things I say in this House. Please do. Please tell them. Please go out and talk about it because I am not scared of standing up and telling people what is going on.
Madam SPEAKER: Now, could we get back to the motion?
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I have grave reservations and the first reason is costs. Not once have we been told how much this is going to cost Territorians despite the fact that the question has been asked again and again and again. It would be irresponsible of any member of parliament to sign over on a deal like this unless the cost is known.
The issue the Chief Minister raised in relation to the MacDonnell Ranges National Park and the other parks affected by this is: what is going to happen when this deal is signed off? What is going to happen to the traditional owners at that point and what are the advantages for them other than the symbolism in which this government is engaging?
I turn to the two national parks, which are outside of Territory control at the moment, inside the borders of the Northern Territory: Uluru and Kakadu. If you look at the philosophy on how those parks are run, there is an increasing pressure in both of those parks to resist people having access to the parks.
I am concerned about that because if the rest of the parks are handed over to the control of the Central Land Council, access rights that are so guaranteed and locked down by these deals are still threatened. Why do I think that is going to be the case? Once that title has been transferred – handed over, if you like –the effect is that they can do pretty much what they like and I doubt very much that this government, with its so called aversion to litigation, would do anything to make the Central Land Council go back on the arrangements it has entered into.
I look at the way that Aboriginal land has performed for Aboriginal people under the tutelage and management of the Central Land Council, and I see poverty and desolation. I do not see jobs. Now this government is trying to convince us that their model of joint management and transfer of ownership is going to fix that. I am unconvinced that it is going to fix that, and I do not see that the government has any mechanism available to it whatsoever to reverse or in any way bring the arrangements to heal.
I care very much about what is going to happen to the traditional owners of Central Australia, as I care about everyone who lives in Central Australia and, indeed, in the Northern Territory.
The focus should not be on one particular group, despite the fact that I have my reservations about the outcomes for those people; the focus should be on all people with an interest in the parks estate in the Northern Territory, and that is clearly where this government’s focus is not. If you want to publish that, you send it out to them. In fact, I will do it.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Itinerant Issues in Urban Communities
Itinerant Issues in Urban Communities
- That this Assembly call upon the Chief Minister to explain to this parliament why she has failed to live up to
her promise to control the itinerant issues that affect Territorians in our urban communities.
Under this government’s approach, we have an environment which has created the highest rate of Aboriginal incarceration. We see from page 141 of the annual report from police that protective custodies have increased by 5678 on an annual basis from the year they came to government. We saw the graph earlier today, and those numbers are taken specifically from the police annual report. We heard jibes that this was all part of the successful policing approach because there are more police on the streets - no, there are more drunks on the street.
Why are there more drunks on our streets? The reason is two-fold. One, the communities from whence many of these drunks come and, sadly, Aboriginal people are over-represented in these statistics, as the breakdown from the police statistics demonstrates, do not provide them, often, much of a reason to be there. Certainly, they are on their own country - that is good, that is fine - but where are the jobs, where is the environment that is going to create some wealth for them? What is their reason to stay? It does not exist.
A few years ago, the Minister for Community Development said to us: ‘I am going to change the approach and we are going to go for a Community Harmony approach, and that approach will cure and solve many of these’. Well, he did not say cure, but will ‘alleviate many of these problems; you will see fewer people on the streets’. Anecdotally speaking, I do not see fewer itinerants on the streets; I see more: more in the mall; I saw more in Bennett Park, when I checked last night, than a few years ago; I saw more in Tamarind Park; and I saw 30 or 40 hanging around Raintree Park about two days ago. When I went to Walker funeral the other day, I walked past dozens hanging around in front of the Commonwealth Bank.
Five million dollars was allocated to the Community Harmony Project when it was established, and at that time I said: ‘If you improve services in towns for these people, you are going to see an increase of numbers, people coming into town to take advantage of the improved services for them when they get in here’. That is part of the reason for the trend. The services have improved, and the government’s response has been to announce $2.2m worth of spending in Alice Springs on the Stuart Lodge to improve services even further.
The Minister for Community Development’s approach has been to complain bitterly about the lack of housing for Aboriginal people. Yet, to my astonishment, yesterday I discovered that the way he is funding the Community Harmony Project is by forcing the Housing Business Services to remove $2.5m from their budget to fund the Community Harmony Project. The last time I checked it is Housing Business Services that builds houses and they need that $2.5m to build those houses.
That division clearly says the pressure to remove this money does not come from their management decisions, not at all; it comes from beyond the organisation. That means that the decision to spend this money comes from the minister. They have this problem of not being able to build houses. So far, the minister’s response has been to take money out of Housing and spend it on the Community Harmony Project which, at the end of the day, for all the good intentions in the world, does not give you any bricks and mortar on the ground. So there is less housing as a result of the Community Harmony Project.
What does the minister do with the surplus people he has identified in the bush? He says there is an $800m shortfall in housing. So he says: ‘Let us use the housing stock in town’. Consequently, what we get in Alice Springs is people becoming tenants at Territory Housing in Alice Springs, and their families turn up. We are not talking about two or three family members; we are talking about 20 or 30 family members. Often those family members are a few houses down from other families with whom they are in dispute. The minister’s approach is to allow this situation to occur. He must be aware of the cultural implications of all of this. It ends up expressing itself, literally, in riots in the streets of Larapinta and major problems in other parts of the Northern Territory as well.
The next step for the minister is to say: ‘We are not going to change the habit of using the housing stock in this fashion. We are going to keep using the housing stock in this fashion and we will just repair it as we go along’. Small wonder that the repair bills have gone up by $2.5m or $3m every year despite the fact that this minister has engaged in something that he said he would not do, and that is selling Territory Housing stock. He sold off stock and he is increasing pressure on stock in town, which ultimately damages the stock so it costs more to run it. That stock sits empty whilst it is waiting for repair because it is no longer habitable. The effect is that now you have stock sitting empty waiting for repair and that is not earning any money, so that is affecting the earning capacity of Housing Business Services, all the while continuing to attract more and more people out of the communities and into the major centres.
All of these things are represented in the figures we have seen recently. According to those figures, and I thought this was a positive thing at first blush, was the value of the housing stock has increased. It has, not because of anything that the minister has done but, rather, the way they count government housing stock in the bush, and how they put a valuation on those houses. That is what increased the value of the housing stock. I would like to see the Minister for Community Development place on the table the numbers of housing stock he currently has, as opposed to 12 months ago. You will see a surprising result.
We had these people responding positively to the Community Harmony project. How are they responding? They are coming out of the communities in which there is not a great deal for them to do, and they are coming to town to the bright lights of Alice Springs, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Darwin. Because of the modern way that the banks operate, they can pick up their money here in town and, sadly, you start to have the effects we are starting to see: increases in public drunkenness. That is why we are arresting more drunks. It is not because we have more police; it is because there are more drunks.
The government can put whatever spin they choose on this issue, but the fact is that there are more drunks out there to be picked up. Yesterday, I was standing on the fourth floor balcony of the Leader of the Opposition’s office, and I heard some noise across at the Chan building, so I went to investigate. I am talking about last night, probably about 9 pm. I went down the elevator and walked out the front of the building, went to the double doors of the Chan building, and there was a group of drunks sitting there drinking. I presume what they were drinking was liquor. I came back here and checked with the security at the front desk who said their interest did not go beyond the building, and I ended up ringing the police. They were sitting right across the forecourt. I am almost certain, without having checked, if we went and had a look there now, we would probably see itinerant people from the communities sitting in Bennett Park and, if not in Bennett Park, almost definitely in Tamarind Park, Raintree Park or on the streets.
The fact is that when itinerant people come to town and find themselves sitting idle, behaviour deteriorates. When they see other people sitting, and the broken windows theory is something with which I know that the Treasurer is familiar, that signal is sent to other itinerants. Behaviour amplifies behaviour, which amplifies behaviour even further. Consequently, we start to see behavioural downturns in the way that people behave which draws attention to them. Often they are drunk when this occurs, and that is why they are locked up in increasing numbers.
If there were not 19 000 people out there on our streets who are drunk, they would not get locked up. It is as simple as that. We had 19 000 drunks last year. How many of those people commit offences? Many of them, and they are not charged. The reason they are not charged often is because the police are overwhelmed by the situation or, sadly, the provisions of section 128 of the Police Administration Act have become a convenient way with which to deal with social issues and behavioural problems in our streets.
I, like so many people, am sick and tired of seeing people urinating, defecating, fornicating and doing all of those other things in our streets and if the minister thinks it is not happening out there, he is kidding himself. I get it in the neck all the time. I hear all the time about what is happening in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and, increasingly, here in Darwin. One of the reasons that the CBD is becoming less and less attractive, sadly, is the increasing number of itinerant people, often who are drunk, in the parks of the CBD. If you go to Coles, it is a secure environment. You can walk into Casuarina Shopping Centre and, once you get through the doors, there are security guards and it is a secure environment. It is far more managed and, therefore, more attractive.
The approach of this government is the head-in-the-sand approach: ‘We are doing this great job. We have this Community Harmony project working. We have these people paying for their own flights because we are going to allow them to engage in book-up despite the fact that we have been very critical of book-up in the past, we are going to fly them back to their communities and they are going to sit out there and everything is going to be sweetness and light’. Well, that is not happening. I would be curious to know from the minister if he is keeping any statistics on this as to whether or not the government is engaging in multiple flights for people.
I am yet to have an answer to the question I asked recently: what happens when these people do not catch their flights and who pays the bill then? I have had no answer whatsoever.
It would not surprise me to discover that the same people are doing return flights more than once because, having spoken to people engaged in the mini-bus services in Alice Springs, I know they get calls out to remote communities and often they will travel out, pick up a group of people and head into town, especially when income has recently been received. When those people get into town, as far as I am aware, they do not make any arrangement to go back. The government offers that they pay for their flight and they can get it on tick. I am curious to know how many people are frequent flyers. That is something the government does not talk about. All we hear is the feel-good, motherhood statements, but what we are not hearing is why we have such a high rate of Aboriginal incarceration in our prisons. We are not hearing is why the number of drunks on our streets is going up.
The government will try to dress this up. The government will try to say it is not a problem. The government will say that their policies are more effective than any policy that has existed before, but it is just not washing out there. It is incumbent upon this government to take some real action and stop using Housing funds to fund programs that have no way of demonstrably proving their success in hard core figures. If those figures exist, they certainly have not been tabled or put before this House. It is about this time government started engaging in policy development that will see an improvement in the situation on our streets, not a deterioration.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this problem is getting worse and worse, not better.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I make it quite clear from the outset that the government rejects this motion. The opposition has no policy. Its only policy, as stated by a former leader, is to monster and stomp on people.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: You had you turn. If you want to learn a few things, listen in. This was a morally bankrupt policy then, and the current mob has not advanced a single moral centimetre since then. It was a socially divisive policy and the current lot has been unable to pursue anything in the way of a whole-of-community inclusive policy since that time.
With the housing portfolio and the whole-of-government Community Harmony strategy driven from my Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs, I can provide a good picture of how these programs are impacting on the problems of antisocial behaviour in our towns and their underlying causes.
First, let us get the terminology right. The Leader of the Opposition finds linguistic shortcuts like ‘itinerant’ helpful as a sort of dog whistling, but he should know that if you seriously want solutions to problems, you need to show that you understand them.
‘Itinerant’ is a word that describes people who travel from place to place. This, obviously, is a broad definition. Not all people who cause trouble about town are itinerant and, indeed, not all itinerants cause trouble. I do not want to quibble, though. I will take the Leader of the Opposition to be referring to the people about urban areas who sometimes cause public concern. These may be long-term members of town camps, visitors to town, permanent long-grassers or people from town simply spending time with friends. Alternatively, they may be people from remote communities who have business in town, visiting sick relatives, doing educational and training courses, attending court or simply shopping at Casuarina.
However, I need to question the use of the word ‘control’. The Leader of the Opposition wants us to control itinerant issues. He quite clearly thinks it is okay to control people. I must remind the opposition that freedom of movement is a fundamental human right protected under international human rights laws. Would they prefer that we stop people from coming to town, hunting itinerants back to the reserves like the good old days of curfews and dog tags?
It is interesting, though, they are quite clearly not talking again because the member for Macdonnell, the shadow minister for Housing, acknowledged in a radio interview last week that: ‘You cannot control other people’.
I feel deeply concerned that the opposition wants to head towards a regime where personal freedom is not respected, a place where a difference of cultures is a cause for concern, not celebration or education. We should not be surprised because we have heard it before from that side. I remind you of their policy: we are going to monster and stomp on these people. That was their policy. So now that you have refreshed yourselves on the CLP policy, here is our policy - and talking about policy, last week we were told in this Chamber that the member for Daly who, under the latest change of leadership, has the portfolio of - what is it?
Mr Henderson: Policy development.
Mr AH KIT: Yes, he is the Chair of Policy Development!
Mr Henderson: But he is going, Jack.
Mr AH KIT: And he is going at the next election. There it is! Yes, member for Daly, Chairman of Policy Development, and just underneath him on the bottom, Peter Maley, member for Goyder, nothing. Blank. He could have been Deputy Chairman of Policy Development. You know, it is supposed to be team work.
Anyway, back to policy development. We were told in this Chamber last week that there was a lot of work being put in on the weekend, and I am sure they worked hard. We want to know what their policies are. We want to know what the details are because we are doing good stuff, you get a bit jealous on that side and you have nothing to trot out to Territorians about your policy development.
Members interjecting.
Mr Acting DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister for Community Development, cease, please. Could we just have a little order in this House? If you want to have a discussion, go outside. Continue, minister.
Mr AH KIT: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. The Community Harmony Strategy is about assisting people to find pathways out of itinerant lifestyles towards either return home or a more productive lifestyle in town. The Community Harmony Strategy works through three over-arching directions for change: first, intervention strategies to reduce antisocial behaviour; second, the provision of adequate infrastructure, including shelter, day and community facilities and accommodation; and third, provision of health and treatment services.
These are the key directions of the Community Harmony Strategy, but as a whole-of-government model, with regional harmony groups identifying issues from the ground up, the strategy has strong links right across government and community with issues of law and order, justice, health, education, business and employment. This is a truly a whole-of-government, whole-of-community model.
In talking about Community Harmony Strategy, I have to stress that the Northern Territory government takes issues of antisocial behaviour in public places very seriously and, no, we do not believe that we are going to solve the problems overnight. We have never said, and nor would we ever say, that we were going to solve the problem. How do you solve a problem instantly that is caused by such a deep-seated and long standing array of issues like chronic overcrowding out bush?
From the Indigenous Community Housing survey that Health conducted for IHANT last year, you would know about the extent of neglect. An average of 38 items were required to be repaired in every house out bush, urgent repairs required on 4000 houses, a back log of over 150 000 repair jobs on a housing system that the Commonwealth refuses to acknowledge is in crisis.
This is a dire situation, reflective of long term neglect, and while the opposition started this survey, the survey has never been so comprehensive and it has never been followed through in the way that it is now. The current survey is followed up through direct feedback and engagement with the indigenous community housing organisations throughout the Northern Territory.
In representing the Northern Territory’s housing needs, I have also tabled a position paper, National Issues in Indigenous Housing 2004-05 and Beyond, at the Housing Ministers conference held in Adelaide on 3 December last year. Again, the member for Macdonnell’s response was that we do not need a single cent of additional Commonwealth money to meet this crisis. Indeed, at a community meeting, I have been told about the member for Macdonnell who has signalled CLP cut backs to facilities out bush. Again, failure to act in the past fits with the picture we have come to know - blind, mindless neglect, stomping and monstering; the CLP policy.
To recap on the key directions of our policy and what we have achieved, we have integrated patrols carried out by service providers, such as Mission Australia, Julalikari, Tangentyere and Kalano, coordinated together with the NT Police, councils, Parks and Wildlife and private security firms where required. There is an attention to and level of coordination in these patrols that has never existed previously. These patrols, supported by the Labor government, have made possible a highly responsive approach to managing hot spots. While we know that the patrols cannot be everywhere all the time, we know were the hot spots are and the patrols are diverted to these areas. This is smart, intelligent policing, not mindless stomping and monstering. Some local businesses, resident groups and, indeed, the police themselves, have reported that these patrols are having a definite effect. They are seeing a dispersion of large groups and that the patrols are doing a great job.
I need to comment too, here, on the connection that has been made a few times between public drunkenness, people being taken into protective custody and the Community Harmony strategy. These are the facts: protective custody apprehensions have increased by about 20% over the period from 2002-03 to 2003-04. During the same time, public order offences have decreased by about 15%. So you see, this suggests that people are being taken into custody before they can commit public order offences. This is indicative of the excellent job that the Northern Territory Police force is doing, showing a proactive approach - again, intelligent smart policing which should be praised on the other side of the House, not belittled and condemned by the acting spokesman on police as he did in his motion this evening.
I need to point out, too, that people in custody have not necessarily committed an offence and they might be there for all sorts of reasons. People in custody are also not necessarily itinerants; they come from all walks of life. To make that leap of logic to suggest, like the member for Macdonnell did, that all people in custody are itinerants and that they are all guilty of some kind of public offence is dangerous and offensive.
Another key platform of the response to antisocial behaviour is the Return to Country strategy, under which 2171 people have returned home. This is a user-pays scheme. I wish that the opposition would get their facts right about this program. Last week, we heard the member for Araluen saying that it is a taxi service, and wanting to know how much it costs. I will say it again in the hope that they take some notes: the Return to Country program is a user-pays system. Eligible Territorians can use the system up to four times in one year, not more than once a month, and they pay for it every time. All debts have to be cleared before the person accesses the next ticket. That means that if people owe money, they cannot use the system again until they have paid off the last debt. This prevents the development of large debts.
More fact, seeing as the opposition seems to be ignorant of them, is that users of the system must provide 24 hours notice of cancellation. If they cannot provide 24 hours notice, they have to pay for either that bus ticket or the flight. I will repeat that for the members opposite: if they cannot provide 24 hours notice, they have to pay for that air flight or bus ticket.
I do not want to harp on the negative misinterpretations of the opposition. The Return to Country program is a successful social program that has reunited people with family and community. That means a lot.
I am happy to talk about the successful Mala Elders program and other similar ones that are popping up across the Territory. We have had great success and excellent feedback about bringing respected elders in from communities to talk to people about country and responsibilities. My department is right now arranging the next visit with a particular focus on people from Wadeye. We are very concerned about the high representation of young men from Wadeye who are moving about Darwin and Palmerston.
On infrastructure, the Labor government has worked hard to find solutions to accommodate people who move about town. The member for Macdonnell said last night in his adjournment that Community Harmony is doing nothing regarding bricks and mortar. Yet, at the same time, and in his ignorance, he condemns Territory Housing for doing just that. He clearly understands nothing about social housing let alone the Territory’s responsibilities in this area through the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, an agreement signed up to by the previous CLP regime.
I am happy to have this opportunity to provide details on the infrastructure we put in place as part of the strategy. We upgraded Knuckey Lagoon at a cost of $700 000. It has the capacity to accommodate, on a temporary basis, up to 100 people. We have upgraded the Christian Outreach Centre at a cost of $145 000. It has capacity for up to 48 people. We upgraded Ozanam House at a cost of $200 000 to provide ablutions for the homeless and destitute. We have upgraded the Safe Families Shelter in Alice Springs at a cost of $80 000. We have upgraded Alice Springs Youth Accommodation Service at a cost of $198 000. This added four bed spaces and a common area. In Katherine, at Katherine Booth House, $80 000 has enabled them to add six additional bed spaces for women in crisis. At Stuart Lodge in Alice Springs is planned, at a cost of $2m, 68 new beds for people needing short-term accommodation.
Through constructing new accommodation together with innovative approaches like accessing existing networks better and upgrading existing accommodation, nearly 300 additional beds have become possible for people in need of crisis and short-term accommodation, but the beds I have described here do not include the ones we have upgraded for health purposes.
The third key direction under the Community Harmony Strategy relates to the provision of health and treatment services. There has been a range of significant infrastructure and service provision developments that the Northern Territory government has supported. We constructed a facility for A New Start To Independence, otherwise known as ANSTI, at a cost of $540 000-odd which has beds for up to 16 people. We upgraded the Drug and Alcohol Service Association at a cost of $155 000 and this has provided six additional beds. Council for Aboriginal Alcohol Program Services, also known as CAAPS, have had upgrades costing $241 000, which have provided space for eight additional beds for assessment, alcohol withdrawal and family support. Additional funds have also enabled sobering up shelters right across the Territory to extend their hours.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, the simple truth is that this debate would be entirely unnecessary if members of the opposition would seek briefings on the Community Harmony program. If they spoke to the many, many Territorians …
Mr Maley interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: Well, it is Wednesday. You can comment today, you are working.
If they spoke to the many Territorians across a huge range of community and business organisations who have devoted many thousands of hours of their time, many in a voluntary capacity to what the program has been about, there would have been no need for this debate. But they do not and they have not. They have no plans other than knee jerk, mindless, blind rhetoric and that is a tragedy for the Northern Territory.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the motion that this Assembly call upon the Chief Minister to explain to parliament why she has failed to live up to her promise to control the itinerant issues that affect Territorians in our urban communities.
I had no idea that the Minister for Community Development had developed such flowery words in the years that he has been in parliament. He is very quick on the uptake and I congratulate him for being colourful in his rhetoric. He is entertaining, but listening to him tonight, we could be forgiven for believing that the itinerant problems that we are experiencing in the Northern Territory and, for me, closer to my heart in Katherine, do not exist. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I heard the Minister for Community Development talk about how idiotic we are on this side of the House, how we have no idea of how anything happens, especially with the Community Harmony program. Well, we do, and of course it happens in Katherine. The Community Harmony program has been running for a couple of years and it was going to be a panacea and solve all the problems in Katherine. We have many people involved on that committee. They meet regularly. There are many programs in place which cost a lot of money. Do you know something, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker? There has not been an improvement in the itinerant problem in Katherine.
Even with all of this money being put in to Return to Country and the different programs in Katherine, I still have the constant harassment of itinerants in the main street who present not only a visual blight, but also, in most instances, they either have verbal diarrhoea, which I call abuse - drunken, loud noises, calling out across the street, fighting, the way they seem to communicate is by yelling. I suppose that all of us in Katherine have been told many times that it is a cultural thing and that we should be accepting of it.
I believe, as do most people in my electorate, is that we have some culture that needs to be respected as well. I live in a nice little country town. Katherine is a really lovely place to live, and I would not be there if it was not, but what spoils it is the itinerant problem, especially in the main street along the river corridor, and the Minister for Community Development is well aware of it. He used to live there. For him to say that he has made these wonderful improvements in Katherine could not be further from the truth. I invite him to come down and spend daylight hours walking up and down the street instead of sitting in places where he cannot see what happens.
As for the minister saying that the only policies that we have are monstering and stomping, that could not be further from the truth. The programs in place in Katherine for Community Harmony serve a certain group of people and only a few of the itinerants. It does not take account of those who do not want to be involved. There are more now on the streets of Katherine who do not want to be involved in Community Harmony programs. They do not want to be told what to do; they want to do their own thing. Well, their own thing is costing Katherine hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, especially in lost income.
In the one area with which I have had a lot of dealings over the years, and the last 11 years especially, is tourism. You would be well aware, as government is, of the amount of money that is put into tourism for marketing. In the first six years that we were in the Red Gum Tourist Park, I was on the Executive of the Katherine Region Tourism Association and for four of those years, I was Chairman, the following year I was the Vice-Chairman and remained on that committee until I was elected as an alderman on Katherine Town Council.
During that time, I could not tell you how many dozens of complaints we had at the Visitor Centre, at all of the accommodation places in Katherine and especially at the caravan parks and camping areas. People would come to the Visitor Centre and say: ‘We were going to stay tonight. Is it safe to stay in Katherine?’ We would say: ‘Yes, of course it is safe to stay in Katherine. We would not be here if it was not’. ‘Oh look, when we were drove in the street there were these Aboriginal people fighting …’ ‘Oh, well, you just ignore them. That is fine. It happens all the time’.
It is not good enough. No one wants to see that sort of thing happening in their main street. In many instances, Pine Creek is very upset that we would even consider tidying up the main street of Katherine because we are the best marketing tool they have! As the tourist drives in one end and sees what they do see on the median strip, lying under the trees, usually blind drunk on the main street on the median strip or under the trees at the Visitor Centre, which is even worse, they do not stop. They continue on to Pine Creek. They fill up with fuel, may get some things at Woolworths supermarket, and go to Pine Creek and fill their two caravan parks up, and they love it; they think it is wonderful. ‘Keep it coming, Fay’, they say. I am not at all happy about that. I want them in Katherine.
We have people come into Katherine and witness some really bad violence in the main street. The Minister for Community Development talked about how we need to respect their culture. Okay. Is it culturally acceptable for two people to be having a physical fight in the main street and then invite a few more in to continue the fight, dribble out on to the road, and let the traffic that is going by maybe try to dodge them, and if we run into them, or we have to jam our brakes on and have an accident with someone else running into us, it is our fault? It is just not acceptable. I have been saying for years, since I have lived in Katherine, that I have a right to live in a community, as does everyone else in Katherine, to go about my business in a place where I am not verballed or spat on, or people spit as you are walking past, or else they call you a ‘f…ing w…. c…’.
Ms Carter: ‘w.... c…’?
Mrs MILLER: That is right - and I get that in Katherine even now. They do not know whether I am a local or not, because they are itinerants just coming in and out of Katherine. I am not doing anything but walking down the street. I am going about my business, either going to the Post Office, the bank or the grocers, wherever I am going, and this is the sort of incident that happens continually in the main street of Katherine.
For people to say that there is no problem, and we have fixed it up, and it is a fundamental human right for itinerants to move from place to place, it may be their fundamental right, but I have a right, too, and so do the people who live in my town, so do those wonderful young families who live at the RAAF Base at Tindal who are absolutely mortified, when they bring their children into the car park of Woolworths to do their shopping, to either witness violence in the car park, violence inside the mall until security can finally get them out, or they are humbugged for a dollar, two dollars, or whatever, and those people cannot wait to bundle their children up, put them in the car and get back to Tindal. So they try to do their shopping when their children are at school or day care or they get someone to look after them so they do not bring them into Katherine. That is really sad.
Here we are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars a year through the Tourist Commission, promoting Katherine as a great place to come and stay, and what do we have when they get here? Now news is travelling fast down the track: ‘Do not stay there. It is a scary place. Do not stay there because those people are there’. In many instances, these travellers have never witnessed indigenous people before. I say ‘indigenous’; we do have some Australian itinerants there as well, but they do not cause problems like the Aboriginal itinerants do.
Mr Kiely: They are Australians, too.
Mrs MILLER: Pardon?
Mr Kiely: They are Australians, too.
Mrs MILLER: White. Okay, white Australians. Okay, you can call me racist, but this is exactly what happens in Katherine, whether you like it or not. I invite you to come down and spend a weekend there. I bet you pack your bags and come back here quick smart.
If I sound really angry about this, I am because I have been making noises for years about this, and everyone is saying: ‘The Community Harmony program is going to solve everything’. Well, I am sorry; we have to have harsher penalties that go along with all this nice touchy-feely stuff that is not working in Katherine. If it is not working in Katherine, it is not working in Alice Springs, it is not working in Darwin and it is not working in Tennant Creek. We are not the only ones.
We have really had enough and the itinerant problem has to be resolved with harsher penalties for those people who come in and spoil the environment, spoil our community as well as have all these nice touchy-feely programs for those people who want to be involved in them. As you know, you cannot move them from place to place. You also cannot make them participate in these programs. The majority of trouble makers will not participate in these programs so it is a lost cause. It is not targeting and dealing with the people who are really causing all the problems.
The Minister for Community Development said: ‘Nothing happens overnight and we have to be patient’, I can remember some members of the Community Harmony program stating exactly that to me two years ago, saying: ‘Fay, be patient, be patient. You are always saying something about the itinerants and trying to do something’. Well, I am not going to stop, either. They said: ‘Be patient’. I have been patient. Nothing has happened. As a matter of fact, it is getting worse. It has to stop. Our dear Minister for Community Development said ‘nothing happens overnight’. I will finish by saying I do not want to live in the land of the long sleep; I want to see something happen.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the motion. Itinerants are the single biggest social problem this ALP government has had to deal with and not only have they refused to acknowledge there is a serious problem, the situation has become worse.
The Chief Minister will not even acknowledge that there is a problem. It has become worse, we know it is worse. Indeed, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, you, the member for Nightcliff, I understand, hosted a public meeting where members of the community had a chance to amplify and articulate some of their concerns about itinerants.
Here we have members of the other side who have been informed. We assume that there is some break down of communications because the Chief Minister has not had the courage to say: ‘I have created a problem here; we are going to deal with it properly’.
There is no doubt that strategy upon strategy upon strategy, policies, and three-point feel-good plans simply do not work. It is rubbish. Harmony upon harmony is rubbish. It does not count for anything unless there is a real result on the ground. The Minister of Community Development said: ‘There is not a problem. If members opposite would have a briefing …’. If you think about that logically, he is saying: ‘There is no problem if you merely seek a briefing’.
I inform the minister that there is a problem. If you talk to any fair-minded and reasonable Territorian who wants to walk along the bike path, take their kid for a walk on the beach or wander up the Esplanade, there are itinerants behaving in the most appalling way; it is a real problem. No amount of hand-holding, briefing, three-point policy or harmony plan is going to save the day; there has to be real action on the ground. In fact, member for Wanguri, this is your opportunity to step up to the plate. You could do something about this …
Ms Carney: He is reading the paper.
Mr MALEY: At least he is here. This is a huge opportunity for the member for Wanguri to really take over the reins of the ALP. It is his opportunity. If anyone can do something about it, he is the only one. The Chief Minister has turned a blind eye to this, so these are words of encouragement. Do not say I never encourage you, member for Wanguri. This is a huge opportunity for you, so step up. I know you have some support among the back bench. I know you speak well, they like what you say, you are a man of action. Just move over and do it.
If the member for Wanguri does not step up to the plate; if he does not do the right thing by Territorians, my prediction is that this is one of the very fundamental issues which is going to cost the Labor government - the one term wonders, the one-term government - at the next election.
Mr Henderson: You are a one-term wonder. Why are you jumping ship?
Mr MALEY: People will – not on this issue alone, but this is a significant issue. For them not to acknowledge that there is a problem, for them to aggravate the problem, to make it worse, means that ultimately, people will issue a fairly significant and harsh verdict on them at the next election.
The Minister for Community Development and Housing attacked my colleague the member for Araluen with criticism of her observations of the Return to Country program. The member for Araluen got it right when she said it is nothing but a taxi service. It has aggravated the situation. We know it has. We are told that now is it easier for people to come to town, easier for them to get home so that is exactly what they are doing. They are coming here and the itinerant problem is being aggravated. One way or the other, the message is clear: it is aggravating the problem. The message is not only to the Chief Minister in support of this motion; there is also a fairly blatant message to itinerants.
It is clear from the community, from anyone who has a family, who enjoys Darwin, who is passionate about the place: itinerants, you are not welcome here. You are not welcome if you behave in such an appalling way that our tourists are offended. You are not welcome if you are drunk and you fight and you swear and you accost decent, hardworking taxpayers from going about their daily business.
I caught some of the Minister for Community Development’s speech. It was not all doom and gloom and feel-good comments. Obviously, he was reading it for the first time and they were not his words, but nevertheless, there was some credit – and credit where credit is due: the Knuckey Lagoon complex does a pretty good job. That type of real option, properly used, is something that could address the problem.
There was also reference to ANSTI. My hat goes off to the incredible amount of work they do for people – itinerants sometimes, but for anyone with a serious alcohol or drug dependency-related problem. So, they are real, hard, physical solutions to a problem, both of which incidentally existed, were germinated and flourished under the former CLP government. This government certainly cannot take a scintilla of credit for those programs. They can have credit because they did not scrap them, but they cannot take any credit for germinating the idea.
There is a real need for some action on the ground. We know in the long term the only real solution is an economic one. It is in the creation of jobs, not just for the do-gooders and the hand-holders, but real jobs for these itinerants, jobs that will create dignity in their communities. Give them a job. Give them a hand up, not a hand out. There needs to be some real reform of the land tenure system and we will touch upon that during the course of the election campaign.
We need to deal with this problem with some compassion. What we do not need to do is be patronised and told to just lob upstairs for a briefing and the problem is going to disappear. What a load of rubbish. I wish those comments could be broadcast directly into every single household in the Northern Territory. The minister, one of the men charged with having responsibility for this – of course, the Chief Minister carries the mantle – his response is that there is no problem, come and get a briefing. What a load of rubbish. There is a problem. Walk down the Esplanade tonight. There is a problem. It is, quite frankly, a disgrace.
The Chief Minister made a promise and probably similar to the public pledges she made, there will be no new taxes – oh no, hang on, we have the rego tax – there will be no job losses – oh, sorry, we have just wiped out an enormous amount of potential and the CEOs and these people who were committed to the public service, they got the flick quick smart.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, we have seen promise after promise broken, but this promise cuts to the very heart of some of the social problems that affect families every day. Unless the Chief Minister has the courage to step up to the plate and acknowledge it as a problem, then we are really calling on the member for Wanguri to do the right thing and take over. He is the only one who makes sense sometimes. He has to step up and take the job, which is his; we know it is his. It is just a matter of time.
Ms Carney: And we know he wants it!
Mr MALEY: God, he wants it! He has been lobbying. He is a machine; a lobbying machine. He deserves that job. So bring on the next election! Let the people of the Northern Territory give their verdict on the success of the Chief Minister’s promise to fix the problem. I suspect, just like me, the majority of Territorians are starting to realise that this Chief Minister has been a failure and has dropped the ball on itinerants.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the motion. The Chief Minister has promised to control itinerant problems in our urban centres and she has failed. She has been unable to do it. I agree with my colleagues that over the last few years, the problem is only getting worse.
In Port Darwin, the problem fluctuates depending on the season and events in the community. The problem is public drunkenness, which is how I view the issue. I agree with the Minister for Community Development that not all itinerant people cause major problems. Many of them probably behave in a relatively quiet and unobtrusive matter because they have the smarts; they know where to go to keep out of trouble. Sure, during daylight hours, they might come and sit in the mall to see what is going on, but at other times, they quietly move off somewhere and they do not cause a problem.
It is the public drunkenness and the behaviour that stems from that which causes problems. There is a certain solid cohort of itinerants who participate in this behaviour. I talked about this last week when we discussed policing issues, and I cited a couple of incidents that I witnessed. Since then, I have seen other things happen.
In the CBD, the problem is concentrated in the mall area and Knuckey Street in particular. Last Wednesday night at around 7 pm, I slipped out for a meeting, and I saw an itinerant female who was quite obviously drunk chasing one of the workers from a cafe up the street. He was trying to defend himself as she was trying to lay into him. She was a big, solid woman and he was a relatively slight man. He had a look of terror on his face, and I am sure his dilemma was whether he tried to deal with the woman on the street, away from the business, or whether to seek sanctuary on the premises and upset the patrons. He was at a loss as to what to do. Unfortunately, I did not have my phone, else I would have phoned the police. I am sure that others did at the time.
On Monday of this week during the luncheon adjournment, I walked from Parliament House through Bennett Park to the mall. At 1 pm, there were men sitting in Bennett Park drinking beer from VB stubbie bottles, obviously consuming alcohol in public within a 2 km radius of a licensed premise. These would be, no doubt, part of the groups that are starting to congregate at the Chan Building, which is a very disappointing development I have noticed over the last few months. It was reported to me today that there was a significant group of people located outside Spillett House in Smith Street, about 80 m from the mall, drinking yellow liquid from soft drink bottles, and I do not think we need much imagination to figure out what that yellow liquid was.
This is the problem that we face in the CBD. Like the member for Katherine, my concern is not only for constituents who live in this electorate who find moving around the CBD, walking along the Esplanade, those sorts of places stressful when they are accosted by people who are drunk, and they are not always Aboriginal people, they most certainly include white men, who I personally find far more frightening. If I am confronted by a drunk, I would much rather be confronted by an Aboriginal person than a drunken white person any day. It does not matter which race people are from, it is drunken behaviour that is the issue, and drug-affected behaviour, but I suspect most of the time it is drunken behaviour.
This is the issue. As locals, we cannot walk the streets without being concerned for our safety, and then, I am ashamed when I see tourists being accosted by drunks because you can see it written all over their faces, their dismay, their fear, their confusion, as to what is happening. ‘Can someone help me? Beam me up, Scotty, please, and I am going to tell everyone I know that Darwin is not a great place to come and visit’. It breaks my heart to see situations like that. I, like the member for Katherine, am sick of it, and it is the government’s job to tackle the problem, and their efforts so far have been nothing short of failure.
The Minister for Community Development cites the Community Harmony program, and sure, that kicked off a few years ago now, and I have to say I was pretty sceptical about it, as various airy fairy strategies were put to us, but we held our breath and hoped for the best. In the CBD, we had the development of the Larrakia Ambassadors, and for a week or so, I saw people in uniforms wandering around the mall, and then they disappeared. I do not know where they have gone. They are apparently somewhere, but you do not see them in the mall, as they were meant to be, talking to the people from out of Darwin, telling them what the Larrakia story is here, informing them that this is Larrakia land and that, as visitors to Larrakia land, they should behave themselves.
Colourful posters and signs went up in windows and on lamp posts, and it is sad, but the ones that were on the posts have been smashed. My understanding is that apparently people from outside of Darwin see themselves as far more traditional with far more culture than the Larrakia people and they do not take any notice of the Larrakia people. I suspect that that is why we do not see the Larrakia Ambassadors around any more because maybe the Larrakia Ambassadors found that they were not having much of an effect, that they were finding it unpleasant and uncomfortable. If they were being abused by people from outside of Darwin, I do not blame them if they no longer continue with this program. We have not heard any update for a very long time as to what happened to the Larrakia Ambassadors.
The Minister for Community Development, as usual, slams the CLP, blames us for everything and says we did nothing and hooray, thank God for Labor; they are here and they are fixing everything. I remind the minister that if you look at the initiatives and strategies introduced by the CLP and, I might add, are continued to this day, they are the only real and tangible things that we still have going, and I speak specifically about Community Patrols going out, known at that time as Night Patrols, but now doing it 24 hours a day as Community Patrols. They are still going, and they are great. Sobering-up shelters – we built those sobering-up shelters. We are the ones who pushed for them, and they are another great initiative which, fortunately, this government continues to support.
The other initiative was transient housing in places like Knuckey Lagoon, as the member for Goyder mentioned. There are successes out there and they were CLP initiatives. You guys on the other side, please keep supporting them, but do not forget when you are giving your responses to issues like this, it was us, the horrible CLP, that kicked those strategies off. It is great to see that you are still supporting them, and I encourage you to keep doing that.
One of the things that is needed with regards to itinerant issues is cheap, affordable support accommodation. Many non-government organisations such as the Salvation Army and St Vincent de Paul, over the years, have provided that. I find it disturbing that the Minister for Community Development cites as number two plank in his Community Harmony program the provision of accommodation as important for these people. I ask the Minister for Community Development: what has happened to St Vincent de Paul? Their shelter in Westralia Street no longer operates providing accommodation at night for Aboriginal people because it does not have enough money to staff it. Let us hear from the minister why the government is no longer supporting, in an adequate sense, St Vincent de Paul to provide this important service. I can guarantee you that the loss of those beds close to the CBD has affected our problem in the CBD. Where is their support for a wonderful organisation like St Vincent de Paul in the provision of that essential service?
Last week, I spoke on the issue of policing in the CBD and of my concerns with it, always stressing, of course, my great support of our police service, but couching that with concern that I understand that they obviously have difficulty day after day being expected to enforce the 2 km law. However, in the short term, the solution to our public drunkenness problem is the constant enforcement of the 2 km law. Several years ago, as members are aware, I had the great pleasure of going to Cairns and meeting with Mayor Burns. After having examined the inner city area and being very impressed with the way it was operating, particularly with regard to itinerants which I know had been an issue in Cairns, I asked him: ‘What have you done? Where are your itinerants?’ He explained to me that the solution is, in the short term, pressure, pressure, pressure. What he specifically meant by that was that there was constant pressure and vigilance to not reward bad behaviour by allowing this behaviour of public drunkenness to continue unchecked in the CBD, but instead to tip out the alcohol.
That is what these drunks want to do: sit in the midst of the CBD, under a tree in comfy chair with some poor employed person coming along every day to pick the litter up. They want to sit in a nice possie, watch life go by and get plastered. That is what they want to do. We should not be reinforcing that bad behaviour by letting it go on unchecked. Unfortunately, that is what we are doing. We have to keep the pressure up and, unfortunately, it does fall to our police to have to do that. We have to keep the pressure up so that when I walk down the mall or Knuckey Street, when my rellies are up visiting and walking through Bennett Park, they are not confronted by drunken people abusing them, accosting them, demanding money from them, nor are they going to have to be subjected to witnessing the violence that we all see. It is terribly distressing for all of us to see people fighting each other. We do not do that; we are not used to that. It is not part of our life experience to constantly have to see that. For the people perpetrating the violence, it is a tragedy for them.
You only have to look at the faces, in particular of the Aboriginal women in this town, to see their distorted, swollen faces, to see the history of their sad lives. The problem is caused by alcohol. We should not tolerate it; alcohol must be tipped out. I know it is an unpleasant job, but it must be done. It is our obligation. It is the government’s obligation. It is the Chief Minister’s obligation to make sure more is done to ensure that the 2 km law is enforced. If not, we end up with tourists leaving. As fast as they can get in, they are leaving. The look of horror on their face; they are out of here. They cut their length of stay as short as possible and they are gone. That is that problem.
The other problem that concerns me is the loss of great Territorians who are getting sick to death of this situation and who tell me constantly - wonderful people who are leaving the Territory and saying they cannot stand it any more: ‘I cannot walk up the street without seeing it. I do not have to look at it any more. It is fantastic down south’. I hear this constantly, particularly in late January when you start bumping into people at the post office who have been away: ‘Sue, mate, it was great down in …’ I would say far too cold and far too isolated and far too dry place, but people love it because they do not have to see public drunkenness. Unfortunately, they are often middle-aged Territorians whom I thought were going to retire here and they are voting, as the member for Macdonnell says, with their feet. That is another outcome of this deteriorating situation with public drunkenness.
I agree with the Minister for Community Development. He is right. There is no quick fix for the actual deep cause of these problems. There is not a quick fix, but there is a fix, and it is a quick fix, for the symptom that we see, and that is public drunkenness. The deep-seated cause is the social and economic situation of many of the people who become our public drunks, and that is going to take some real tackling.
It has been very encouraging over the past few years to hear Aboriginal community leaders, including leaders who sit in this House, voicing their concerns and belief that Aboriginal people need to look at what they are doing and move forward, particularly with regards to education and economic achievement. They describe their communities as dysfunctional. No wonder that people who are coming from so-called dysfunctional, and I would say generally remote, communities often come to places like Darwin because it is a wonderful place.
The streets are clean, it is generally quiet, it is interesting to watch. You could sit in the mall all day watching life go by. It is a fabulous place with weather that supports such an activity. I do not blame people who are coming from so-called dysfunctional communities and I welcome people to Darwin regardless of from where they come. They can stay as long as they like as long as their behaviour is acceptable and not upsetting other people who are going about their business.
Madam Speaker, in the short term, public drunkenness can be tackled by enforcing the 2 km law, and that comes under the concept of pressure. We must provide the police with the resources and the encouragement to do that. It is not easy but it has to be done if we are to retain our Territory lifestyle for all to enjoy for decades to come.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I would like to share some observations about this motion. The itinerant problem in Central Australia, I am sure, mirrors what many of my colleagues have been expressing about Darwin. Constantly, I receive phone calls from constituents and business people complaining about the increasing difficulties with itinerants coming to Alice Springs and causing mayhem. It is literally mayhem. Business people are so fed up with the situation, they are selling up and moving out of town.
Todd Street and Gap Road are locations of constant social disruption. The antisocial behaviour is unbelievable. I received a phone call from a motel owner recently who, within the period of one week, had three motor vehicles interfered with or stolen or damaged at the premises. One belonged to a chef who started work two days previously. Is it a wonder why people say: ‘I am going to still stay in Alice Springs and put up with all this antisocial behaviour and disruption to my life’?
It is difficult for people who come from interstate to try to make a life in Alice Springs, getting employment when they can and then to find that their supposedly tranquil life is suddenly impacted upon in a way over which they have absolutely no control.
We have people in business in Gap Road who have lived in Alice Springs for nearly 25 or 30 years who are now selling up and saying to me: ‘We are sick of all these problems with antisocial behaviour in Alice Springs caused mostly by itinerants. We are going to sell our properties and go interstate’. Each week, we lose a family from Alice Springs. It is no wonder that the town continues to suffer.
The Chief Minister does not seem to understand that she has to take some responsibility for this increased activity and do something positive about it. Many of the feel-good policies that the government has are important because people need to feel good about themselves. Policies that encourage the development of self-respect and self-esteem are useful, but, at the end of the day, along with that, they must have responsibility for self. They must have responsibility for their own actions and accept those actions.
Walk down the street in Alice Springs. Walk past Greatorex Park. That is the park around the fountain outside the Greatorex Building. Before the town council put the enclosure around their compound so they could re-construct the Council Chambers, the gardens were full of litter and sitting amongst the litter were itinerants. After living there for a while, they move on and the litter stays behind. Who has to clean it up? Council workers or contractors who clean up Greatorex Park.
No other person would, I suggest, sit in a park to relax for a few hours with their picnic lunch and walk away leaving everything behind. Yes, they might leave one or two articles behind sometimes because they have overlooked them, but you do not leave all your rubbish behind expecting someone else to clean up behind you. That untidiness and littering takes away the aesthetics of the surrounding area. Greatorex Park and the town council lawns are very nice green areas in Alice Springs. It is poor hygiene. Alice Springs is promoted as a tourist town, and when tourists walk past, they see all that. It does not imbue a sense that we are proud of our town, we are a clean town. We want it to disappear.
I heard the minister talk about the Return to Country program, that it is user pays, and people must clear their debt before they are entitled to another Return to Country ticket or pay up front. I know for a fact that the minibuses in Alice Springs have been called by people in communities. Those minibuses will drive out 200 km or 300 km, pick up a whole bunch of people and come into town. I cannot imagine the expense that these people would go through to pay for a minibus to drive all the way from Alice Springs to the communities to bring them into town. It hurts. Maybe I am just Chinese Scotsman who does not want to spend that sort of money, but it hurts to think someone would pay hundreds upon hundreds of dollars to get a minibus to pick them up and bring them to town.
When they come into town, many of them do not ask to be returned to country. They stay in town. Some of them have very legitimate reasons. They come in for either legal or health services. If they come in for health services, I know they get PATS to pay for them so that they can come in that way. It seems that the mechanics of it all, or the government processes, do not pick them up after they finish with their health or legal service to take them home. So they linger in Alice Springs.
When I was the minister for Housing, we were exploring how we can develop temporary housing for these itinerants. I am surprised that this government, which espoused that it was going to do lots of things for indigenous people, has not carried through the idea of creating temporary housing for these itinerants or visitors from the bush. Instead, all they have done is move many people from bush into urban homes in places like Larapinta, and it is no wonder you then have all this antisocial behaviour. You bring them into single location, there is a high density of them living there, with very little urban living skills, and then you have problems.
I see many indigenous people yell to each other across the street. My electorate office is smack in the middle of a very busy area. The post office is across from my office, and I hear people yelling across the road. I do not find that offensive. I am used to that because Chinese talk loudly, we yell across the street to each other as well, and that is normal behaviour as far as I am concerned. Others, who are not used to it, find it not so much offensive, but scary. Someone is yelling, someone is angry and there is a problem. They then recoil from that yelling.
When you watch it, though, it is actually two people having a great discussion, albeit in a very loud voice, yelling across the street. I do not have a problem with that. If I were in government, you try and explain that to people. Say: ‘Hey, that is fine. It is not a problem. This is just two people having a conversation’. That sort of cultural understanding needs to happen. If you explain to people, they will say: ‘Oh, okay. That is all it is’.
The other side of the coin is that the people who talk loudly could also be shown that most people around the town do not talk so loudly, so if you are going to talk loudly, soften it a little bit. There is a compromise, and the people in town can cope with it if there is loud yelling across the street, and the people who yell might yell a little bit softer, and therefore we will not have the problem.
That is the sort of thing that is important in Alice Springs and perhaps even in Darwin: there is not enough cross-cultural education provided. People do not understand each other, and that then promotes a sense of discomfort, even a sense of distrust.
I am sure most Aboriginal people like to have all the services and facilities that everyone in society wants. However, you have to make sure that, when those services are provided, they are provided as a hand up. I support the comments of the member for Goyder of having a policy of hand up rather than hand out, because hand outs means you sit there: ‘We will look after you, do not worry about it. As long as you sit there, and I can look after you, I will always have a job and it does not matter whether you do or not’. That then promotes a sense of loss or inability to get out of whatever situation you are in.
Coming back to the issue of accommodation for people coming from the bush into Alice Springs, whether they come for medical or any other service, I am disappointed that for three-and-a-half years, this government has been in power, they have not explored how they can improve short-term accommodation for visiting indigenous people from the bush. I am sure there are many ways of doing it. For three-and-a-half years, I have not heard any ideas come from the government as to how they are going to do it, and it is time they did something. We have six months left before the next election. Perhaps it is a little late now, but at least if you start exploring, there is some direction that we can see clearly …
Ms Martin: Stuart Lodge.
Dr LIM: Stuart Lodge? Stuart Lodge is not adequate.
Ms Martin: I just said that the minister made a statement on it last week. Accuracy is important.
Dr LIM: No, no, I said to you that it is not adequate. Stuart Lodge has not enough accommodation to accommodate the numbers of people coming into town. They do not have enough space to accommodate. You need more than that. For three-and-a-half years, that is all you have done. Do more than that. You want to promote indigenous rights and getting them into Alice Springs. Everyone living in the middle of nowhere would say: ‘Look, why don’t I want to go down to the bright lights? Of course, I would want to have the bright lights and have the services of a city’. However, make sure that they can at least have some semblance of accommodation, a place where they can have a wash and go to toilet and the normal basic things that we all expect. Make sure that is available. Otherwise, you allow more and more of these problems.
Mrs Gerry Baddock writes letters week after week to the newspaper complaining about Basso Road. She has invited the member for Stuart out there to have a look. She complains to him, writes to him, rings his office and she gets absolutely no satisfaction. She rings me, I ring the police, the police go out there and, by the time they turn around to come back out of Basso Road, the groups are back there again. She tells you quite clearly that the hygiene outside her backyard is intolerable. The people who gather out there and the antisocial behaviour that they demonstrate is intolerable. However, no one seems to want to do anything about it.
We talk about the violence and the injuries that many of the indigenous women suffer from alcohol abuse. All you have to do is walk into the Emergency Department of the Alice Springs Hospital and you see people absolutely disfigured, not only facially but, if you look at their arms, they have multiple fractures or old fractures where the alignment of the bones have all been absolutely distorted. If you took an X-ray, you would see multiple fractures, old and new. That sort of behaviour is rife in town, and you have to somehow stop that. You stop that by providing good housing, which is important. You have to make sure that you ensure that they do not abuse alcohol as they are prone to do - not that I am suggesting that you have total alcohol ban in Alice Springs; that would be the last thing you would be the last thing you would want to do because that would present more problems than it solves.
I support the motion because this government has failed to do the things that it promised. They were going to do all kinds of great things for indigenous Territorians. While they have picked up on the itinerants program, which, thankfully, we started and, like every successful thing this government has been able to maintain or complete, they have taken on a CLP initiative prior to the change of government. I congratulate the government for taking on the itinerants program and keeping on with it, but they are not doing enough.
This graph that was shown to me today is a classic. I do not know, Madam Speaker, whether you have seen this graph yourself. In this graph you will see where this is a change of government and this is the last three years of this government’s period in the Territory. It is protective custody for being drunk. If you look at the non-indigenous, that is the brown colour, there is a very marginal increase whereas with the dark blue, the indigenous number is increasing each year. Obviously, the total is going up each year as well. Over the last three years, it has increased by 5678 and that is an indictment. There are obviously more drunks in the street and they are being picked up more.
It is time that this government really did meaningful things for indigenous people instead of being racially divisive. The way the Minister for Community Development spoke, he always comes in with the race card. The CLP are always the racists, the CLP are the ones who always tread down on Aboriginal people. I say to him that is a lot of rubbish. The CLP’s policies were good. The CLP can hold its head up high that it has been able to relate to indigenous people a lot better than this government has. The CLP has never been racist. We have tried to have one rule for all, whether you are black or white or in-between. The Chief Minister and her government have to take some of the responsibility that she has failed.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I intended to take up the full 20 minutes, but what needed to be said has been said and repeated. The member for Macdonnell will sum up shortly, but I wanted to make a few points, and I accept that notwithstanding what I have just said, some of these may appear repetitious, but I do not propose to spend much time on them.
I was interested to hear the minister give what amounted to a definition of itinerants. Yes, minister, itinerants do move around. They are itinerant by their nature. My constituents do not call them itinerants; they call them all sorts of things. It would be unparliamentary to disclose what some of those terms are, but let us look at the facts.
Yes, itinerants move around. Some, not all, itinerants are Aboriginal. Some, not all, are drunks and some, not all, create problems for the people around them. I copped a fair bit of criticism for saying at the Alice Springs sittings that we have drunks on the streets in Alice Springs and that they are causing problems. I will say that any day of the week for as long as I am in the Northern Territory under a Martin Labor government because it has become noticeably worse. I say this not just based on my own observations, but on the information we receive in my electorate office.
When I take calls from young mothers saying that they are concerned about their kids playing in the Frank McEllister Community Park, which is in the heart of my electorate, because drunks are occupying the park and the mother does not feel safe about letting her kids go there, I am concerned. When I hear, again, young mothers explain to me the difficulties they have had pushing a pram and carrying shopping through the CBD of Alice Springs, I know exactly what they are talking about: drunks in the streets of Alice Springs making their lives difficult. Most of the drunks are itinerants.
The minister cannot just say: ‘Well, it is all under the Community Harmony program and therefore it is all over, Red Rover’. That is the not the case. I have a bit of time for the minister on a personal basis; he does care and have a commitment to improving the lives of indigenous Territorians, and I commend him for that, but he is the minister, and I cannot see the results. If the minister were honest with himself, I do not think he would be able to see the results, either.
The people in my electorate cannot see the results. I live in my electorate; I want to see the results. I really do. When I see and hear of people not just in my electorate, but elsewhere in Alice Springs, saying that they have had enough and they are going south, the main reason they cite is the drunks. They do not call them itinerants; they call them ‘the drunks’, and that’s what they are. That is based on not only my observations, as I have said, but story after story after story recounted to me.
We can play ping-pong across the Chamber any day of the week and, often, we do. However, I would like the minister to give some consideration to what else can be done and what sort of performance indicators might exist in relation to the Community Harmony program. What exactly is he looking for? He quoted a figure - I cannot remember what it was, but he said that so many people had been returned to country. That’s great, but I would like to hear some information on what happens then. Do they come back? How often do some people use the service?
He criticised me for referring to it as a taxi service. That is the information I have been provided with by a number of people. Instead of just criticism, I would have liked a bit more detail as to why it is that he thinks the Community Harmony program is so good.
I was very interested in what the member for Port Darwin had to say. She recounted again tonight, as she did last night, an experience she had. As women in this Chamber, we are all very aware of walking the streets both at night and during the day, and I agree with the member for Port Darwin. I would feel less fearful seeing an Aboriginal itinerant in the middle of the night often as I walk back to my hotel from this parliament than a whitefella. So it is not a race issue. It is about not all itinerants, but some itinerants, some of them Aboriginal, some of them drunk.
For my part in Alice Springs, what I see is the fact that most of them are Aboriginal and most of them are drunk. I would like to know what the government is doing about that. I should also say that in the crime statistics that are published quarterly by this government – and the minister and I again play ping-pong with our media releases every time they are issued, and I have said before that - I am interested in why it is that instances of antisocial conduct are not recorded. I am certain that the police, if they are not collecting that information, will certainly be able to collect it, and I simply ask the question: why is it that those sorts of things are not contained in the crime stats?
I do not believe the Chief Minister has commented on the motion, but in her capacity of Tourism minister, she would know that itinerants, drunks, call them what you like, have the potential to impact significantly on the Territory’s fine tourism industry. How often have all of us heard stories from tourists, sometimes friends and family, sometimes people we do not even know? We have heard stories from these people saying that they have had terrible experiences with itinerants, that women in particular feel fearful. Some of them come from different cultures overseas, so they are not able to necessarily gauge, on culturally equal terms, I suppose, white or black itinerants, so maybe there are more fearful than Australians.
I do not think we can underestimate the serious impact that itinerants or drunks have on our tourism industry. I do not believe the Minister for Health has contributed to this debate. There is another link with itinerants and drunks regarding nurses. We know that we have a nursing shortage in the Northern Territory. Not only are the nurses at the hospital patching these people up after so many of them, although not all, but so many of them bash one another up. The nurses are there at the coalface patching these people up day after day after day. The nurses also come into the Northern Territory, and so many of them, of course, drift away. From my own experience, based on some nurses I know, they are, forever it seems, expressing the view that they want to leave the Northern Territory because they are sick of the daily patching up of the itinerants or drunks.
There is a population decline issue here, and I know the Chief Minister has talked about that, as indeed have some of her colleagues, in the past. We are suffering a population decline in the Northern Territory, and I suggest that is a factor in some of, although certainly not all, the population decline. We all know about people, whether they are friends or constituents or whatever, who say: ‘I have had enough’, or ‘Our family has had enough and we are going down south’.
They are just a few things that touch upon many of the portfolios. I look up and see the member for Wanguri who is the minister for Business. He must surely know of the dreadful effects that itinerants or drunks have on small business owners. I speak to proprietors of businesses in the mall, which is in the electorate of Araluen, regularly. They are very concerned that they are going to have to put shutters on their windows, not unlike what we see in Tennant Creek. Not all of the shop owners in Tennant Creek have erected that type of barriers on their shops because of itinerants, and I do not suggest that for a moment, but it is a factor. Some itinerants, some drunks, cause damage and commit crimes. So you can look at it from a business perspective.
When I was the Tourism shadow, I was made aware of a catch phrase, and it is a good one. I do not know who thought of it, but it does not really matter, and that was ‘Tourism is everyone’s business’. Itinerants are everyone’s business. It permeates into all of our lives as politicians. To suggest otherwise really is delusional. It affects so many aspects of our lives here in the Northern Territory that the impact of it simply cannot be under-estimated.
The minister, in essence, to the extent that I understood what he was saying, said: ‘Do not worry. It is all in the Community Harmony Program’. That falls a long way short in my view, and given the minister’s commitment to this area, I would have expected much more from him, and I say that both in a professional and personal sense.
I look forward to the minister talking about this more at the next sittings. No doubt, it will be revisited in the normal colourful way these things are, but I wanted to give a measured contribution tonight, because we can all get hyped up about our contributions in the Chamber, but this is a really serious issue, and the minister should act. I would like to see some evidence of action, not just sentiments, and not just comments like: ‘It is all in the Community Harmony Program. I very strongly support the motion. Naive though I am, I would ask, nevertheless, for government members to similarly support the motion.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, of course, we have only heard one member of government speak and that is the minister, not the Chief Minister to whom this motion is directed. Like the member for Araluen, I will be measured in my closing comments.
The member for Araluen pointed out, quite correctly, that we have had this debate to death. By way of interjection, the Leader of Government Business, whilst he was reading his newspaper, said: ‘Yes, I have heard it all before’. We all have. The fact is we have all heard it before and nothing is happening - zero, zilch, nothing.
I took my own little challenge up during this debate. During my opening comments, I set down the challenge to go for a walk. I thought: ‘Why don’t I? Why don’t I go for a walk around town, on spec at 8.15 pm, from here to the Chan Building through Bennett Park, down through the mall to Raintree Park, hang a left at Knuckey down to Tamarind Park, and then along Mitchell back to Parliament House?’ It took me about 10 or 15 minutes to complete the circuit.
On that circuit, as I walked passed the Chan Building, there was half-eaten tin of corn and several loaves of bread mushed up and left, obviously, by itinerants because people do not eat corn out of tins when they are having lunch and throwing their lunch away if they are office workers. That is part of the litter problem that goes with it.
On walking through Bennett Park, there was only one there tonight, asleep on one of the park benches. On walking down the mall, a police van came past and right behind the police van was an old man rummaging through a bin. As I then went down to Raintree Park, one old woman was yelling indiscriminately at no one in particular. Then there were several people sitting down in the middle of Raintree Park, no offence, as they do every night.
By that stage, I had reached Raintree Park. There were several items of litter lying around. There were several people sitting near the taxi rank with rubbish surrounding them. I walked through, along Tamarind Park. Three fellows sitting in Tamarind Park did not appear to be up to too much. I cannot tell what they were drinking out of the plastic bottles; it may have been water or wine. They were surrounded by a bit of rubbish.
There was one busker out there who was playing his didgeridoo. Good luck to him! At least he is doing something. He had his little blanket out, and sitting next to him was his wife with a cast all the way up her leg. Then I walked along Mitchell Street and there was a woman I walked past who was staggering. Maybe she has an injury, but I would say it is much more likely that she was staggering because she was drunk. I made my way back to Parliament House.
That was just on spec. It was a walk at 8.15 pm on a Wednesday evening. Not all of them were Aboriginal, I might add. However, there was a signal, a message that I was trying to glean out of this. The message was this: there are certain no-go zones at 8.15 pm on a Wednesday evening in Darwin because if I was a woman walking through these environments, I would feel uncomfortable, I imagine. It is all right for me, I am a big, burly bloke, and I know how to look after myself. However, I have heard several of the members in here tonight say that they are a little concerned about walking through those environments, and I can well understand why.
Mr Bonson: Unreal!
Mr ELFERINK: It is interesting. I did not hear what the member for Millner just interjected, but if he wanted to say something, I imagine he would have risen to his feet and said something in this debate.
Mr Bonson: I am not going to lower myself to the debate, member for Macdonnell.
Mr ELFERINK: He has something to share, but nothing he is prepared to put on the record - nothing that he is prepared to put on the record.
Mr Bonson: I put on the record that I do not want to lower myself to your debate.
Ms Carter: Pardon?
Mr ELFERINK: He does not want to lower himself to the debate. Well, that one I did hear, Madam Speaker. He does not want to lower himself to the debate. Madam Speaker, if he thinks this is lowering himself to a debate, he is living in La-La land. The fantasy in which he is engaging is that it is all sweetness and light out there and because we have the audacity to raise this issue again and again in this parliament, that in some way, is lowering himself to the debate …
Mr Stirling: Oh, do not stretch it!
Mr ELFERINK: Now the Treasurer pipes up. He had an opportunity to say something and, all of a sudden, he has something to say now. Well, get to your feet and put it on the record.
This problem is not going away and just throwing money at it ain’t going to fix it. Many of these people come from remote communities in the Northern Territory - some do not, some do. I can understand why they come from these communities because there is not much to do there. The management systems in these communities need to change because these people need to find some sort of occupation out there. That is a management issue, not a race issue. Management issues have to change on these communities.
Education is always a problem and I know that the minister for Education struggles to try to do something about this, but education is not the only solution. Boredom seems to be one of the great underlying factors in a lot of this stuff and I know the problems are not getting better in the remote communities. I looked at the newspaper the other day and at Groote Eylandt they disarmed a family with enough weapons to probably arm a Saxon horde raiding North England
The situation in these communities is not improving. I see it myself every single time I go out. Ganga is a problem, alcohol is a problem. Now it is just coming into town. Well, big surprise!
The government must respond to this stuff with more than platitudes about community harmony projects. It is not working. It is evidenced in what you see on the street every day, evidenced by the results in the statistics. If the Community Harmony program was working and people were taking notice of what the government was urging them to do, we would not have incarceration rates either for protective custody or in our prisons that we currently have.
Madam Speaker, I know that we have been over this a hundred times, I know we going to go over it again, but until some of this stuff changes, it is going to keep coming up in this parliament.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Political Candidates - Access to Constituents on Aboriginal Land Trust Land
Political Candidates - Access to Constituents on Aboriginal Land Trust Land
That this Assembly call upon the Attorney-General to explain the legal position for political candidates having access to potential constituents on Aboriginal Land Trust land.
By way of general comment, that sort of autocratic approach to Ms Machado and her husband was beyond the pale. In any other environment, if someone was evicted from their job and their home and given six hours to clear out, it would have been a reprehensible abuse of power by a statutory authority or government department or whoever was doing it. The executive arm of the Central Land Council is becoming a law unto itself, including the fact they often do not listen to their own constituency. I hear that frustrations expressed by a regularly. That is by the by.
The fact is that they were driven off the land in a most unceremonious circumstance. Had they been tenants, under the Tenancy Act there would have been a three month process and court appeals and all those sorts of things. None of that was available. The permits were revoked under legislation that is under the purview and control of the Attorney-General. It is not the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. The permits are issued essentially under the Aboriginal Land Act which is Territory legislation.
I draw the minister’s attention to a couple of parts of the Aboriginal Land Act specifically section 5(5):
A land council may revoke the permit issued by it under its authority by the traditional Aboriginal
owners or under the authority of the traditional owners over Aboriginal land or a road which is within
the area for which it is established.
A candidate for election as a member of the Legislative Assembly for the purposes of conducting
his campaign …
If you look at the electorate of Stuart, with its enormous size, and it happens the minimum period of an election in the Northern Territory, I suggest that it is physically impossible to travel the whole of that electorate and canvass if the interpretation is that you must wait until writs are issued. If you allow for a week of bush polling, on a 17-day campaign, that means there are 10 days to visit the electorate of Stuart – physically impossible. The minister himself would attest to this.
This goes to the heart of democracy because people have a right to meet their candidates. The railroading of Ms Machado off the Willowra community, for whatever reason, should not preclude her from visiting potential voters in the electorate for which she is vying.
It is unclear how the word ‘candidate’ is defined under the act. If the candidate is prevented from travelling the length and breadth of the electorate and from speaking to people by virtue of an onerous decision by an executive body under an approach to Administrative Law, which is nothing short of ruthless, democracy for Aboriginal people on Aboriginal land trusts is dead.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I hope the minister will provide a full explanation as to the circumstances. The motion was put on the Notice Paper last week, so I am sure he has had an opportunity to have a look at it and has some answers in front of him. I look forward to his comments so that he can throw some light on the situation in the Northern Territory and to whether he can advise whether democracy for remote Aboriginal Territorians living on land trusts is a viable option or not.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, at the outset, I say to the member for Macdonnell that I intend to reply in exactly the terms of the motion you moved.
I have made it pretty clear on the public record that in the matter that you raised about the Machados and their access t the electorate of Stuart, you will agree, have been very even-handed about that issue.
Under the arrangements I am about to outline, it is a matter between the land council as the designated body to issue or revoke permits on behalf and in consultation with the traditional owners of the area in question. I have made it very clear that I in no way want to or will intercede in those processes. I certainly have not been in any way involved in the decisions that have been made to date regarding the Machados.
Looking to your motion, which calls on me as the Attorney-General, I will reply in kind and give you the technical information that outlines the rights of people to enter Aboriginal land.
The right of entry by political candidates onto Aboriginal land trust land is spelt out in section 7 of the Aboriginal Land Act. There is an express grant of power in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, which is the Commonwealth ALRA, for the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly to make laws regulating or authorising the entry of persons on Aboriginal land. In ALRA, that is contained in section 73(1)(b). ALRA section 70 prohibits entry or remaining on Aboriginal land otherwise than, amongst other things, in accordance with a law of the Northern Territory.
The Aboriginal Land Act Northern Territory regulates entry onto Aboriginal land and provides for three classes of persons. The first class is persons who may enter Aboriginal land as of right, in other words without a permit, and namely these are: (a) the Administrator or Acting Administrator acting in the course of his or her duty; (b) a member of the Legislative Assembly engaged in the business of the Assembly; (c) a member of either House of the Commonwealth parliament engaged in the business of the parliament; (d) a candidate for election as a Senator for the Northern Territory or as a member of the House of Representatives for a Northern Territory electorate; and (e), the one to which you have already referred, a candidate for election as a member of the Legislative Assembly for the purposes of conducting his or her campaign.
The entry onto Aboriginal land as of right, section 7, does not apply to candidates for Local Government elections, ATSIC elections, union elections or other types of elections.
It is the view of the Office of the Solicitor for the Northern Territory that the right to enter Aboriginal land as a candidate for election only operates once an election has been called. In other words the writs have been …
A member interjecting.
Dr TOYNE: Hear me out. A candidate for election has a narrow meaning, that is, someone nominated for election after a writ for an election has been issued. It will not operate generally in respect of preselected candidates during whatever campaign period they may feel that they are involved in. That completes the persons who have entry, and thereby lies another option for gaining a right of entry.
Two, persons who have been issued a permit by the land council or traditional owners, which is contained in section 5; and, three, persons to whom the relevant Northern Territory minister, the Minister for Lands and Planning, has issued a permit, which is contained in section 6, and, more to that last point, the minister’s power to grant permits pursuant to section 6 is limited to persons who are employed under or by virtue of an act or as a member of the personal staff a minister, the Leader of the Opposition or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and where those persons have a need in the performance of their duties to enter upon or remain on Aboriginal land. Public servants who are employed under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act and other persons who are employed by government to fill positions created by or necessitated for the purposes of other statutes are persons to whom permits may be issued pursuant to this section. These persons must, however, be employees, as opposed to, for example, consultants.
In summary, there are three different ways. There are mandated non-permit entries, which are the list in part one. The second is anyone who gains a permit from the land council, so applying this to the case that you raised by way of an example, it is open to anyone to go the land council and apply for a permit, which, I understand, has not happened in this case, generally into the area covered by the electorate of Stuart. That is open to them and it would be interesting to see what the outcome would be.
The other class is …
Dr LIM: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! Minister, would you like to table that so that we can have a look at that?
Dr TOYNE: I am more than happy to. I am reading directly from it. I will table it. It will be in Hansard. Hang on; I will just tear a little bit off.
We have those three options open to anyone wanting to gain access. At this stage, the government does not have any proposal to expand the class of person who may enter Aboriginal land, either as of right or pursuant to a permit issued by the Minister for Lands and Planning.
However, I note that there are potential difficulties for granting access to the right of persons who identify as candidates for election. Where you are trying to go with this is: is there a case for opening up the definition of who is a candidate and for what period of time? The difficulty that has been identified by the Solicitor for the Northern Territory, looking at possible reform in that area, is that while it might be possible to define a person who has been preselected for one of the two major parties, you run into difficulties where, for example, someone who states that they want to stand as an Independent. There are no guarantees, for a start, that they are a bona fide candidate; they could just say they are and subsequently not stand for the election once it is called.
It would be very difficult to tie down a definition of who should gain that non-permit access to Aboriginal land simply because they claim to be a candidate. That is the difficulty with extending the definition of ‘candidate’. It becomes clearer once the writs are issued and people are either formally registered as candidates. I hope that information helps the member. It responds very definitely to the motion.
A further point I make about it is that the case for basing access of political candidates to the permit processes that have been established in our Aboriginal Land Act is that there is a qualitative difference between the offering or gaining of consent to Aboriginal communities than, for example, someone doorknocking in the northern suburbs of Darwin. Anyone who has doorknocked around the urban centres of the Northern Territory will know that each householder, individually, has the right to say: ‘I do not want to talk to you’, or ‘Yes, come in and I will listen to the political case that you want to put to me’. That is the way in which consent is gained by a candidate in an urban centre.
In an Aboriginal remote community, on traditional lands, there are different social mores that operate and they are more communal in nature. It was for that reason that this mechanism has been established both under our law and Commonwealth law.
That is the situation that you asked me to explain. I have explained it, I hope, accurately in the two items of legislation by which this is governed. I table the documents for the benefit of the member for Greatorex, and I hope you will see that it is almost word-for-word what will be in Hansard tomorrow.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like say some thoughts on this matter. It appears to me that there is obviously some political skulduggery going on here. I am not sure where it is coming from or where it is going. To say that a candidate officially, formally endorsed by a party is not allowed to doorknock her constituents-to-be is blatantly unfair. When the Central Land Council issued an eviction notice …
Dr Toyne: The householders can choose to listen to them or not. You are saying that every constituent has to listen to a candidate if they are preselected by a major party. It seems to be what you are saying.
Mr Elferink: No, we are just saying they should have a choice made by themselves, not by some clown sitting in a statutory authority with a rubber stamp.
Dr Toyne: There are a lot of people in statutory authorities, and they can do all sorts of things.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we just get back to the motion? Member for Greatorex, continue.
Dr LIM: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. We found out that the Central Land Council unilaterally issued an eviction notice of six-hours duration to the Machados to leave Willowra, and in the letter of eviction, she was told that she is not allowed to enter any Aboriginal land under the control of the Central Land Council. You need to ask a question: does the Central Land Council have a problem with Anna Machado’s activities in Willowra or does it have problems with her activities across the whole of the land trust area under the jurisdiction of the Central Land Council? She has been blamed about her presence in Willowra and what she has done there, or so it seems. If that is the case, this land council has now said because of your activities in Willowra, we are going to ban you from the whole of the land trust area under our jurisdiction.
Isn’t that the problem? Traditional owners of the land have given her permission to go there. Traditional owners of the land have written to her, spoken to her, even signed petitions pleading with the Central Land Council to allow Anna Machado and her family to return to Willowra, yet the Central Land Council has denied her that very opportunity.
The fact is that she was in Willowra for more than two years without any problem. The fact is that she went there as the spouse of a person working in Willowra, later to be invited by the community of Willowra to manage the store for them, bringing the store from a deficit operation to having substantial amount of money in reserve, a well operated store, good quality food and goods that the community of Willowra can use. For the time she managed the store, there was never a problem. She supported the store, she supported the store committee and in return, the store committee supported her and they worked strongly together for the betterment of all the people living in Willowra. The fact is that she declined to provide book-up for specific people. The fact is that she declined to provide money to specific people who asked her for it because she wanted to maintain a proper store, an accounting system and financial management and that was what encouraged the community to keep her there, to want her to stay there.
It was not until Anna Machado became the officially endorsed CLP candidate that she became the subject of intense pressure. I know because I have fought it all along. I have seen Anna Machado on many occasions. I have visited Willowra and spoken to many of the people there. It was not until Anna Machado became the official candidate for the CLP that she came under pressure from the Central Land Council and others involved with the CLC. Bit by bit, the pressure was on and rumours spread around that she was instigating this, that, and the other. I have her absolute assurance that she took no part in all that. She managed the store and she managed the store well and the Consumer Affairs have been there to check her out. The accounting services checked her out and she did it very well. They gave her a clean bill of health regarding financial management of the store. Yet she was under pressure.
Finally, it came to a head when the eviction notice was sent by the Central Land Council. You have to ask the question: why is this candidate being subjected to such pressure? It is not only: ‘You have been causing problems in Willowra, therefore you have to leave Willowra’. It is: ‘You cannot go anywhere else, either. You cannot go to Lajamanu; you cannot go anywhere within the land trust area that the Central Land Council covers’, which is literally the whole of the Stuart electorate.
Where does this candidate go? She drives up and down the north Stuart Highway and hopes to see her constituents when they come out to the road to meet her. That she has done and she is doing it very well. She goes to meet her constituents at many other places up and down the track and she meets them in Alice Springs when they come into town to meet with her. They continue to plead with her to go back. Unfortunately, she is not allowed to, despite the fact that she still has in her possession, and I have seen them, permits from traditional owners of the land to go back.
The minister said: ‘My hands are clean and I am Pontius Pilate; I have washed my hands of this. I am staying hands off, and it is between the Central Land Council and the individual’. The minister might have washed his hands, but there is something that does not smell right and either the Central Land Council is part of a political game to prevent a candidate from rightfully canvassing her constituents to be, that is a bad way of playing our political game.
Anna has tried to do the right thing by the people in the electorate of Stuart. She does it in the most proper way that she knows, and in a way that traditional owners trust her. She does it in a way that garners confidence from them.
If the minister sees a way of encouraging the land council to provide her with the relevant permit that would be the fair way to do it. The government would ensure that a duly endorsed candidate has right of access to all her constituents. There has been nothing proven that she has done at Willowra that could be the reason why the Central Land Council has prevented her being in the land trust area.
If that is the case, when there is no legitimate reason for the land council to obstruct her, then permission should be given to her without having to go through all the stupid processes that the land council expects her to go through to try and regain permission to get into Stuart. It is important that she gets there in the lead-up to the election. We know that the election is going to be on this year some time, and she should be given fair exposure to the constituents of Stuart so that she can do her job.
If the minister is so confident about his position in Stuart, what does he have to worry about?
A member interjecting.
Dr LIM: That is right. I know that Bushranger predicted that he was not going to stand again, but whether he does or not it is another matter. What matters is that the CLP candidate for Stuart should have rightful access to her constituency, just as I would expect that every Labor candidate would have access to all the other electorates that they want to canvass.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): This is a really sad day, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. The minister said: ‘We have to worry about the social mores. These poor old little blackfellas stuck away in these communities need to be so protected from these dreadful, nasty candidates who need to get special permission to go out there. They need to be protected’. This particular woman has worked in remote communities for years. She has worked in shops in Finke, Haasts Bluff and Willowra. There is nothing she is going to do that is going to particularly tread on toes out there.
This is a fascinating position for the government to take on this because what they are actually saying is that Aboriginal people living in places like Lajamanu, Yuendumu, Willowra and Ti Tree need to be protected from this woman. Well, they do not need protection. Who on earth does this government think it is to decide who should and should not talk to Aboriginal people? Surely we have gone beyond the gate-keeper mentality where the lock-down on Aboriginal people is so complete that they are not allowed, unless some person - I said clown before - clown in a statutory authority gives them a rubber stamp.
I will tell you how the rubber stamp works. It is all right for the minister to stand here and say: ‘All she has to do is apply for a permit’. That permit has been revoked. In fact, it was never a permit. She has worked on Aboriginal communities for years without a permit, and it is only now, after she is endorsed as a CLP candidate, that all of a sudden she is advised that she has six hours to get out of her home. It is a police state mentality of protecting these people from dreadful candidates.
The minister said it is so hard to decide who might or might not be a candidate until the writs are issued. Crap! Sorry – I withdraw that.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just as well, member for Macdonnell.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, rubbish! The fact is that political parties are registered. How about an endorsed candidate from a registered political party? I am sure that has occurred to the minister, but, no, he is trying too hard to twist this set of rules to prevent Aboriginal people from having a fair choice. The gate-keeper mentality is alive and well. He knows full well that Ms Machado is not going to get a permit to go on Aboriginal land.
Indeed, he still has not answered the one question that I asked of him. The land council may revoke a permit. It does not say that the executive arm of a land council might do so unilaterally. I am not aware of any motion on the books of the land council - mind you, we never know what motions they have on the books - which directs the revocation of one of these permits, and he has not answered that question.
This goes to the very heart and fundamental rights of the people to choose who represents them. This is more than just a cute little rule. This means that this candidate has no chance, no opportunity to present herself to the electorate. So this gate-keeper says: ‘Sorry, I know what is best for you, Aboriginal people, and you Anna Machado, cannot go out into the electorate of Stuart and campaign’.
I will tell you a little story. Way back in 1997, I applied for a permit to travel on Aboriginal land so I could campaign. Guess what? I am still waiting for an answer on that inquiry. That was shelved somewhere. Guess what I did? I went out and campaigned, anyhow. No one complained, no one went charging around saying: ‘Oh, my God, I have been offended by this person knocking on my door’. In fact, the result I got was quite positive, like it is so often when we go doorknocking as politicians, whether we do it in Yuendumu, Docker River, Araluen or Jingili, because like to see their local member or candidates appear on their door step, and they like to know the choices they have. This is a reprehensible approach by the minister of: ‘I throw my hands up in the air, its all too hard for me, I am not going to make any effort to protect democracy’.
Democracy has now been removed from Aboriginal people, and it is small wonder that I hear so often complaints, especially from the older men and women, who feel like their lives are being run by other people in offices so remote from their lives. They feel like their lives have been totally organised for them and that they are being deprived of choices and information.
This is the quintessential example of it. This minister, who has a vested interest because it is his seat, has chosen to wash his hands of it and say: ‘Go he’. This is a sad day for democracy for Aboriginal Territorians, and if the gate-keeper mentality keeps going the way it is, what is going to happen eventually when change happens, it is going to be radical. All times when there is radical change rather than measured and controlled change, there are going to be casualties. That is a shame.
However, as it stands at the moment, we have candidate in the Northern Territory who is endorsed by a registered political party. There are rules for registered political parties. You can get the Electoral Roll as a registered political party if you have 200 members. It is easy to identify one; we know what they look like. As a registered political party, we have a candidate who has been deprived of an opportunity by a bureaucracy which is out of control, and has such a gate-keeper mentality of the people for whom it is suppose to care that they will deprive those people of the ability to make their own choice.
There are many Aboriginal people who have spoken to me about the Anna Machado affair. They have come to my office and complained. They have also provided Anna Machado with letters of invitation saying: ‘Please come to our land and talk to us’. Those would be permits under the Aboriginal Land Act. The message from the land council has been quite succinct: ‘We revoke any permit that you might be given by these people’. That is outrageous.
If I invite someone into my home and say: ‘Come on to my property in Greatorex Road in Alice Springs’ and had some police officers or gate-keeper standing there saying: ‘Sorry, you cannot go in because I said so’, I would be incensed. People are becoming very angry and incensed out there. This is a refusal to protect the democratic institutions of our Westminster system because it is convenient for the operation of some act and some statutory authority that does not like someone. It is the case that the parliament has become subordinate to statutory authorities. When that starts to occur, there are some major problems in our system.
Motion negatived.
RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT (TERMINATION FOR UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT) BILL
(Serial 280)
(Serial 280)
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The aim of this amendment is to give people who have been adversely affected by the conduct of a tenant the opportunity to present a case to a court as to why that tenant’s rental agreement should be terminated.
Under the Residential Tenancies Act, the only person or body that can seek such a termination is the landlord. This is fine, except in many cases, the landlord does not have to contend with the constant aggravation or antisocial behaviour exhibited by some tenants. It is neighbours who have to put up with disruptive or abusive conduct 24 hours a day, seven days a week, yet they are powerless to do anything about it. Hence, the landlord is often slow to react.
The reason I am introducing this amendment is because for some time, I have seen people become exasperated and desperate in coping with the behaviour of unruly tenants in public housing. Some of our people have left town; others reach crisis point where they can no longer cope; some tenants have left their tenancies; most have many sleepless nights, kept awake by a loud and abusive behaviour. Of course, these neighbours can make a complaint to the landlord. This has happened on many occasions, but a lack of action by the landlord - in particular, Territory Housing - merely exacerbates the problem.
At present, tenants who write letters of complaint which are used as evidence if a case goes to court then find they are expected to front up to court as well. Courts may be reluctant to accept statutory declaration as evidence on its own. A resident, under the current guidelines, must present in court. This is not always easy to do, particularly as long delays, in many instances, have occurred before the department takes action. By then, relationships between neighbours had well and truly broken down.
It is well known there are difficulties with some public housing tenants in Alice Springs. The majority of tenants are law abiding citizens, who are willing and able to live in peace with their fellow renters, but there are others who cannot peacefully cohabitate in housing estates for a variety of reasons, or perhaps they are unable to control the behaviour of their visitors, again for a variety of reasons. This is a complex issue and requires a range of solutions.
I am pleased to see the government has introduced preventative measures such as employing community liaison officers and deterrents such as increased security patrols. This amendment complements these measures by asserting the rights of neighbours who should not have to endure antisocial behaviour in their neighbourhood. This amendment gives them the right to formally lodge a claim to a court for a tenancy agreement to be terminated if that agreement has been breached for reasons of objectionable behaviour over a period of time.
The amendment enhances section 100 of the Residential Tenancy Act. At the moment, this section states that a court may terminate a tenancy agreement where the conduct of a tenant has been unacceptable in any of these circumstances: when a tenant has been using the premises or allowed it to be used for an illegal purpose; when the tenant has repeatedly caused a nuisance or allowed a nuisance to occur; or when the tenant has repeatedly caused or allowed an interference with the reasonable peace of other people living nearby. The section states that only a landlord can lodge an application for terminating a tenancy agreement.
I am proposing two key changes in this section. First, allowing an ‘interested person’ to make an application to a court to terminate a tenant’s rental agreement, which will give affected persons a legal avenue to uphold their rights to quiet enjoyment of their home. An ‘interested person’ is someone who has been adversely affected by the conduct of a tenant. Second, the landlord will be given the opportunity to be heard by the court when an application to terminate an agreement has been made by an interested person. This arrangement provides a fair go for the neighbours and a fair go for the landlord.
This is not without precedent. The South Australian Residential Tenancies Act contains a similar provision and research has told us it has been utilised by hundreds of people who have been so affected by unruly tenants that they have to resort to court action. There does, however, remain the issue that people are reluctant to front up to court to present their case and, naturally, a court would prefer witness-based evidence rather than a statutory declaration. It is important that any moves by a neighbour to evict a tenant are made when the situation has become unbearable rather than a vexatious claim. The point is that in South Australia, people have the option to take action rather than just relying on the landlord taking action.
My amendment alone will not solve the problems presently being experienced in Alice Springs and other urban centres. Living in housing estates, be they private or public, necessarily means that people are living in close quarters and need to comply with certain standards of acceptable behaviour. This is clearly written in the Residential Tenancies Act, section 54, and the Department of Housing’s tenancy agreements. When a tenant has difficulties with their tenancy, the solution should not just concentrate on that tenant. Affected neighbours should also be considered because it is their privacy and their right to enjoy their home, free of harassment and nuisance that has been severely impeded, sometimes permanently. If the measures proposed by the government to change the antisocial behaviour of the tenants succeed, then that will be good for everyone, but if there is no change with intervention, then neighbours should be able to protect their rights. This way, my amendment works hand in hand with government measures. Mr Deputy Speaker, I comment the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Establishment of Select Committee -
Ownership of Territory Parks
Establishment of Select Committee -
Ownership of Territory Parks
That this Assembly establish a select committee, with membership to be determined by an Assembly resolution,
for the purposes of developing a non-divisive but inclusive solution to issues surrounding the ownerships of our
Territory parks and in particular to:
(a) investigate all options for land tenure of our national parks and conservation reserves;
(b) examine other models throughout Australia or in other countries; and
(c) report its findings to the Assembly by 30 June 2005.
This is such an important issue that one has to ask why it is not possible for us to get together as a parliament and look at ways to work through the issues. We belong to the Westminster system, and it has been claimed that it is a great system of government and that we keep the sides of parliament apart by this Table – and I believe it was the Opposition Leader who told me it is two sword lengths. That may have been all right in the 1700s, but today, parliament has evolved and I do not believe that we should have an adversarial approach on every issue.
One way to overcome the adversarial approach is to use a select committee that we can establish, which allows us to take members from all sides of the political spectrum and try to come up with a consensus approach to issues confronting us. We have done that with the substance abuse committee. Except for perhaps one point in the findings of that committee on petrol sniffing, I would say there was total agreement.
We have looked at other issues as well, such as the Environmental Protection Agency. There is variation in the models, but generally speaking, as a parliamentary committee, we have agreed – sorry, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. I am probably speaking out of turn before the …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I do have to caution you not to breach parliamentary process.
Mr WOOD: That was not intentional; it was by way of example of what committees do.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: You almost got to the breach, but you stopped at the brink.
Mr WOOD: I do not think the world would have come to an end, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, but I do take the point. Actually, I just said it to make sure you are awake and you are, indeed, awake.
They were examples of where we have worked together as a committee to come up with a bipartisan or tripartisan approach to difficult issues. That is where we should be going with the parks issue. I had have briefings from both sides of parliament, and I thank the government and opposition for them. There are good points raised by both. However, I wonder whether it is time to stand back and look at the issue of park land tenure again.
One of the reasons I say that is from what I can count, we have seven or eight different types of land tenure for our parks. We have national parks that are leased back from Aboriginal owners and operated by Parks Australia. We have national parks leased back from the Aboriginal owners to the NT Conservation Land Corporation and operated by Parks and Wildlife. We have national parks under a deed of grant from Aboriginal owners to Parks and Wildlife Commission, and operated by Parks and Wildlife. We also have park freehold title, a form of title the government is proposing. We have Schedule 5 land, which is another form of park title. We have Crown land, as in existing Northern Territory Conservation Park, with native title management agreements being contemplated in the government’s legislation. We have national parks that are Crown land and do not have any native title agreements over them.
We have parks with a range of management regime and land tenure, and this would be a great opportunity for the Territory parliament to say: ‘Can we find a solution that would include all the rights of the Aboriginal people and include the rights, you might say, of the non-Aboriginal people?’ When I say that, I am thinking of something that is interwoven between the two: we get a land tenure that recognises that this park is made up of several parts that are intertwined, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal issues. These parks would then allow for Aboriginal heritage and culture, biodiversity, employment opportunities, all those things could be built into that land tenure, which would not be leasehold; it would be a park in perpetuity.
One of the problems we have with our parks is that many of them are now going to be 99-year leases. That is only one or two generations, but if you look at parks in general in Australia, like the Royal National Park, the oldest park in Australia, it is not a 99-year lease; it is there in perpetuity. You take Ku-ring-gai Chase, again one of the oldest parks in Australia, and Botany Bay, those parks are in perpetuity yet we will have a system of parks that have a 99-year lease. We will all be dead by then, but it could mean that those parks may not continue if the owners of them decide they do not wish to renew leases.
Look at the philosophy of why we have parks. We do not really develop parks for 99 years. We are saying we would like these parks to continue on in perpetuity. We are establishing a land tenure that does not really take into account what parks were originally for.
There is an opportunity to come up with something unique, and perhaps the Territory could show the way, something that shows that we as Territory parliamentarians can work together. We could take into account all the issues that the Chief Minister spoke about in the future frameworks debate.
The Leader of the Opposition has spoken about advancing the opportunities for Aboriginal people in these arrangements. We already know some of the Aboriginal people have not agreed with the government’s terms. Again, if we let these things fester, there will be more divisiveness.
Maybe I am nave and live in a utopian world, but this debate about parks, especially during an election year, will do more harm than good. There are times when we should say: ‘We have a responsibility to unite our communities, to try to find a way to come up with solutions that make our society better’. Other people would say the way to go is to have a great argument, take it to the next election, and whoever wins – well, that is the story. Fine, that is the way some people like to do it. Perhaps I was raised slightly differently. I do not mind a good argument in parliament. Maybe I do not have the grunt that some parliamentarians have; they really get stuck into it ...
Ms Martin: Yes, you have. You have the grunt.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but that is only when I am very passionate. We live in a world where there is a lot of conflict. It is all very well to say we do not like conflict to occur in Iraq, Beirut and all those places, but surely there are times when we should show that conflict can occur in our own society, and do our best to see whether we can avoid that conflict. Sure, we are not using guns or punching one another, but when you deal with issues of race and land, it can cause disharmony in our society.
I am saying to both sides of parliament that I will not vote on the parks issue. People might say that is sitting on the fence. No, it is not; I am saying there is a third opinion. The problem with an adversarial parliament is that is one opinion and that is the other opinion and, for the life of me, I cannot see why you cannot have more than two opinions. It is a bit like picking a type of car: a Toyota, Ford or Holden. This side might want the Holden and this side would want the Toyota; I like my Ford ute. That does not mean I am sitting on the fence. I am saying that on some of these complex issues, there are other opinions and solutions.
We should step back a bit, put this issue on hold, and send it off to a select committee. My reporting date of June 2005 may be impossible. It may require longer, but so what? If we can come up with a solution that takes a bit longer, don’t we have a better society to live in? Haven’t we encouraged people to work through problems that are difficult? Haven’t we encouraged Aboriginal people to work with white people? Haven’t we also encouraged people to have a better understanding of the issues before us?
I believe we can do it. I am not saying there will be a lot of support from other members of the parliament, but I propose it as a possible solution, and I hope members will at least give it some thought. I am interested in their comments.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I listened carefully to the member for Nelson’s argument about his motion. Whether this is an appropriate mechanism to deal with the bill before us, which is a solution to a High Court decision that we were not ever predicting, which he sees as a difference of opinion between one side of the House and the other, I should tell you at the outset that I am not going to be supporting it.
However, he raised some good issues. It is not useful to compare the situation in the Northern Territory with land tenure with New South Wales. We have very different systems, different laws applying to those systems, particularly when you consider the percentage of our indigenous population, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, which has been in place since 1976, and the different impact of native title throughout the Territory. We have a town like Alice Springs where there has been the first native title recognised over an urban area. We have seen some great results from that, but we do have a different land tenure combination. At this stage, it is not particularly productive to look at how our land tenure relates to other parts of Australia because, as we often say about the Territory, we are unique.
Turning specifically to the parks legislation, although we have done a lot of that tonight, and what you are proposing, I will go through the rationale of what we are doing. Government’s actions on parts will provide certainty and stability for the future. At present, we do not have that stability and certainty for the future. It will save Territory taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars wasted in costly litigation and the framework that government is implementing is not new and untried. Most states and territories either have or are now investigating how to resolve native title issues through joint management with indigenous interests and transfer of titles subject to lease back arrangements. We can give you more details of those if you are interested to find out. This process is not new within the Territory, where the title for many of our parks is not actually held by the government, but by the Conservation Land Corporation.
The previous government established joint management at Nitmiluk. The previous government also granted land in close proximity to Darwin to Aboriginal interests, thereby securing 60 km of pristine coast line and the site of first white settlement in the Territory as Aboriginal land leased back to the Territory for use as the Djukbinj jointly managed national park.
The arrangements being put in place through this legislation reflect many years of policy development within the Parks and Wildlife Commission. This is now forming the basis for thinking behind the Parks and Conservation Master Plan of which we should soon have a draft. There is also a master planning exercise which is currently drawing to conclusion and a parallel natural resource management planning process. Both of these processes have involved extensive research and wide community consultation with key interest groups, and through forums and discussion papers. There has been widespread community interest in the process. The master plan web site has been receiving about 5000 hits each month.
Parks play an important role in protecting our landscapes, natural features and wildlife, and associated cultural values for the enjoyment and appreciation of present and future generations. Government has a vision for the parks and reserves in the Territory. We have stated our intention to establish, maintain and manage a comprehensive system of parks and reserves. We are setting down in legislation what we mean by a comprehensive system. It is one that is developed in partnership between the Territory and the traditional owners of the parks and reserves. It benefits those traditional owners by recognising value and incorporating indigenous culture, knowledge and decision making processes, protects biological diversity, serves the educational and recreational needs of Territorians and visitors, and enjoys widespread community support.
The current parks and conservation reserves system comprises about 90 individual parks with a total area of about 50 000 km, or 4.7% of the land mass. Most of these parks are smaller than 50 km, while there are some notably large parks such as Kakadu, which is 20 000 km, and Gregory, which is the best part of 13 000 km.
Government recognises the reality that 42% of the Territory is Aboriginal freehold and 46% is pastoral leasehold. Government has already consulted widely, specifically on the issue of the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act. During the public consultation period, feedback received was generally very positive. Key stakeholders, including representatives from the tourism, mining, Aboriginal, pastoral, fishing and environmental sectors, were also fully briefed on the bill. The majority of these appreciate the many practical and positive benefits that flow from the act and not just as far as their own interests are concerned. There is widespread acknowledgement of the benefits that will flow for all Territorians. Perhaps this is because the legislation draws together a range of objectives beneficial to our community, including job creation, protection of biological diversity, enhancing recreational, educational and tourist opportunities, and creating a sound and sustainable economic base for regional development.
More specifically, the legislation provides for huge savings from protracted and confrontational litigation which was a feature of former CLP governments, tourism development and increased capacity to meet tourism demands and expectations, enhanced parks land management, Aboriginal social and economic development including improved opportunities for joint venture partnerships and employment, resolution of uncertainty regarding future developments, the development of constructive rather than adversarial relationships with traditional owners, and the expansion of parks estate through lease-back of additional Aboriginal land.
As I have stated previously, at its heart, this framework will provide the certainty required to establish a truly world-class and fully integrated national parks and reserves conservation system. That certainty will mean that our parks will continue to operate with the necessary guarantee of continued access and enjoyment by all Territorians on a no entry fee, no entry permit basis.
The government is very proud of what this legislation will achieve for all Territorians. As I said, there has been significant and detailed consultation with all stakeholders in this legislation. A select committee would add another layer of paper work and bureaucracy to the process without necessarily adding to the outcomes.
While your aspiration that we should be able to work as a parliament and get agreement, when politics comes into play, on some issues we are never going to have that agreement, and this is one of them.
The approach we have taken is a sane, sensible and rational one. It has very positive outcomes. It saves a lot of money from lawyers’ pockets - and I am not bagging lawyers, but it is not necessarily productive for jobs, enhanced tourism and a better parks system if we spend a lot of time in front of various institutions of the judiciary, be it the Aboriginal Land Commissioner or Native Title Tribunal. A lot of money is spent on litigation before those courts, even if you do not contest it. It is a very expensive exercise.
I believe that you have the grit for these things absolutely, but I do not think in this case we could, even if there was a select committee on this, that we would reach agreement with all parties. Appreciating what you offer in this motion, as I indicated, I do not intend to support it.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for her comments. She said the Territory is unique, and that is exactly the basis on which I proposed this, so we could come up with a unique solution. I understand the practicalities of that may be extremely difficult. Having a single land tenure over our parks would be very difficult, but that doesn’t mean one shouldn’t try.
She also said that land tenure in New South Wales is different from land tenure in the NT. That may be the case, but what I was referring to was that a national park, as in the Royal National Park, is a park in perpetuity. It would have been Crown land. We have set up quite a few parks that have 99-year leases. The difficulty I have with that is that to some extent, it leaves a park up in the air. It would not be the same as Royal, which will always be a park. In 99 years time, the traditional owners of the land we class as a national park may decide otherwise, and it could mean that the park does not exist as such.
I am looking at a form of land tenure that protects the rights of Aboriginal people, but does it in a way so that the rights are interwoven with the reason we have parks, which includes their reasons as well. We could be looking a land tenure that we do not have at all at present, and I would expect such discussions to involve the Commonwealth as well as the relevant Aboriginal parties. There are Commonwealth implications, when it comes to land in the Northern Territory, under the Land Rights Act.
Heaven forbid! The federal government is now going to have full control of both Houses of parliament and it may be an opportune time to look at whether there is any room for looking at rationalising land tenure in our parks.
Native title, in this land tenure, would not be in any way diminished, but, again, working a way whereby native title is intertwined into this land tenure and where you have agreements similar to what the Chief Minister proposed as management agreements, but you would be saying: ‘That is a park for all, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, and it is in perpetuity’. We do not quite achieve that with having park leases for 99 years. I know that is probably the most practical way to get around the issues that Aboriginal land rights have created in relation to park tenure, but we should be trying to do something better.
The Chief Minister said that politics gets in the way. To that, I could say: ‘Be an Independent’. That is the problem I have with party politics at times. I can listen to debates, and sometimes the debate is from one person here and one person there. Everyone else in the wings has to shut up because that is the person who is going to speak and we will all agree to what that person is going to say.
Sometimes, I reminisce about the way councils operate. I have always said that councils operate in a way parliament should operate. We would sit around a large table here, you would appoint your Chief Minister and Cabinet, but every issue would be taken on its merits by each person. In many ways, for a small population base the size of the Territory, which is no bigger in population than many cities and shires in Australia, I do not see a great deal of a problem with that system operating, but I know there will be many people who disagree with me.
Chief Minister, both sides are not that far apart, but the points of difference will be enlarged so that they look like major differences. I do not believe the differences are that great. I believe on this side, the government is saying: ‘We think your arrangements with Aboriginal people are not as generous as we believe they should be. Therefore, we think this is the system we should have and we could do that without changing the land tenure’. There are other differences. The opposition is saying, as I understand it, that you are giving away Schedule 2 parks because you are changing Crown land into new title, Park Freehold land, and then leasing it back. That may be the case, and if I was sticking with my concept of parks having a special title, that is probably close. I do not mind them saying it is Crown land.
There are some differences between the two sides. I do not think the CLP says that anything different will happen with parks that have land claims over them. They accept that they have a land claim on them, and government does, too. So the differences, I do not think, are enormously great. However, what I fear, as I said before, is that those differences will be put about in the media as much as possible because people will be trying to gain political points, especially coming up to an election. That is the process, and I live with the process as it is.
It would have been nice even to say: ‘Let us put a select committee together for at least a few months and see whether we can iron out the differences between ourselves’, and not even bother about going out to the wider community at this stage, and see whether we could sit down in a more quiet atmosphere than an adversarial one, and whether we could come up with even a compromise between both sides. There is nothing wrong with compromises. After all, that is why we debate. We hear another point of view and think: ‘That is not a bad idea; maybe we can just accordingly’.
I will not hold you up any longer at this late hour of the night. Thank you, Chief Minister, for your comments. I will try to promote it a bit more as life goes on. I will be interested in seeing how the debate travels, especially in an election year. I hope that we do not go down the path of divisiveness. The Territory has a history of divisiveness when it has come to land issues, and it would not be unique in divisiveness about land throughout the world. Land has always been an issue that has caused disharmony not only between races, but sometimes between neighbours and between the rich and poor. It is something that is not unique into the Northern Territory. As the Chief Minister said, we are different. I hope we can do things differently and find solutions that will not be to the detriment of the people who live in the Territory.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 13
- Mrs Braham Mr Ah Kit
Ms Carney Mr Bonson
Ms Carter Dr Burns
Mr Dunham Mr Henderson
Mr Elferink Mr Kiely
Dr Lim Ms Lawrie
Mr Maley Ms Martin
Mrs Miller Mr McAdam
Mr Mills Ms Scrymgour
Mr Wood Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion negatived.
SENTENCING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 126)
(Serial 126)
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I withdraw the Sentencing Amendment Bill 2003, Serial 126, standing in my name. I introduced this amendment as a means of protecting Aboriginal women and girls when customary law is raised as a means to reduce the sentencing penalty of an offender. I received much support for my bill from many Aboriginal organisations and other agencies but, unfortunately, did not receive full support from government.
Late last year, the government introduced its own amendment to the Sentencing Act so I sought comments from the same organisations. I received feedback supporting the government’s action and I quote one such advice:
This bill will ensure that when evidence about customary law is being presented to the court in defence
of the accused that equal opportunity will be given to the prosecution to test that evidence.
This allows the court to hear from other members of the Aboriginal community, in particular women
and those who are not necessarily obligated towards the offender.
We also strongly acknowledge that all women and girls in the Northern Territory should be afforded
full protection under Northern Territory legislation and the legal system.
Motion withdrawn.
BAIL AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 245)
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney General): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the government opposes this bill. We consider it to be bad law, both in concept and detail. If I can deal with the actual technical detail of the bill to begin with and point out some of the difficulties that we can see with the way that the amendment has been drafted, and then I will deal with the conceptual level …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell!
Dr TOYNE: … of the overall intent of the legislation.
The bill proposes to extend the offences for which a presumption against bail exists by including a section 7A, a repeat offence. This is defined as an offence that is the same as or similar to at least three indictable offences in respect of which the accused person has been convicted during the three years immediately preceding the date on which the application for bail is being determined.
It appears to work this way: a presumption against bail will apply where a person is seeking bail for an indictable offence. That offence is the same as or similar to at least three indictable offences of which the person has been convicted during the three years immediately prior to the date on which the application for bail is determined and multiple convictions for indictable offences made in the same proceedings only count as one indictable offence.
The second reading speech indicates that the objective is to require persons with a history of criminal activity to demonstrate why they should be given liberty. It is said to be aimed at what could be well described as habitual criminals. The amendment is not targeted at serious offending, but is aimed at repeat offending. The fact that an offence is indictable is not a guide to whether it is a serious incident of offending. Many indictable offences are dealt with in the lower court, for example simple stealing or receiving offences or property damage. This is just one problem with the bill.
The bill has several problems in achieving its stated objective. For example, the second reading speech says that the bill is aimed specifically at indictable offences. However, the offence in relation to which the bail presumption is to be reversed is described only as ‘an offence’. I presume the intention is that the offence must be an indictable one to answer the requirement for similarity to past offences but that is not clear on the face of the bill.
There are some summary offences that might be said to bear similarity to indictable offences. Examples are whether fighting in a public place or threatening violence, section 47AB of the Summary Offences Act, is similar to assault or whether illegal use of a vehicle, section 49A of the Summary Offences Act, is similar to indictable property offences.
Another problem area is the determination of whether the current offence is the same or similar to the previous three offences. It is said this should be determined ‘in the opinion of the authorised member’ or police officer ‘or the court’. A number of problems arise. How do you assess similarity? Are the offences within the same section of the Criminal Code or the general nature of offending? For example, dishonesty offences. Is a sexual offence similar to a personal violence offence? There is no mechanism to review a determination as to similarity. Do the Bail Act review provisions apply to allow a review of the determination itself whether the offence is the same or similar, or do they only allow a review of the process of determination?
An authorised member or police officer can make a determination that results in a different legal presumption. This may be an exercise of judicial power by a non-judicial officer and is therefore unlawful. Each of these issues is likely to give rise to legal challenges.
A serious flaw with the formula established by the bill is the uneven application to offenders. For example, offender A has a criminal record consisting of three offences of receiving stolen goods, all committed three years ago, but for which he was sentenced on separate occasions and is before the court now on a further receiving charge. He will have a presumption against bail. Offender B was similarly convicted three years ago for three property offences over a period of time, but he was dealt with on a single occasion. This counts as only one indictable offence and so he will not have the presumption reversed when he applies for bail. Offender C was convicted of multiple violence offences four years ago for which he received a four-year sentence. He has a history of violent offences dating back 10 years. On release, he re-offends within a short period. The presumption of bail will not apply to him because the prior offences are outside the three-year limit. Because the offenders were dealt with in a procedurally different manner, the presumption will operate differently. This is not a good example of law making.
There are other technical issues regarding the interpretation and application of the bill, however I now want to turn, as I foreshadowed, to the basic policy clash between the government and opposition reflected in this bill. The government is committed to tackling causes of crime. This government attacks crime from an evidence base so as to maximise the effect on criminal behaviour. This is to be compared with the CLP approach: broad-brush, headline grabbing, non-targeted, all ineffective and costly, the hit-and-hope method of reducing crime.
We are happy to stand on our record. Allow me to give you an example. We identified that 20% of offenders commit 80% of property crime in 2001. We then identified a relationship between drugs and serial property crime. We established an evidence base for that relationship and set about establishing offences specifically designed to tackle drug-based offending. We also initiated intelligence-led policing strategies to tackle drug offending and property crime. We expanded the tools available to police and courts through DNA legislation and legislation to seize the proceeds of crime. Police in operations use these tools to target this category of serial offenders.
We then put in place the drug courts to divert offenders away from a major cause of serial offending: a drug habit. We identified the specific criminal behaviour and the cause of it. We made sure police have the tools to catch and prosecute offenders and we made sure specific offences targeted the behaviour. The effect of this targeted, evidence-based approach is that property crime has fallen by 47% in three years. It has fallen from a high of 32 054 offences in 2001 when the CLP hit-and-hope strategy of mandatory sentencing produced its full legacy to 20 727 in 2004-05 because of these smarter crime prevention strategies. The proof is in the pudding.
Madam Speaker, the bill before us is merely another example of hit-and-hope legislation. It is not targeted. It is flawed in its construction, and its objective will not be met. The government is opposed to the bill.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I support the bill. We heard the minister say that the government will not support it. That does not come as any surprise to commentators or to this side of the House. The government is reluctant to support anything, even well thought out and logical suggestions such as this, from the opposition or, indeed, independents.
The reasons the government sought to justify its lack of support of this bill really are superficial. The Attorney-General talked about technical difficulties. We know that these technical difficulties could, if the Attorney-General was serious about dealing with them, being remedied by way of a short amendment, but no, the Attorney-General has come before this House without any constructive measures to help this legislation.
Further confirmation that the Attorney-General is lazy is that he did not seek a briefing. There was a briefing available for him. His secretary could have contacted our secretary, and I would have perhaps got that secretary to give him a bit of a briefing, but he did not do that, so he cannot come here and complain that he did not understand the legislation if he did not seek a briefing. We were waiting for that call, and we would have taken him through it, step by step. He would have had a grasp, an understanding of this, and that would have, I suspect, changed his view and the attitude he took today.
The Attorney-General talked about problems such as assessing what is a similar offence. He said this is a difficulty, and the person exercising that discretion would have difficulty in determining whether this prior conviction was an offence of a similar nature to the subsequent conviction. The intent of the bill is clear. If it is an indictable offence, that is all that is required. So it these serious, indictable offences that the learned member for Macdonnell is seeking to catch in this bill.
Let us not for a moment forget the genesis of this bill: the community is, quite frankly, sick and tired of having their homes broken into. The community is sick and tired of this perception that perpetrators commit these offences and there is a revolving door at the courts. This amendment does not seek to exclude the important discretion the courts exercise. All it is doing is sending a clear message to the courts and the community that if you are a person who is of the view that you can continue to commit these serious indictable offences, eventually your chain is going to come to the end and there will be a presumption against bail, that is, a presumption that can be reversed if you can satisfy the court or the police officer that there are a number of real reasons for granting liberty. It is consistent with the presumption of innocence. We are dealing with the bail aspects here, the remand, a portion of the sentencing process.
I have read the well drafted second reading speech and, clearly, the member for Macdonnell put a fair bit of thought and effort into this. He should be commended for articulating and amplifying the concerns of his constituents and the people of the northern suburbs and the NT in the form of this very good bill. Credit where credit is due. I will quote a small portion of that second reading speech to which I would have taken the Attorney-General during the course of a briefing if he had sought one. As the learned member for Macdonnell said:
- Most people manage to go through life without being regularly charged with indictable offences, let alone
convicted of them. This bill only affects those in our community who have repeatedly breached the trust of the
community. If they ask for trust to be extended to them, then they must demonstrate why.
I do not think any more can be said.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the member for Goyder’s contribution. I am sure the judges and magistrates of the Northern Territory will enjoy what contributions he has to make after he retires from politics.
As I seriously considered the bill in the same way as the member for Goyder clearly has, I wish to make some comments based, essentially, on what the Attorney-General said in reply. He referred to the bill’s flawed construction and made a couple of other references - I did not manage to take notes. In respect of the flawed construction of the bill, I suggest that is a bit cute in light of what can only be described as the hissy fit that the government had in response to vigorous questioning I had in relation to a bill that came before us in about October last year. The hissy fit was based on the fact that I got stuck into it and suggested that the bill was flawed. I do not know whether the Attorney-General needed to bite his tongue but, for a moment there, I thought he was going to describe it as ‘a dog’s breakfast’, member for Macdonnell. On occasions, he can be measured and perhaps tonight was one of them.
The Attorney-General would have us believe that every word he utters is true. I actually disagree with much of what he said. It seemed to me that he came up with all of the reasons why the bill should be opposed. In other words, all the reasons why not to agree with the sentiments and purpose expressed by the member for Macdonnell when he presented this bill. This is typical of the Labor government. Instead of actually getting on with things, doing things, producing the goods, they seem to just go chasing their tail, going around in circles, coming up with all of the reasons why not to do something;. Well, we ask them to do something.
This bill is inspired. The reversal of the presumption of bail borders on genius and the member for Macdonnell, in his usual eloquent way, expressed the reasons why it applies only to those charged with indictable offences in his second reading speech.
The community does expect us, as legislators, to respond to their needs and wishes. I do not think that any government should be guided by media headlines. Equally, though, I do not think any of us should ignore the sentiment of the community, if you accept, as I do, that a publication such as the Northern Territory News or an august body such as the ABC would be reasonably accurate measures or gauges of public opinion. Public opinion, as measured by comments on talkback radio - of course, I am talking about commercial radio as well - and also in the Northern Territory News, the Centralian Advocate and a number of other publications, suggests to me that the community agrees with the reversal of the presumption of bail. One need only flick through the NT News to see that the people we are all meant to represent are dissatisfied with particular cases where they see people accused being set free, as they see it, on bail.
We do have a responsibility to respond and to be responsive. I know the Attorney-General and others will disagree, but I do not think this government is serious about protecting the victims of crimes, or at least giving them a voice. We have seen it in a number of forms. We have seen it in the way that two years ago the Attorney-General made changes to the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Act. He was told then and has been told consistently by me and others that those changes were not good, that they resulted in victims being denied access to justice. He disagreed with me on that and yet, thankfully, because lawyers continued to make representations to him, my understanding is that he will announce changes to the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Act to increase the cost lawyers can charge so that more victims can access those lawyers, thereby no longer being denied access to justice.
We saw it yesterday in Question Time when the Chief Minister was asked a question about what counselling services had been provided for that prominent Territorian who had been charged with numerous sex offences. We see in other jurisdictions, and the news reports tell us this, that counsellors were deployed at various schools and so on and that is what other governments have done. Unlike here in the Northern Territory under the regime of the Labor government, in other jurisdictions those people charged were not the beneficiaries of suppression orders, but those governments in other jurisdictions provided the counsellors. They had them on-site and we saw them on the television. We saw the counsellors walk into schools and so on. Not here, and the Chief Minister seems more obsessed with protecting, it seems to me, that prominent Territorian, and not giving any thought to the alleged victims. I do not think this government is good for victims. That is a view I strongly hold and I do not think there is anything the Attorney-General and his colleagues can do to dissuade me from that view.
I return to the bill at hand. I see it as a useful tool for victims of crime. It is a good bill and I am not surprised, but again disappointed, that this Labor government is a can’t-do government. It comes up with all of the reasons it can possibly imagine why not to do something. We want you to do all sorts of things, Attorney-General and Chief Minister. You refuse to do them and this is yet another example.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, there are no major surprises in the attitude of government. It is a refreshing change not to have the minister announce that the government is going to pilfer the idea and put it into its own legislation.
The minister’s opening comment was that it is a drafting problem. I am not a lawyer. I sought advice from Parliamentary Counsel. If he wishes to criticise Parliamentary Counsel, I am sure that he can take it up with the Leader of Government Business who will scream and yell abuse at him for diminishing Parliamentary Counsel’s role in this. The drafting is fine and I thank Parliamentary Counsel for their kindness and efforts in relation to it. From time to time, people criticise drafting because it suits their purposes to do so and, sometimes, there might even be reasons for it. Parliamentary Counsel do not walk across swimming pools as a matter of course and might not be perfect, and I understand that. Anyway, that is by the by.
This bill was a genuine attempt to say to the meat heads, villains and scum bags out there who break into our houses and steal our cars and steal our property: ‘If you get yourself convicted three times in three years, you obviously have a crime problem. You, as a result of that, then come to the attention of an authorised member or a magistrate in the meantime, well, stiff, stupid, you are going to have to convince us why you deserve to be at liberty’. It is not any more complex than that. The minister can cite all of the different examples and say: ‘If someone is only convicted of the minor offence of stealing and they are convicted in the first instance of three offences of stealing, they fall outside the realms of this bill’. That is true, but you have to draw lines and parameters somewhere and legislation does it all the time. Legislation has absolutes. The spent convictions legislation has a cut-off date in it. There are cut-offs in all sorts of legislation. There is nothing new in cut-off dates and parameters in legislation. You have to set them arbitrarily. Sometimes they catch people and sometimes they do not. The point is that this government’s response is that it is all too hard and therefore we cannot do it.
In terms of saying that an authorised member has to exercise judicial discretion, they do it anyhow. If the minister reads the Bail Act and you read the conditions and terms upon which bail is granted or refused, they are required to exercise a certain amount of discretion because the line between judicial and administrative decisions is not a clearly definitive line; it is blurred like all things in the real world. Clear dividing lines are often very hard to find, but we require it in legislation of authorised members all the time and we ask it of OICs of police stations and sergeants of police. If you look at the operation of administrative law, you have many judicial officers do quasi-administrative work in different aspects of law.
It is a farcical argument and a cute little way in which the minister can say it is not worth doing because there are with it. Well, yes, there are problems with anything if you look at it. The minister only had to come and get a briefing and I could have explained all this to him. It is common practice for this government to not seek briefings, and they rely on the briefing that I give to this House called a second reading speech. I do not mind that because my second reading speech clearly explained what I was intending to do. If the government disagrees with it, they could simply have said: ‘We do not agree. We do not believe that the presumption bail should be reversed and we do not support legislation.’
But, no, they had to find problems with the technical aspects. No need. If you do not agree with it, say so. Say: ‘This is wrong. We do not want to do it’. That way, we create a point of difference between the members on this side of the House and the members on that side. That is all you have to do.
Rather than doing that, you decided to do a number on the bill and you had an each-way bet. You said it is badly drafted and will not reach the intention you are after. All you had to say was: ‘We do not believe there is a presumption that bail should be reversed in these circumstances and get nicked; we are not doing it’. You are the government; you could have chosen to do that. I am sure that the minister for Police, were he the Chief Minister, would certainly be supporting these tough measures on crime.
Madam Speaker, there is no surprise in this. I find it slightly refreshing that the government does not intend to steal this policy for a change, and we finally have a point of difference between the government and ourselves. There is no surprise that they do not support this. Big deal. At least be honest about them and tell Territorians you do not support trying to protect their property.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Order of Business
Order of Business
Motion agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I would like to, again in adjournment, raise issues regarding the fire safety and other safety defects at the Alice Springs Hospital. The minister had a bit to say today when, in the context of another debate, we were discussing the broken election promise of providing the oncology unit and he had a swipe at me and a comments I made last night about the Alice Springs Hospital.
Before dealing with what he said, I thought it appropriate to comment on what he said in parliament today. I note that despite my invitation to provide answers to all of the questions I asked last night, he has not done so, although there is one sitting day left and, of course, we had adjournment tonight so there is still time.
However, the minister had a go at me today by saying that I was in the business of name calling. What hypocrisy! He was the one yesterday who called me ‘the member for cheap shots’. Today in a radio interview, he said, and it was more colourful, that I was an ‘old coal burner’. Now if that is not name calling, I am not sure what is. These sorts of puerile comments really do demean the minister, but it doesn’t worry me at all and in fact what I have learnt over the last couple years is that you can actually track his public comments, either on radio or in his media releases, and when he gets into those sort of names, I smell blood, I know I am onto something, so it certainly does not worry me. When he starts with the name calling, I know that my course of action is clear and I know that I am onto something.
I could not let his comment today pass without my own comment in response. However, what I said in relation to fire safety and other safety issues at the Alice Springs Hospital is that the minister has some questions to answer, and I outlined a number of questions last night. Those questions, in essence, relate to his conduct. I said, and I repeat, that there is an aroma of skulduggery surrounding the timing of his announcement of $8m only three weeks after the Alice Springs Hospital gaining accreditation. He does need to report to parliament about this matter. He does need to account to the people of the Northern Territory, and in particular the people of Alice Springs. I note that he made some comments on radio today, and I will get to them shortly. I make the point at this stage that when I raised this matter in adjournment last night, I went down to the last two or three seconds of the time permitted to me. I fully intended last night to make further comments tonight, so I am glad, while the minister has not reported to the parliament, at least he has done a radio interview because, interestingly, even more questions arise from his comments.
The minister said on radio today that the accreditation team at the Alice Springs Hospital were:
- … aware of the fact that the building was not compliant with the national code on the information we had.
At the time the survey was completed, they decided on the basis of the very detailed repair plan that had been
produced on the basis of faults that had been highlighted that was not a reason to withhold accreditation.
I ask the following questions of the minister: What was the additional information to which he referred? Did it include provision of the April 2003 report? Did it include provision of the other 24 reports and assessments that the minister says exist? If not, why not? Since June 2004, has the minister received any more reports and assessments about safety or fire safety issues? If so, what were they and were they provided to the accreditation team and will he make those reports public? Can the minister also advise when the survey was completed in June 2004, why there was no mention anywhere in the report to non-compliance with building codes?
The minister made much of the part of the report dated June 2004 by the accreditation team in the debate we had earlier today when he went off on a bit of an excursion. At least it was something, but it certainly does not amount to providing anything in the way a full series of answers to any of the questions I raised last night. The minister referred to part of the report in an earlier debate. I thought I would put it on the record for the purpose of this debate tonight.
On page 4 of the accreditation team’s report dated June 2004, it states:
- A significant issue was raised at the last ACHS survey in regard to fire systems and certificates of
occupancy following the redevelopment of the Alice Springs Hospital. The resulting ACHS priority
rating and subsequent fire inspection report has ensured that the fire safety issues have received
extensive attention and action since the survey. All recommendations are being addressed and are
on target for completion this year per the Fire Action Plan. Extensive engineering reviews of the
hospital redevelopment have revealed further building deficiencies. The government has announced
funding to repair all outstanding building deficiencies commencing 2004.
I ask the following questions of the minister: why did the review team refer to a fire department report in October 2002 elsewhere in its report when, as the minister would apparently have us believe, the more recent information was provided to the accreditation team? What was the date of the ACHS last survey to which the author referred on page 4 of the report? Was it prior to June 2004, and if so what was the date? What was the date of the ‘subsequent fire inspection report’ to which the author refers on page 4, and will the minister table it?
I have just quoted from the report, which states that:
- Extensive engineering reviews of the hospital redevelopment have revealed further deficiencies. The
government announced funding to repair all outstanding building deficiencies commencing in 2004.
It is worth repeating. I remind members that the accreditation team report was dated June 2004. At that time and, in fact, only one month before, in May 2004, the minister announced $2m in funding. The question has to be asked whether that was in anticipation of the accreditation team’s report. Further, the review team apparently believed that the funding of $2m was enough for all outstanding building deficiencies as commented upon on page 4 of the report. It appears as though all of the outstanding building deficiency repair works would commence in 2004. There is an inference that it would probably be completed in 2004, but I will leave that for another time.
The facts are clear. At the time, the accreditation team had certain information, but we do not know what it was. What we do know, however, is that they could not have had details about the extra $8m worth of funding the minister announced in February this year because it was announced some eight months – I will repeat that - some eight months after the accreditation report was completed. If the ACHS team members did know that another $8m was needed, why did the minister wait until February this year to announce the $8m? If there is another conclusion to be drawn, I invite the minister to tell me what it is.
In addition, just in case the minister is in any doubt as to how peculiar his conduct appears, the ACHS said in their report that they thought that all building repairs were to occur in 2004. It is now 2005, and we know that certain works are commencing this year, not last year. I ask the minister: did the ACHS know what the minister knew? I suggest that that is the most pressing question that arises from this issue.
However, there are more and I will continue to ask them with a view to the minister coming into parliament tomorrow and providing the answers. Can the minister categorically say that the accreditation review team was provided with any information after the date of the report in June 2004? When the minister announced in his media release of 2 February that a detailed examination has revealed that the problems at the hospital are even ‘more serious than first thought’, was the accreditation team made aware of this, even though his announcement was made three weeks after accreditation had, in fact, been gained?
I also ask: what the nature was of the ‘detailed examination’ to which the minister referred in his media release of 2 February? Was that detailed examination in the form of a written report? If so, what is the date of that report and will the minister table it? Did the minister know when he received the accreditation report in June last year that there were more reports being obtained? If so, did he advise the accreditation team to inform them that contrary to the view expressed in their report that everything would be done in 2004, or at least started; that more assessments and reports were actually being prepared, and were those reports conveyed to accreditation team?
The minister said on radio this morning that the accreditation team:
- … decided on the basis of the very detailed repair plan that had been produced on the basis of the
faults that had been highlighted that there was no reason to withhold accreditation.
In response to that, I ask the minister: was that ‘very detailed repair plan’ the same plan that the minister referred to on radio today as the ‘detailed examination’, and was that also the same as that referred to in his media release of 2 February? Is it the same plan? If so, will the minister table it?
I said last night that the chronology of events raises some questions, and I repeat that. I also ask the following questions: on 7 February, the CEO of the Health Department was reported in the NT News to have said that some defects have been repaired, but others had not. Based on Mr Griew’s comments, can the minister confirm that, despite knowing since April 2003 about the faulty switch board, it is now ‘due to be redesigned’, the faulty hospital pager system is now ‘set to be replaced’, and that the entire electrical system is now ‘being reviewed’ and why have these not been repaired almost two years after the minister knew about them? Did he assure the accreditation team that these would be repaired and, if so, what, if any, time frames were provided to the team?
In today’s Northern Territory government Gazette, under the heading Contracts Awarded for Various Departments, there is a reference to the Alice Springs building ‘replace existing fire detection system’. In relation to this, I ask the minister to confirm whether the replacement of that system was discussed with the review team. When was it reported to the minister that the system needed to be replaced and what was the reason for the delay from the time it was reported to the minister and the awarding of the job?
Moving to another matter the minister raised in a radio interview today, I was concerned, to say the least, and I hope the minister has received advice on this, and I am pitching to him in his capacity as Attorney-General, the Territory’s first law officer. The Attorney-General today referred to pending legal action as a result of various defects at the Alice Springs Hospital and the Attorney-General named present and past members of the Assembly. The Attorney-General said: ‘They are in the frame’. I ask the Attorney-General: has legal action been commenced in relation to the refurbishments at the hospital? If so, who are the parties named as defendants? If legal proceedings have not been commenced, when does he expect a Statement of Claim to be filed in the Supreme Court? Are members he named in the radio interview today going to be named as defendants? If the people he named are not going to be joined in legal proceedings, does the Attorney-General concede that his comments as the first law officer of the Northern Territory were unwise, imprudent and politically motivated?
I say that the minister as Attorney-General and Minister for Health is sailing very close to the wind with those comments. He may wish to consider withdrawing them or at least not repeating them publicly. I suggest that the minister is in a bit of trouble about his conduct and handling of the refurbishments at the Alice Springs Hospital and to become carried away and outrageously naming members of the Assembly and saying that they are in the frame, the minister does a disservice to himself, and clearly demonstrates that he should not be the Attorney-General of the Northern Territory if he is going to be coming up with claptrap like that.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I pay tribute to Neville Walker. Unfortunately, I was not able to contribute to the condolence motion this morning, and I extend my condolences to Joanne and the family on the loss of a great Territorian, a Territorian who made things happen, a true pioneer, a man who, with Frazer Henry, built a great company, Henry and Walker, from the ground up through hard work and determination.
There is an old saying that I have not heard for a while: the harder you work, the luckier you are. Certainly, you can say that of Neville Walker.
I did not know Neville Walker very well or as a great personal friend. He is a man I have admired since my time in the Territory by just watching the success of the company. Since coming to government and attaining the portfolio of Business Minister and the Economic Development Summit, I did come to know Neville Walker fairly well and had a number of very interesting discussions with him. A great regret is not finding the time to take up his offer to take my boys out to Marrakai and to spend some time on the flood plains, on the jet boats. Sitting in the cathedral yesterday during his funeral, I regretted that I did not find the time in a busy life to take up that opportunity.
Much has been said about Neville and his contribution. Those words will stay on the public record forever through the Hansard of this parliament. However tonight, as well as me passing my condolences to Joanne and the family and saying Vale, Neville Walker, one person who has asked government to put his testimony on the public record for Neville was a very good friend of his, Wal King, AO, Chief Executive Officer of Leighton Holdings Limited and President of the Australian Constructors Association. Wal asked that this tribute be read into the Parliamentary Record as his tribute to Neville Walker:
- It is with great anguish and sadness that my colleague Dieter Adamsas and I were, regretfully, unable to
present yesterday. Neville Walker was our mate.
I speak on behalf of the Australian construction and contracting industry, Leighton Holdings, Dieter Adamsas,
my family and myself.
I first met Neville in Darwin in 1969 when I was working at Gove. That was some years after Frazer Henry
and Neville Walker had started their business in the Northern Territory.
The 1960s was a period without mobile phones, the Internet, computers and airconditioning. By sheer
determination, courage and self-belief, Neville created the business, earning an unparalleled reputation
for successfully executing challenging engineering projects in remote areas.
Frazer and Neville channelled their energies into their work, overcoming numerous obstacles to establish
a very successful contracting and construction company in the Northern Territory.
In the 1960s and 1970s, operating in this harsh environment required vision, commitment, a strong spirit and
a zest for life to survive and succeed. Neville always came through.
Henry Walker listed on the Australian Stock Exchange in 1981 and the business grew into a multi-disciplined
contractor operating across Australia by the late 1980s.
By the end of the 1990s, Henry Walker had absorbed another contracting company, Eltin, and had spread
across Australia with successful operations in Africa and South America.
Anyone who travels around Australia will see numerous projects that Neville helped to build. These projects
changed the face of Australia. Many of the roads that we drive on in WA, the NT and Queensland were the result
of Neville’s efforts. Neville was one of the cornerstones of the Australian construction industry, which emerged
in the post-war years. He helped raise the profile and reputation of Australian contractors on the world stage.
The major contractors express their sympathy to Neville’s family and close friends. He has been a pioneer in the
economic development of Australia, and the Northern Territory in particular. There is no doubt the numerous
infrastructure and mining projects completed by the company he led will mark the achievements of his life. He
will be remembered by his many friends in the industry for his honesty, integrity and his resolute determination
to succeed by working with people.
Neville Walker was an extraordinary Australian and Northern Territorian. His contribution to the development
of the Australian construction industry is incalculable, and he has been marked by the President of Australian
Construction Achievement Award.
Anyone who had the honour of meeting Neville was the richer for it. In these troubled times, all our thoughts
are with Neville’s family, his friends at Henry Walker Eltin and beyond.
I remember fondly in more recent times Dieter and I and our sons spending time on Marrakai and Channel Point
with Neville. Here we saw the hospitable, relaxed, very much at home Neville. He told stories – some tall, some
enlightening, but overall, entertaining. Neville could not have been happier in that environment.
On the other side, I saw him in a business suit, very much at home with the captains of industry.
I will remember the great person, the great friend who never lost the common touch, and earned the respect of
people of all ages. Neville, you have a special place in my life; I will always remember and miss you.
Wal King, AO.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am sure there are many more hundreds of people who would like their testimony also placed on the public record, but I am pleased that I have been able to do this tonight on behalf of Wal King, the CEO of Leighton Holdings and, more importantly, the President of the Australian Constructors Association.
Neville Walker was held in very high regard by many thousands of people around the world. He will be sorely missed. Vale, Neville Walker.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, one of the great joys of being a member of parliament is that occasionally you get to abuse your position, and I am going to abuse my position tonight insofar as I get to speak directly to the minister about the day-to-day complaints about the operation of government departments as they affect you.
To shed some light, I want to raise the matter of a bill from the Power and Water Corporation today, according to my other half in Alice Springs. It is a final demand for my power and water. I have never in my life failed to pay my bills so to receive final demands causes me concern.
I wondered whether I had missed the bill. No, I have not missed the original bill; it was never sent. This, of course, leads me to the more general problem of the billing problems in the Power and Water Corporation. And the general billing problem is simply this: the billing system is failing. I can suffer this and cop it on the chin. I can reach very quickly into my pocket, grab the $350-odd, whatever is outstanding, and I can pay it.
However, there are many Territorians who cannot readily reach into their pocket and grab their $350 or whatever they have to pay for their bills, and I wonder how many other Territorians, because of the faults in the billing system, are receiving final demand notices or risk having their power cut off, which is what is being suggested on these final notices. I am deeply concerned that there are many Territorians who are receiving these notices. Now, I do not know what has gone wrong with the billing system in the Power and Water Corporation, but I do know this: I did not receive any other form of bill other than the final demand. If I am any yardstick to go by, there are many other Territorians in the same boat. I wonder how many Territorians who are trying to support families, single income families with two or three kids, mums at home, or dad at home with one spouse working - I wonder what they would be feeling if all of a sudden they started getting those little red notices in an envelope with a little window on it.
Mr Wood: No pink slips any more.
Mr ELFERINK: Whatever form they come in, I have not seen this final notice; I have simply been told over the telephone.
I also wonder, because I have been away for a few weeks, if the Power and Water Corporation were going to action this final demand, and if, all of a sudden, I come home and find that my power had been cut off. Now, it would not take that much for me to get it back on, but I wonder how many other Territorians have been in a position where it would affect them because they have gone on holidays, and they come back thinking that they do not have a problem.
This is a problem that the government has to get across, and it is not a small problem. Income for the Power and Water Corporation has been seriously affected, so this must be happening to thousands of Territorians, and even through a few conversations I have had today, companies are receiving major bills for power consumption. There are questions hanging over accuracy and amounts of power and water used, and this is a very serious issue. Because the revenue income is so badly affected, it must be Territory-wide, endemic and affecting thousands of Territory families. I urge the minister to and explain what on earth is going on because, clearly, the situation has gotten out of hand.
I am also advised tonight, and I seek some correction, but the member for Fannie Bay, as Chief Minister, has announced to the Waratah Sports Club that she will never allow the Waratah Sports Club to go to the wall. The rumour I hear is that Waratah Sports Club does have financial difficulties at the moment, and I am curious to hear from the Minister for Sport and Recreation how much this is going to cost the Territory taxpayer in relation to the Waratah Sports Club if a bail out package is proposed, and out of what budget or whose budget that amount of money is going to come.
I do not know what the case is for the Waratah Sports Club, it might be a very good case if, indeed, they are in this trouble. But if they are and the Chief Minister has made this promise, I would like to know from which budget it is coming, which other sports club may miss out as a result of this, and what processes are going to be gone through to help the Waratah Sports Club. I know that the minister is very keen to help the Western Bulldogs, and is keen to have other members of this House help the Western Bulldogs, but I remind the minister that charity starts at home.
Clearly, the member for Fannie Bay, the Chief Minister, seems to think so. I urge a clear, open and honest account as to what money is going to be forwarded to the Waratah Sports Club and who else as a result of that is going to miss out.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the Darwin Surf Life Saving Club is within my electorate and provides a valuable service to both my constituents and the wider community and, as Patron of the Darwin Surf Life Saving Club, I am always pleased to hear of the success of our surf life saving representatives at national competitions, and to be able to share with you their recent successes.
In January this year, members of the Darwin Surf Life Saving Club travelled to South Maroubra Beach in New South Wales to contest the interstate championships. The Australia Day weekend carnival is second only to the Australian Championships and attracts some of the best in the country. The team comprised many Darwin Surf Life Saving Club members, some of whom were very competitive in the challenging seas. The Darwin men’s open surf boat crew shocked the most experience states by placing well in damaging 3 m waves.
Stand-outs were 17-year-old Haley McKinnon in the surf races where she gave her team the edge, and many of the youthful competitors. She followed this up the next day by winning the Under 19 women’s surf race at Manly Beach against some of the more fancied competitors. Haley McKinnon’s background as a NTIS scholar, and her strength in pool swimming prepared her well. She had a gruelling week at the AIS in Canberra in December 2004 before first competing in January 2005 at the Queensland Swimming Championships. Then she flew straight to New South Wales to contest their state swimming championships, where she finished with three medals in the company of some notable Olympic swimmers – and all this, only days prior to the surf triumphs.
I am very proud to be involved with such a dedicated group who are committed to developing our youth for sport and community involvement by giving them the opportunity to learn new skills and gain a community spirit.
I would now like to speak about two young people, one of them living in my electorate the other in Wanguri. First, I would like to speak about Simone Liddy, a very young constituent of mine, a Dripstone High student who has the classic combination of brains and athletic prowess. The Territory hockey star has become the first indigenous Territorian to score a pharmacy cadetship with the Department of Health and Community Services that includes 12 weeks annual work placement at Royal Darwin Hospital for each year of her four-year degree.
Simone is 17 years old and achieved a tertiary entrance rank of 87.9 last year after completing Year 12 at Dripstone High School, and credited her teachers at Dripstone High for helping her to fulfil her academic potential. She now has her sights firmly set on a career in pharmacy, despite some initial doubts. When I spoke to Simone, she told me that she was very scared at first about leaving school and having to make a decision that will affect her life. Becoming a pharmacist will provide her with a lot of opportunity in life, and is a stable, well paid job. She said:
- I was always interested in getting a job that would somehow relate to science, and being a pharmacist at RDH is
not just about selling and dispensing drugs. With my cadetship, I will be able to interact with the doctors and
patients at RDH, and work out what medication the patients really need.
Simone will receive a $12 000 scholarship per year, and she will commence her studies at Charles Darwin University this year before moving to Curtin University in Perth to complete the final three years of her pharmacy degree. One advantage of moving to Curtin University is that Western Australia’s domestic hockey competition is one of the world’s best and is played at the Curtin campus.
Simone is a current NTIS scholarship holder and has represent the Territory at junior level without fail since wearing the black, white and ochre uniform for the first time seven years ago as a primary school student. She said moving to Western Australia could also improve her chances of fulfilling her hockey dream of playing for the Territory Pearls in the National Hockey League.
Simone’s cadetship is funded by the Department of Health and Community Services Human Resources and Work Force Development Branch under the National Indigenous Cadetship Program. I would like to wish Simone, first of all, congratulations and good luck with her studies. I would like to assure you her that CDU will offer fantastic studies for the first year and that Curtin University is a fantastic university. It is one of the universities from which I graduated, and will provide not only the educational background, but also the opportunity to train and perfect her hockey because I know Simone is a fantastic hockey player.
Another young person, Susan Farquhar, is a 19-year-old former Dripstone High School and Casuarina Secondary College student. Susan is the first recipient of the Minister for Mines and Energy’s Earth Science and Geology cadetship. Last year, when I attended the Geology NT Chapter dinner, one of the things that was discussed was the lack of young people to study or to work in geology in the Northern Territory. At that dinner, I promised that I would work with my department to find a way to attract young people into geology.
Following a few exciting moments with the department, we managed to come up with the idea of providing a scholarship of $12 000 per year for three years for young people to study geology in the Territory for the first year, at another university for the next two years and then come and work in the Territory. We will provide work experience during the long holidays in the summer time either in the department or with the mining industry. The department will provide a mentor to support the person in his or her studies. I was very pleased when we had about seven applicants. Six of them were interviewed and Susan Farquhar, a 19-year-old lady was the first person to receive this cadetship. It is exciting because usually geology is a field that men are attracted to, but this time we had a young woman who applied and received the cadetship.
I extend Susan Farquhar my best wishes for successful studies and I am looking forward to her coming back and helping the Territory to achieve its goal of growth and help the mining industry by being a successful geologist.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to talk briefly about a number of subjects.
I would like to thank Karen Ralphs for organising the Litchfield Region Australia Day Awards recently. She always does a great job. There was quite a large crowd at the Freds Pass Reserve this year and, as usual, she organises it with finesse and it always goes off well. There was certainly plenty of food to eat, like the Australia Day cake. I did see one kid take the whole of Tasmania with him. He was, obviously, very hungry. You get that with fruit cake on Australia Day. There was plenty of other food like lamingtons and other traditional foods.
A member: Vegemite sandwiches.
Mr WOOD: I am not sure whether there were vegemite sandwiches, but there was plenty of food.
I should mention those people who won the awards. The Young Citizen award went to the Howard Springs Scout Group, which I have a fair bit to do with from time to time. Our Citizen of the Year was Sylvia Pratt, known as Pepe. Pepe has worked with the Humpty Doo Volunteer Fire Brigade for years and years. She is a great worker, giving a lot of her time in that area of volunteering.
Ron Thomas is also in the fire brigade. He helped establish the Berry Springs fire brigade and I believe he is still involved in that. The Community Event of the year went to the Mango Ball. That was a great event. I know it very well. I had to dress up in a silly suit that made me sweat all night. It is a wonder I lasted. The people who organised that Mango Ball are Lee Berryman and her committee. They did a marvellous job. Ted Egan came to that ball and gave us a couple of his tunes, which everyone thought was great. That is what it is like when you have a great Administrator like Ted Egan attend some of your community functions. Senior Sportsperson was Teresa Lee Cunnington. Teresa was actually one of the founding people for RDA, Riding for the Disabled. I remember when that first started in the McMinns area. Barry Coulter and I went down there for the official opening and that is were it originally started. Now I think it is based in Palmerston.
Junior Sportsperson and Achievement awards went to a family: Kay Argent, Joy Wood and Ron Love. They are all part of the archery club called the Wandering Archers. They have set up a club in Humpty Doo and if you would like to learn to fire an arrow as well as Robin Hood or William Tell, I can tell you that they are the people to go and see.
We also had an Australian citizenship ceremony and a number of people –Belio Mariagrazia, Jannett Fidock from the Philippines, Pauline, Ida, Ilona and Ivy Mutuku from Kenya and Pamela Rogers from Britain. You may know Pamela Rogers. She drives a courier vehicle labelled Penny’s Couriers. You will see it flying around everywhere. She has lived in Australia since she was two years old and she thought it was about time she became an Aussie. I have checked her out for Vegemite, pies and sauce and words like ‘sheila’ and ‘you beaut’ and she passed the exam quite well. She is now a dinky-di Aussie and she is very proud of it.
On the more informal side of it, we did have Mick Dennigan doing whip cracking and a thong-throwing competition. For those who wanted something a little more adventurous, they could pop down to Howard Springs Reserve that afternoon where we had a boule competition, which is like French bowls or bocce. We had $400 for first prize and $100 for second prize, so we had 66 playing in that competition, which was open to everyone. We had 50 year-old people playing 10-year old kids. It didn’t matter; everyone had a great day. In the end, Aaron Scott, who is 16 or 17 years old, took home $400 in prize money – just for throwing a big, heavy ball after a little, heavy ball.
We also had our cricket match, with our sea gulls all over the Howard Springs Reserve cricket ground, and I thank Greg Owens for helping out with that. It was a very hot day, and he made sure all the kids and parents had a hit or a bowl and enjoyed themselves.
We had a cold pie and hot Coke competition. It might sound easy, but it is tortuous. You have one cold pie and one Coke, and you have a time to eat and drink them. I thank Howard Springs Bakehouse, Ray, who donated 50 pies and Andy Steel from Parmalat who donated the Coke. The junior competition was taken out by Pete and Chris won the senior event. The junior time was quicker than the senior time at 1.03 seconds to knock down a pie and a Coke.
I thank our sponsors Finn Bins, Mitre 10 Howard Springs, Howard Springs Post Office, Howard Springs Supermarket, Shorelands, All Earth Industries, Saddleworld, Chianti and Coffee, Arthur Evans who made up a nice trophy with a boule on a nice timber frame, Howard Springs Tavern, Reidy’s Lures and a special mention to Howard Springs volunteer firies and the Southern Districts Cricket Club. We all got together and had free drinks and meat for the BBQ. The whole day was free, which was the way to go for Australia Day. Many families today cannot afford to go out to some of this entertainment because it costs a lot to get in and then you are charged for being in an event. In this case, the whole day was free.
There are a few historic things happening this week. The Litchfield Times published its last edition and today or tomorrow, we should see the newly established Territory Times, which I believe is going to be delivered throughout the Territory. It will be interesting to see how it goes. I am not sure how the Katherine Times people will like it, or the Tennant and Barkly Times …
A member: Healthy competition.
Mr WOOD: I believe the same in Darwin, actually. Competition in the media doesn’t do any harm. They are certainly changing, and I wish Val and Leanne all the best in this new venture and hope it is a great success.
There are a couple of other issues. The member for Johnston may be interested in this: I have received a letter from the department over a couple of issues on which I have written to the minister. One was about the road signs on the corner of Howard Springs and Whitewood Roads. I recently took a photo of those signs and sent it to the Chief Minister, hoping that something could be done in the budget.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Planning has kindly sent me a letter saying that all those messy signs are coming down and they will be erecting an arch. I thank the minister very much for that. I did ring his office today to remind him that before they pull all the advertising signs down, we may need time to talk to the people who own the signs so we can exercise some diplomacy so they are aware of the replacement. That will be a great improvement on the corner of those roads. Anyone who has seen it would agree it is a bit of a disgrace. So many tourists use it in the Dry Season and must wonder whether they have come to a hick town.
On the opposite side of that, the minister wrote to me about the re-alignment of Girraween Road and the possibility of that road joining the Stuart Highway at the intersection of Henning Road near Woolworths Coolalinga. I thank the minister for his letter in response to a petition signed by about 650 people who asked that Girraween Road be re-aligned in the next budget. Unfortunately, the letter says it is not a priority at the moment. I am hoping that the government will change its mind on that. If we are looking at new landscaping for Litchfield, we are looking for changes to the roads, certainly the changes to Girraween Road are overdue. We thought it might have happened under the previous government, and it did not. This government has had a lot of people go out there and look at it, and have some preliminary design, but it is one of those areas where road safety is important and it makes a lot of sense because we do not want another set of traffic lights in that area. Here, we can combine one set of traffic lights to handle the two roads. I hope the minister will reconsider bringing that project forward.
I will now talk about some Power and Water issues. It was the member for Macdonnell who reminded me of a complaint I received today. I had a gentleman from the rural area ring me and say that he used to pay his power and water bill using a Budget Planning Service. He discovered the service ceased last year. This gentleman is a pensioner and the scheme was helpful financially. It allowed a payment to be made on an estimated bill sent out by Power and Water monthly. He has just received his first three-monthly bill, which he said would be difficult to pay. He contacted Power and Water regarding the bill and the reason why he received a three month bill and not the usual monthly bill. He has been given time to pay the account and was told that the Budget Planning Service has ceased due to it not being used by many customers. He would like to see the monthly payment scheme reinstated.
I could have raised it as a question but, unfortunately, there is never enough time in Question Time to ask all the questions you would like. That is an interesting change. I was going to ask is whether the problems we have with the billing system at the moment- and there are problems even on minor matters. I came home late last night and opened up two reminders for the same account that had come to my place. I admit I paid the bill last week, so I was running a bit late and, obviously, was going to get a reminder, but I got two of them.
I wonder whether the closure of the Budget Planning Service has occurred simply because Power and Water have changed their computers and they may not have allowed for this service to continue. What I gather is that the gentleman could pay a certain amount of money ahead so that when he received his bill, he paid it and he said he always had a bit extra, which went into credit for the next month. It was a way of making sure he never ran behind in his payments. I ask the minister whether he could look at that and see whether there is any chance of reinstating it. Was it the new computer system that stopped it?
On another issue, I received a phone call this afternoon from a constituent whose wife had gone into hospital earlier this week. She has been very sick. She was in a bed for 30 hours, waiting for a bed in a ward. He told me there were 28 people on Monday waiting to move into beds in the hospital. Why is that so? You could imagine occasionally there would be a couple of people waiting. Things like that can happen, but 28 people waiting for a bed! I know this particular lady. In fact, her husband, who rang me, has cared for this dear lady for many years. She has an illness that confines her more or less to bed. She does not walk around much at all. He takes her in the car wherever he goes. He has cared for her a very long time. He is not the sort of bloke who would complain normally. The Minister for Health should at least be looking at the reasons why 28 people were waiting for beds last Monday in hospital. He said this was not the only time. At lunchtime, there were still 26 people waiting.
He did say that the nurses in the hospital were just great. He could not give enough praise to the nurses. Even when I was there, they work extra, extra hard. I ask the minister to look at the reasons, and will he say what he is trying to do to make sure there are not large numbers of people waiting for beds in the Accident and Emergency area, which is where I believe they were waiting.
Perhaps the minister could come back to parliament and say what has happened to the Filipino nurses who were trained in Ireland and were to come to Australia to relieve some of our nursing shortages? Have they come? I have noticed many of the nurses are working such long hours that they are finding it difficult to continue working in these conditions. I hope the minister can respond to some of those issues.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to add some comments to those of the member for Araluen regarding the Alice Springs Hospital, particularly about the comments made by the Health Minister this morning on talkback radio with Daryl Manzie.
I refer, specifically, to the issue of the hospital refurbishment and what has to be done. I will read a few quotes from what he said to Daryl Manzie:
- There are a lot of questions to be answered with regard to what happened between 1998 and now, and
those questions should be answered in the court because ..
He was then interrupted by Daryl Manzie, and then he went on to say:
- There is no question that the full story needs to come out, and will come out with close scrutiny with legal
action that we are currently preparing for. Now I think the member for Brennan, Denis Burke, Stephen Dunham,
who was Health Minister at the time, and Richard Lim, who was the Minister for Central Australia at the time,
who was supposed to be the man on the spot while this was all going on, and probably the ex-Minister for
Transport and Works, Mick Palmer …
Maybe the minister is not aware that I was not made Minister for Central Australia until 2000. In fact, it was the end of 2000 before I was made minister, so how I could be the ‘man on the spot’ as the Minister for Central Australia in 1998 is beyond my comprehension. There already lies a significant error by this minister. If that is the inaccurate way that he does his business, obviously, there are difficulties for him. Talking about surgery at the hospital, he went on to say to Daryl Manzie:
- We are confident that elective surgery activities will be ramped up and we hope to make inroads to the waiting list
there at the moment.
Let me talk about waiting lists and elective surgery. Since Christmas last year, elective surgery has been very sporadic. I believe only day surgery is allowed to be performed and that, again, only sporadically because there is not enough nursing staff in the theatre suite to ensure that elective surgery is being conducted. What is elective surgery? Elective surgery is for conditions such as hernias, tonsils, orthopaedic conditions such as joint problems, or even total hip problems, cataracts, trachoma, conditions that are not life-threatening.
A hernia is a condition whereby the bowel comes through a hole in the groin and, if it is not treated in the early days, it gets bigger and bigger and the day will come when the hernia is strangulated. When that happens, it becomes an absolute emergency. If you do not conduct the surgery quickly, the hernia, once strangulated, will start to swell and may rupture. If you put off elective surgery time and time again, one day the elective surgery becomes emergency surgery. That person then requires more surgical services, more support from medical services and sometimes the patient will develop an infection. All sorts of extra services are required to support emergency surgery because it was not done as elective surgery in the early days. It is a stupid way of caring for patients in that you are robbing Peter to pay Paul, but this time, paying Paul a lot more than you can rob Peter of.
The waiting list at Alice Springs Hospital has gone to almost 1600 over the last three years. This is getting beyond a joke. This is hospital service that this government says it is going very well, is going hunky-dory, we have lots of nurses, we have recruited all these nurses to the Northern Territory yet we do not have enough nurses in theatre to perform what is required in Alice Springs.
This government needs to be told in no uncertain terms. As I said last night, as demonstrated by letters written by Pam Hooper, there is a huge problem and this minister has to deal with it. Tell us the truth, tell us what you are honestly doing, and if you do not know how to do it, move aside and let someone else do the job. I talked about doctors and I do not want to name them. I have had communications from them about what their problems are at the hospital. They are not prepared to be named in public because they know that they will be targeted by the administration. I know there are lots of overseas qualified doctors in Australia on temporary visas working on short term contracts with the hospital. These contracts are held over their heads: behave yourself or those contracts will not be extended. I was advised by a doctor at the hospital whose name I shall not mention that some of the doctors have had their contracts withheld. You start to wonder what is wrong with the administration that they need to use such tactics to coerce doctors at the Alice Springs Hospital.
It is no wonder the morale of the whole hospital is so bad. It is no wonder that nurses are not so much on strike, but have taken industrial action and are working to rule. When we told the minister that the nurses are working long hours, when you tell the minister that doctors are working long hours and are running up to 30 hours at a time, he says everything is fine. Nothing is fine and the more he procrastinates in his decisions and planning for the Alice Springs Hospital, the worse it gets.
I told members last night that the Director of Medical Services is on long-term stress leave and now I find that the administration of the hospital is planning to keep the position vacant for as long as possible in the long-term hope that they will do without a Director of Medical Services for Alice Springs Hospital. It is beyond belief that the government would allow such a thing to happen.
The Alice Springs Hospital is a major hospital. It services up to 50 000 people for the whole of Central Australia, which includes South Australia, parts of Western Australia, even parts of New South Wales and Queensland. It is a major hospital that does a lot of surgery, particularly trauma. It provides a lot of medical care including high dependency and intensive care services. The hospital needs to have a strong Director of Medical Services who can look after the medical interests of the Alice Springs Hospital community. To think that this government is going to try to get rid of the Director of Medical Services position all together is beyond belief.
It is no wonder all the doctors are running around not knowing what they are going to do, how they are going to ensure that good medical care continues at the hospital. It is no wonder we hear daily of the complaints in the hospital. I look forward to the minister telling me what he is going to do about that tomorrow.
In the next six minutes I am going to talk about an issue that the member for Nelson raised a short while ago. It is a bit of a coincidence that I received a call from a constituent in my electorate of Greatorex regarding the Budget Planning Division of Power and Water. She is a cleaner at the Alice Springs Hospital. She suffers from severe asthma and she requires the use of a ventilator or an aerosol Ventolin pump every so often when her asthma gets very bad. She has had this condition for a long time. She has lived in the farms area of Alice Springs for many years, and in the years when Power and Water was called NTEC, the CLP government provided this person with a trip switch attached to her main so that whenever there was a mains power black out, the switch would trip and her emergency generator would switch on, ensuring that she had 24-hours of power at all times in case she needed to have Ventolin.
Because she lives out at the farms area, it would take her at least 20 minutes, if not more, to get from her driveway to the Alice Springs Hospital in the event that she needs emergency medical help for her asthma.
She received advice from Power and Water that her pattern of payment, which was $100 every fortnight, will no longer be acceptable to Power and Water, and that she now has to pay her bill in full. She is a cleaner. She is on a low income and is a single-income family. That is all she can afford. She has always managed to pay her bill before the next bill arrives. That has been the pattern for many years and within the period from one bill to the next, she is able to pay the bill.
She received a call from Power and Water saying: ‘Sorry. This is no more. You have to pay your full bill. We will give you up to a month to catch up, and from then on, you have to pay your bills as they arrive’. Minister, I am saying to you that this lady cannot afford it. If you insist that she pays the bill up-front, she will end up having her power cut off and she cannot afford to generate her own power using diesel indefinitely or until a time that she has saved enough money to get up front.
This person has a long history of paying her bills on time and has done that consistently. She is not a bad debtor by any definition, and there is no reason at all for Power and Water to deprive her of the facility to pay off her bills over several fortnightly payments.
I ask the minister to intervene in this case. She is prepared for me to give you her name and address. Her name is Mrs Denise Purdue and I will give you her address. I told her that I will raise this matter in parliament for her this week, and I trust this can be resolved within the next few days so that her power supply is uninterrupted. Otherwise her life will be at risk and that is what is important. It is unfortunate that the minister is asleep …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, withdraw that.
Dr LIM: He is asleep.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Withdraw it, please.
Dr LIM: All right. I withdraw. I hope the minister hears what I have said and, if not, his advisers in the office upstairs will monitor what I am saying to ensure that the minister’s attention is brought to this case so that a decision can be made before Power and Water cuts off the supply to this person.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I spoke last week in the debate on drug-related crime about how the Northern Territory government should look at how victims of crime should receive compensation for the damage that has been caused to their property.
Victims should not be disadvantaged because of some other person’s unlawful destructive behaviour. I have always believed, and my position has not changed, that perpetrators of the crime are the people responsible to pay for any damage caused. There should be much harsher penalties meted out by the courts to deal with people who cause damage to other people’s property and, most of all, those who cause the damage should have to pay for it.
I am sure most members of the community are sick and tired of the lenient penalties that are handed out to the likes of these people. I know I am. In some cases, the penalty is barely a slap on the wrist and, of course, gives absolutely no reassurance to the community. If the perpetrator is receiving Centrelink payments, there are procedures in place that allow deductions to be made from a person’s payment and that is one certain way that restitution can and should be made. I am hopeful that if those people causing the damage have to pay for it, maybe it would be a deterrent to future unlawful and destructive actions.
During the debate last week on drug-related crime, I talked about an incident in Katherine that involved the Crotti family, and especially Darren having the windscreen of his car smashed when a man deliberately jumped on to the bonnet of the car. Darren and his wife could not afford to replace the smashed window. As a result of this incident, the Crotti family car was defected and put off the road, which was a huge inconvenience for this family of five.
I am happy to report that Nick West of Katherine Crash Repairs has come to the aid of the Crotti family and replaced the windscreen in their family car for free. It is the very generous support of people like Nick that gives one heart and shows that there are some very caring people in our community. Well done, Nick. I know that your generosity is very much appreciated by Darren and Anne.
However, that brings me back to my point: the people who cause the damage should be paying for their actions. It should not be left to the victims and other community members to pay for unlawful property damage caused by others.
I place on the record some history of the Katherine Cultural Centre Precinct, which is an exciting development that is in the planning stages for Katherine. It was approximately five years ago that I was present at a function at the Katherine Visitors Centre, at which Mike Reed, the then Minister for Tourism in the CLP government, was the guest speaker. At that meeting, Mike was presented with a proposal for the development of a cultural centre precinct by two members of Arts Katherine, Debra King and Jenny Madden. It was obvious after listening to their presentation to Mike, and reading the information that they had provided for us to take away, that there had been a considerable amount of research into cultural precincts and the benefits of having one in Katherine to support the strong Katherine arts community. I have to say that I was very excited by the proposal then, and I still fully support the development of a cultural precinct.
A Katherine Regional Cultural Precinct Action Group was formed in May 2001 to put into action an arts and cultural centre that would benefit the Katherine region culturally, socially and economically. The group identified a need for cultural facilities that would provide opportunities for the presentation and participation in the cultural and creative life of the Katherine region. These facilities would also broaden the tourist experience and present a unique insight into the contemporary life of the Katherine region and the Territory. The action group was incorporated late in 2002, and represented a cross-section of the Katherine regional community.
A feasibility study completed in 2003 consisted of some community consultation. The outcome of this feasibility study proved favourable for the concept of the precinct, highlighting the need for cultural facilities of a regional standard, including a welcome centre, indoor and outdoor performance space, and a gallery as well as workshop spaces, office space for arts organisations, a retail outlet and a caf; a pretty grand vision.
The Northern Territory government endorsed the project with in-principle support as a project that would benefit the Katherine community. The site selection process was undertaken in 2003 and 2004, with recommendations from the external consulting firm, Positive Solutions. The outcome of that was that the Katherine Regional Cultural Precinct Action Group chose a site on the corner of Chambers Drive and Stuart Highway, which is in the sports and recreation area. The area chosen by the action group was on the baseball diamond. This site was suggested by the CEO of Katherine Town Council, Terry Bus, without consulting the rest of the council or any consultation with the community.
In early 2004, the Northern Territory government announced $500 000 for headworks in preparing the site for construction. The action group developed a Plan of Management with recommendations of ownership, a management structure and costing, and established a key partnership with the Katherine Town Council in their decision to contribute land, namely the baseball diamond.
The uproar from the community began when Katherine people realised just what was happening. They were going to lose their baseball diamond. I attended a public meeting where the community were invited to put their views on the proposed site, and the meeting did nothing to assure the people present that their views were going to be taken into consideration at all. As a matter of fact, the decision had already been made by council and the meeting was merely tokenism for anyone who wanted to have their say.
It was disappointing at that meeting to hear some members of the action group and arts community who had, of course, been involved in the planning to date put down people present who are asking for further community consultation. I heard several say that there had been plenty of opportunity for members of the community to have had their say before, and that those people should have become involved earlier.
I cannot let it go unsaid that not everyone in a community can be involved on every single committee, but they have every right to make constructive comments about what happens in their community and, in this case, with such a major development.
Following on from this meeting, a group of concerned Katherine people started lobbying council to reconsider their decision; to keep the baseball diamond and the sporting grounds for recreation and to find another site for the cultural centre precinct. A petition that attracted over 700 signatures protesting against the baseball diamond being given away for the precinct was presented to council, followed by meetings by the concerned community group with council and members of the cultural precinct.
The aldermen of Katherine Town Council are divided over the issue of the baseball diamond site and the motion to go ahead with the offer of the baseball diamond to the cultural precinct was only passed with the casting vote of the Mayor, Anne Shepherd, who did not even wait to see how the aldermen voted before she voted.
To add weight to the dissent in the community, this vote was rushed through the council on a late agenda item and before the Katherine Town Council by-election. Candidates for the by-election had publicly expressed their views on the site for the precinct, so it makes one wonder as to why the big rush. Since that time, members of Katherine Town Council, including the aldermen, attended a meeting at which a public servant from Darwin advised that unless the precinct was going ahead on the baseball diamond, Northern Territory government funding would be withdrawn.
I have deliberately kept from making too many comments about the location of the precinct, and my personal opinions are well known in Katherine. I do not believe that it should go there, but I have not formed part of any of these groups because I believe the decision should be made by the community that will be utilising this great facility.
I fully support the development of the precinct, and I believe that the community fully supports it. I have not heard of one person who doesn’t want it for Katherine. The issue to be resolved is the location. It can be win-win if commonsense prevails and the community can sit down rationally and work out a site that will keep the arts community happy as well as the sporting community.
The purpose of putting this on the record tonight is to have the Martin Labor government reassure the Katherine Town Council that funding for the development of the precinct will not be withdrawn if the development does not go ahead on the baseball diamond.
The aldermen and mayor of Katherine Town Council need reassurance that their vote next Tuesday night at their council meeting is a vote of conscience and good governance, and not a vote made under pressure of having funding withdrawn by the Northern Territory government. I hope the Martin Labor government can give such a reassurance to Katherine Town Council this week.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016