2002-02-27
Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I with to draw attention to the presence in the Gallery of Year 6 and 7 students from Stuart Park Primary School accompanied by their teachers Sylvia Sisamanis, Scott Clode and Christina Parker. On behalf of all members, I extend a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 12, I hereby revoke all previous warrants nominating members to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees and nominate the following members to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees: Dr Burns, Mr Kiely, Ms Lawrie, Mr Elferink, Mr Maley, Mr Mills and Dr Lim when requested to do so by the Chairman of Committees.
Mr BURKE (Brennan)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition, not conforming with standing orders, from 1116 petitioners relating to the 24-hour GP service in Palmerston. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
We the undersigned, do hereby petition the NT government to withdraw the decision to abandon
the 24 hour GP service in Palmerston. We support the establishment of a 24 hour medical
assessment service to allow Palmerston and rural residents to access in person either medical
advice from nurses or paramedics or be transported by ambulance to Royal Darwin Accident
and Emergency.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 3908 petitioners praying that a 24-hour emergency medical service be retained at Palmerston. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
To the Speaker and members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.
We the undersigned citizens do respectfully request:
That a 24 hour emergency medical service be retained at Palmerston, so that residents of the rural area
have access to this regional facility instead of relying solely on Royal Darwin Hospital for after hours
medical assistance;
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Mr CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that response to petition No 5 has been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of the response will be included in the Parliamentary Record.
A ballot which concluded on 26 November 2001 resulted in acceptance of the Agreement. The Agreement has now been certified by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.
With the Agreement concluded, government is now concentrating on implementing our election commitments and a range of other education reforms.
Ms MARTIN (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to advise the Assembly that I have approved an increase in the total capital works program of some $20m to allow construction of a bulk liquids berth and extensions to the East Arm Wharf. The additional program cover will enable a 110 m extension to the multi-user wharf and a 156 m bulk liquids wharf to be constructed in time to meet the needs of the Adelaide to Darwin rail link and the relocation of the fuel tank farm from Stuart Park.
The contract for this will be let almost immediately, as the Procurement Review Board has approved a tender from Thiess Contractors for approximately $42m. That is $42m worth of work and up to 100 jobs for Territorians. Awarding this contract is the last major port component associated with the rail project. It is anticipated that preliminary works will commence in May and the contract is due for completion by June next year. This announcement will mean more jobs for Territorians created by this government. The decision by the government to award this contract in its full scope also means that we are now in a position to seriously push forward with the removal of the tank farm from Stuart Park.
We are determined that this project will move ahead. Darwin residents have been promised this since 1994, and it is disappointing that the CLP government could not deliver the project years ago. The CLP government made many announcements and promised much about the tank farm removal. This government intends to ensure the move does occur, and in a timely way. Cleaning up the existing tank farm site will mean that we at last can remove this unsightly industrial use from our CBD and redevelop this prime land.
It also means a private capital works project of around $65m will be added to our overall economic picture as a result of the government’s commitment to spend $15m on constructing the bulk liquids berth at this time. This decision will add to the growing confidence in our economic recovery and more jobs for Territorians, a high priority for this government. Also, by freeing up valuable land for development of residential and retail projects, there is now scope, over time, for further investment of hundreds of millions of dollars to strengthen the economic future of the Darwin CBD.
In keeping with my government’s commitment to keep Territorians fully informed on issues affecting their future, I have to advise that further negotiations with the oil companies will now be required to finalise the details of the relocation project. The project arrangements have been complicated by recent advice that Mobil will not be participating as an investor in the project but has confirmed its intention to use the new terminal. Unfortunately, that means that Shell, BP and Mobil will need to renegotiate their commercial arrangements as a matter of urgency.
I can assure Territorians that the government will be using all means available to it to encourage the companies to reach an early agreement to enable the fuel terminal project to commence in the coming Dry Season and to be completed by the end of 2003 as previously agreed. So, I am sure you will agree, great news.
Mr REED (Katherine): Whilst the opposition welcomes this announcement, Madam Speaker, it is long overdue. The tenders for what I think is really stage 3A of this wharf project were called last July, and it has been the lack of initiative and the inaction of this government that has seen the inability of this government to make a decision. Tenders were called in July and closed a month or two later. The government has been sitting on this decision for months whilst people have been losing jobs, whilst the economy has been slipping away, whilst the confidence in the Territory government from small business enterprises has dropped from 41% to 5% in November, and to February, a minus 12%. The delay that has been caused by this Territory government has resulted in that loss of business confidence.
It should be a timely warning to the government that they have to be more decisive, they have to be more proactive, and they have to come forward with more initiatives if the economy is to be lifted, if job creation is to be generated and we are to see in the future - hopefully not too long - a reduction in the unemployment rate of over 8%.
The Chief Minister, in a statement yesterday, said that she hoped throughout the course of the cycle of the Dry Season, that would lower the unemployment rate. Well, she just cannot hope for something in the ether to reduce unemployment. She has to do something. She is in government, she has to start making decisions and her ministers have to start working if we are to achieve a reduction in unemployment because it will not come through cycles of the seasons; it will only come through a decisive, proactive government that will come forward with some innovative programs to generate activity in the economy and jobs for Territorians.
Ms MARTIN (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, very sadly, and it is sad to have school children here to listen to the kind of words from the opposition, the whinging, whining, carping opposition. An announcement that has 100 jobs in it - 100 jobs - $42m to add to complete the port development, and if you were not so ignorant - I mean, I would have some sympathy but, really, in terms of when we needed to build this final component of the port, the railway was delayed and everybody understands it was delayed - that was a sad fact but it was a fact of life - and we are now letting this contract to complete the port in time to meet the requirements of ADrail and the whole railway construction.
So this is a perfect example of properly running the capital works budget as opposed to our predecessors who could not run a capital works budget to save themselves, and we have seen the results of that. So whingeing from that side, 100 jobs and investment from this side.
Members: Hear, Hear!
Dr TOYNE (Communications): Madam Speaker, I rise today to reaffirm the critical importance that the Martin government places on the further development of our telecommunications infrastructure in the Northern Territory. In fact, we consider it is impossible to deliver the full measure of our announced policies without a significant new development of our remote area telecommunications system.
We inherited from the previous government a history of uncoordinated approaches which has sullied the reputation of the Northern Territory in the federal system and made us under-achievers in terms of bringing in the money that is available in the Telstra sell off; T1,T2 remote area funding.
So we have now have one final chance to bring in some of that funding into the Northern Territory with some $20m-plus on offer. We have taken steps since I inherited this portfolio to bring together a strategic framework for the development of such infrastructure and its use by the Northern Territory government, a strategic framework which was sadly lacking under the previous administration.
This strategic framework will allow us to go to the Commonwealth government with a clear relationship argued between the LATIS rollout within our school system, the health rollout within our remote clinics, the Electronic Outback project in some 14 of our communities and the new infrastructure for which the Northern Territory will be bidding, so we are starting to make sense down there. We are starting to show that we actually do know what we’re doing and we know where we are trying to go with this type of technology development.
We have thrown the support of the Northern Territory government behind a powerful bid by the Outback Digital Network in consortium with Telstra and NDC with a commitment to take up a main client status once the network is established with a successful funding bid. What that means is that we are going to trust a private sector not-for-profit organisation in consortium with one of the major carriers to carry out the development of this infrastructure and pledge government support in a client status to make sure that infrastructure is then used in a sustainable way.
That is a challenge for every single department of government, and we will be working with every one of our agencies to systematically assess, on a cost-benefit basis, what uptake of the infrastructure use is appropriate for service delivery, whether that is in the department of health, the department of education, any of our government departments that carries out business with people in the Territory who happen to live in our remote areas.
It will also apply equally to our main urban centres where the prevalence, the sheer prevalence of such infrastructure will really put very strong questions to our agencies on how best to adjust their methodology to get better value from the infrastructure. There are 400 jobs attached to the ODN bid, not just in the Northern Territory but across Western Australia and Far North Queensland. This is a visionary bid which, unlike the previous government, the Queensland government knew when they were looking at a good thing. They backed it fully in the last bidding round and they subsequently were awarded a significant amount of money to carry on the development of the infrastructure in Far North Queensland.
I have just returned from a visit to Canberra and Sydney, and as a result of meetings with Senator Alston and with members of the board and the secretariat for the Networking the Nation programs, we are very confident we will be seeing a successful outcome to the bid that is going in. The first bid to the National Communication Funds will go in at the end of this month, in the next couple of days, and the second bid to Networking the Nation will go in at the end of March. We will know by the middle of the year whether we will be involved in one of the great new developments that the Territory can look forward to seeing under the Martin government.
I would like, finally, to acknowledge the fine work that has been done by the Communications Unit within DCIS and the work of the joint bid team which consists of our DCIS staff and people from ODN, Telstra, NDC and I wish them all the best in their bid.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s report on DCIS and how it is performing. It is, indeed, a difficult task for DCIS and I think they have done their job very well. LATIS and the outsourcing that we have done in the years of the CLP have been particularly good and has been one of the key things that have allowed the Territory IT people to develop the business.
Now, while the minister was speaking so loudly about Outback Digital Network, I caution him that this is an unproven entity. While the Queensland government has committed a lot of money to the Outback Digital Network, it is still an unproven entity, so be particularly careful because you will be committing yourself to something that might cost you more than you expect. The outsourcing has been particularly good.
The NT government wants to be the core client for ODN. Well and good. ODN needs to have core users otherwise they cannot be successful. It is precisely for that reason they are still unproven and I caution the minister and the government that it is better to be slower than too fast.
As regards Networking the Nation, I believe the CLP government has done very well in providing networking to many Aboriginal communities throughout Central Australia and the Top End, and you have seen the significant impact that improved communications has had with all these Aboriginal communities. Our police, in particular, have had great access to the electronic network as well as our remote health units. In all, I believe that DCIS is doing very well and I hope they continue to do so.
Dr TOYNE (Communications): It is a bit rich. Madam Speaker, in terms of what I inherited within DCIS regarding the situation and outsourced arrangements, I have been, as you have probably heard in the media, putting a huge amount of work into cleaning up the total mess that the previous minister left behind, particularly with the desktop outsource contract - and this is with CSC which is one of the biggest corporations in the world. They are very proven, so what went wrong? There was an incompetent minister in charge of a process by which we were outsourcing over $100m worth of work to that company within a contract that had rubbery provisions within it. So don’t talk to me about we should hasten slowly. What I would say, though, is I would look to bipartisan support for the bid that is going to Canberra. We have under-achieved to the point that we only received 20% of the funding that was on offer to the Northern Territory in previous bids; we hope to get the rest of it now.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, this morning I would like to report on Palmerston and the rural area health services, and it is particularly relevant given that there have been two petitions tabled this morning regarding the so called 24-hour health clinic.
I start by saying that no wonder people are signing petitions when there has been so much misinformation peddled by the opposition. I would like to give a bit of background on the so called 24-hour service which in fact was not a 24-hour service. It was a service which was discontinued as part of a trial. In the lead up to the election, the CLP government introduced a trial which included a review of that trial after three months.
Unfortunately for the CLP, they weren’t in government and did not receive the review of that service. The service was simply a GP service; it was not an emergency service as has been peddled by the opposition. It was never intended to be an emergency service. It was simply a GP service that was run from the hours of 10 pm to 8 am. There was also a service which was subsidised by the CLP and by this government as well for the 6 pm to 10 pm service. That service continues, and I would just like to make one comment about this service and the subsidisation of this service. No other - not even one GP service in the Northern Territory apart from this one - is subsidised by the government. I think that is just a little bit curious in the lead up to an election.
I want to confirm that this government is committed to services in Palmerston and the rural area. The review that we received indicated that the GPs themselves came to us and said: ‘We don’t want to run this service. This service is totally unviable. There are insufficient people coming. It is not commercially viable and, if you want to continue the service, it is going to cost $900 000’. $900 000 which, I might add, was not budgeted for by the previous government.
What we did do was introduce extra shifts in ambulances to ensure that the Palmerston ambulance service could actually stay in Palmerston instead of the absolutely pitiful situation before where the ambulance services from Palmerston were required to come in to Darwin all the time. We have a commitment to increasing those services even more.
In relation to that, we have put in a review of the whole area of the rural region, particularly Humpty Doo and further south. I think there are areas which need considerable looking at by this government, and we will do this. I am very happy to announce today that at Humpty Doo we have organised with St John Ambulance the introduction of a voluntary ambulance service starting from July this year. This will mean that people in that area will have the same type of services as in Adelaide River and Batchelor which will once again release the ambulances in Palmerston strictly for the Palmerston area. This is a very good measure for the people in that area. There is also a continuing look at various services in the total area, and I will report to the House on those when that review has been received by government.
There is one other issue which I wanted to bring to the attention of the House. The member for Drysdale and his colleagues have been mischievously spreading stories that the government is on the verge of closing the Specialist Allied Health Services that are available at Palmerston Health Precinct. This is totally made up …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This must be demonstrated because the mischief she is talking about is tantamount to accusing me of telling fibs, and I suggest she demonstrate that.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, can you clarify your remarks?
Mrs AAGAARD: Madam Speaker, there have been media reports that have led me to believe that the member for Drysdale has levelled these accusations. However, I will just say that there have been accusations levelled at us that there are going to be closures in the Allied Specialist Services at Palmerston. I want to assure the House that this is absolutely untrue. There will be no closures of any services in Palmerston.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I take the opportunity to respond to this. It would normally be left to the shadow health minister, but today once again we see the Health Minister who is, I believe - and many people in the Northern Territory are beginning to believe - the most incompetent health minister that has ever been in government in the Northern Territory.
This is a woman who is spoken about throughout the community as working less than public service hours and more concerned with taking her children home than being at work. That is being said right around the Northern Territory, particularly in Darwin. This is a health minister who has no idea.
If you think for a moment that a volunteer ambulance service in Humpty Doo and an extra ambulance in Palmerston is going to fix the problems of the Palmerston and rural community, you are totally out of touch. Think for a moment and go back in history and find out what were the representations from that community since 1995 when I was health minister. If you go through any of the debates, you will find out what the real concerns of that community are. The real concerns of that community are these: if you are a young mum or you are a pensioner and, in the middle of the night, you have what you perceive to be an emergency, you want damned help, and you expect the government to deliver on those services.
The previous CLP government made a commitment that the people in the Palmerston and rural area, if they had a problem in the middle of the night, they went to a facility which became the Palmerston Health Precinct and they were in the hands of the system. The system would take you and look after you.
Now, what has evolved? What has evolved is this: a bureaucracy that has never supported that principle. That’s what's happened. We have an opportunity with this government - if you are genuine, you have an opportunity, like the previous shadow health minister urged this government, to get on and deliver that service. Go back on your own record. Go back on your own newsletters. Deliver that service to the people of Palmerston and the rural area, and get on and do some work.
Do you also know, health minister, that the health precinct out there is not managed by one person, that there are two separate modules out there? No one looks after one of them. When you talk about those services being withdrawn, Allied Health Services …
Madam SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.
Mr BURKE: … I will tell you one that has been: Family Youth and Community Services have withdrawn their module back and centralised it.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, your time has expired!
Mr BURKE: That’s one of the concerns out there, along with the concern about the specialists.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition!
Mr Stirling: Totally out of order.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, you were out of order, Leader of the Opposition. You knew your time had expired. Minister, we will allow the member for Nelson one minute also to respond. That was the agreement, I believe.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I did stand for the tank farm discussion and East Arm Port, I would have liked to have made a comment on that, but …
Madam SPEAKER: You did stand? I am sorry. You will have to wave.
Mr WOOD: It’s all right, Madam Speaker.
I don’t believe that people do want a 24-hour GP service. In the petition that went around, people were fairly clear to me that they understood that it was costing too much money. But they do - and that’s what the 4000 people are saying - they do want some service there. The government is having a review. I would ask the government to please, in that review, make it a public review, look at the possibility of having a nurse or some other paramedic at the ambulance centre which is open 24 hours.
I appreciate there are more shifts, and I must congratulate the government on introducing an ambulance service to the rural area. I think that’s a great initiative and it will go some way to helping people in the rural area. I would ask the government to bring forward their plans to build a Police, Fire and Emergency Service facility, because I think they have it on next year’s budget, and it will give the ambulance service a permanent place to be established.
The other thing is I believe that the review - I call it the secret review which established that this GP service was too costly - needs to be made public, so we can all have a look at it.
Madam SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I am very happy to reply firstly to the member for Nelson. In relation to the review to which he refers, unfortunately it is a Cabinet document, and Cabinet documents are totally confidential, as indeed …
Members interjecting.
Mrs AAGAARD: … the members on the opposite side would know. It is a Cabinet document.
I would like to make some comments on the member for Brennan.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! I can’t hear the minister.
Mrs AAGAARD: He has tabled today a petition asking us to return the service. Yesterday in the House he said: ‘We don’t want a GP service. We don’t want an after-hours GP service’.
I have a copy of the member for Brennan’s Christmas newsletter where, in my opinion, he has given complete misinformation on ‘the 24-hour health service to close’, it says here. And he says:
The concept is that there would be an outreach service of Royal Darwin Hospital so that the Palmerston and rural residents could seek emergency medical help out of working hours without having to go to Royal Darwin Hospital.
This was a GP service. People still have to go to Royal Darwin Hospital. If you are an emergency, you have to go to Royal Darwin …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr Burke: What are you going to do? Do something rather than take your kids home from school.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, quiet! Order!
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to update the Assembly on the progress of major capital works projects. I will start with the Alice Springs Convention Centre with expenditure at $11.3m which was programmed for completion in April 2002. The expected completion now is the end of March 2002. I believe some of the rooms have been completed and some functions have been already held there.
The Alice Springs Hospital redevelopment - $30.7m. It is progressing four months ahead of schedule with anticipated completion now expected in April 2002.
The Bradshaw Field training area access road and bridge across Victoria River - $8.6m. This is a Department of Defence project, we acknowledge that. Ten piles comprising five of the 13 piers been driven to date. The completion is scheduled for July 2002.
In Katherine, the Chamber Drive extension - $900 000 - is now complete.
The construction of Corella Creek Health Clinic - $300 000. The project is now 53% complete with block work, roof structure and internal walls complete.
The Darwin River Dam - $2.7m. The project was completed in December 2001.
The East Arm Port Development Stage 2 with a total expenditure of $87m. The scope of work for the second major contract, worth $42m - the wharf extension and bulk liquid berth - has now been awarded. The contract was awarded to Henry Walker Eltin for the container terminal and railway embankment, and is progressing well.
The Mandorah Jetty major repairs - $500 000. The work is expected to be completed in February 2002, with cathodic protection currently being undertaken.
Ramingining School - $1.2m. This project involved the replacement of a burnt out building which included five learning areas and associated offices, store rooms and toilets. The project was completed on 1 February 2002.
The roll on-roll off pontoon major repairs - $3m worth. This is a jointly funded project between the Northern Territory government and the Department of Defence. The project comprised extensive structural steel repairs to internal buoyancy tanks combined with complete replating of the bottom and repairs to side walls of the pontoon. The work is 93% complete.
The Royal Darwin Hospital redevelopment - $37.7m. Progressing well and expected to be completed by October 2002.
The Tanami Road upgrade - $1m. Current condition of the road is terrible. Grading commenced on 7 January 2002 at Tilmouth Well and will continue through to the Western Australian border.
Victoria Highway rehabilitation and widening of pavement - $1.65m. Works have been completed at chainages 399.7 to 400.05. Fencing of the road reserve is now underway. Rehabilitation and widening of pavement will improve safety as a result of wider shoulders.
Stuart Highway/Arnhem Highway intersection upgrade - $750 000. The traffic lights were commissioned on 3 January 2002. All works are now complete and include the traffic signals, street lighting and landscaping works.
National highway pavement rehabilitation - $5.1m. This is an ongoing project and will progressively improve the strength, the riding quality and the safety of the three national highways in the Territory.
Local road pavement rehabilitation - $1.5m. Pavement rehabilitation and works to the value of $800 000 have been identified on the Litchfield Park Road and the Batchelor Road. Tenders will be invited in February-March 2002. Works identified for the remaining $700 000 will be undertaken in 2002-03.
Construction of high level Hugh River bridge and approaches - $6m. Works including construction of a 250 m long bridge and 2.5 km of approaches. The contract has been awarded and construction is expected to start in February 2002.
Fogg Bay Road - seal 10 km from Leviathan to Venture Roads - $1.3m. That project is now complete.
Rural arterial pavement rehabilitation - $1.1m. Pavement rehabilitation works are ongoing and areas identified as the next priority are on the Arnhem and Kakadu Highways. Tenders will be invited in February-March 2002.
Upgrade of strength deficient bridges - $1.3m. The project will strengthen four bridges on the Buntine Highway and will include bridge guard rails. Tenders will be invited in February 2002.
I am sure that members will agree with me when I say that the capital work projects are doing very well. Jobs are being created and well generated throughout the Northern Territory and I would like to table for the Chamber information about the progress of major works.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, the Australian vernacular for someone who leans on someone else and takes the credit for the work that someone else has done is ‘a bludger’. It is not a particularly nice term but it’s the term that – and I mention it here because it was explained to me by a contractor who is out of work because of the inactivity of this government.
But for this government and for the minister to stand up and take the credit for all of those projects - and the major ones were well underway before he became the minister and before the Labor Party gained government - is, Madam Speaker, bludging on the efforts of others.
It ill behoves the minister and, indeed, contractors cannot survive on parrot fashion repeating of projects that were underway before this government came to power. What this government has to do is become active and proactive in terms of projects that are going to happen after these projects that the CLP put in place and started are underway.
It is interesting that the minister avoided mentioning a couple of projects that the former government was going to fund. I mention one: the Venn horticultural subdivision in Katherine in that producers are currently having trucks bogged which are loaded with their product that they are trying to get to market because this government shirked on the former government’s commitment to seal Fox Road in the Venn horticultural subdivision. That was a project that the former government was treating with priority so that the hard working horticulturists in that area could continue to support the Territory economy.
The government has to become proactive. It has to stop repeating the projects that were already underway before it came to government and decide what it’s going to do after those projects are stopped and to start generating activity and jobs in the economy.
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I took this opportunity today to push the level confidence in our business community. However, what we hear from the member for Katherine is a replay of his yesterday’s speech. With regard to the matter he brought to my attention, the Venn issue, not only was there no money, not only was the estimate only for $400 000, new estimates indicate that to construct and seal the road will be higher than $400 000, and a letter to that effect was given yesterday to the member for Daly. That is in the forward program.
In the past few days, we heard about the economic miracle of the CLP. How come such an economic miracle came to a crashing halt within six months of a new government? It looks to me as if it was not an economic miracle; it was a mirage.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, time has expired for ministerial reports. I will just clarify that - we actually went over our 30 minutes limit just to allow the end of that report.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
Madam SPEAKER: Members, the next item is the matter of privilege that Dr Lim has raised. I just want to make a couple of comments before we start the debate.
I remind members that the Public Accounts Committee has a reference from this parliament to report by May. They still have further hearings to be held; they still have witnesses to appear. I ask you to be cautious in your remarks so that you do not prejudice the outcome of the hearings. If you refer to Standing Order 111, members should not attempt to interfere with the committee’s work or anticipate its report.
So, I suggest you concentrate on the wording of the motion, avoid referring to the deliberations of the committee and be aware that this is what you are discussing: whether this matter should be referred to the Privileges Committee. You are not discussing the Public Accounts Committee or its findings. So just be careful and mindful of those remarks.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I move –
That:
(1) the action of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, Dr C Burns, MLA,
in making a public statement on 30 November 2001 in respect of his opinion of
evidence taken before the Public Accounts Committee could be a contempt of this
parliament in that the contents of his statement served to prejudge the issue under
consideration by the committee and, as such amounts or is likely to amount to an
improper interference with the free exercise by the committee of its authority or
functions; and
(2) the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges for inquiry and report pursuant to Standing Orders.
Madam Speaker, I will be brief in my presentation as I expect all the relevant information will have to be presented to the Privileges Committee anyway, and there is therefore no need for me to go into detail. Besides, some of the information relates to matters from closed meetings of the Public Accounts Committee and it would be wrong of me to make any comment on them.
However, before I commence the body of evidence to support my motion that the member for Johnston has breached privilege through his behaviour in this House and outside in terms of the current review of budget matters by the Public Accounts Committee, I wish to quote from this advisory document from the Clerk to PAC members, handed to PAC members when they joined the committee, which I seek leave to table right now to remind members, new and old, of the meaning of privilege as it applies to parliamentarians. I seek leave.
Leave granted.
Dr LIM: I quote:
In general terms, the concept of privilege is defined as ‘an act or omission which obstructs or impedes
a House or the Assembly in the performance of its functions or which obstructs or impedes any members
or officer to discharge his duty which had a tendency to produce such results’. An action may be a
contempt without breaching a particular right or immunity but a breach of privileges always amounts
to a contempt.
I further quote:
Turning now to the behaviour of the member for Johnston who is also the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and a member of the Privileges Committee, I have the following to put to the House:
During the debate on the censure motion of 25 October 2001 when the Chief Minister moved a motion to censure the member for Katherine, the member for Drysdale, and the member for Brennan, the interjections made by the member for Johnston clearly indicated that he had already formed his opinion on the matter. While the Hansard did not keep verbatim interjections from the member for Johnston, I clearly recall his attitude towards the whole matter, behaving in an arrogant and gloating manner. His recorded interjections while the member for Drysdale was on his feet will go somewhere to demonstrating the member for Johnston’s predetermined thinking.
The censure motion was on 25 October, two days after the member for Johnston was elected Chairman of the PAC. On either 27 or 28 November last year, I took the extraordinary step of approaching the member for Johnston to counsel that the content and tone of his interjections during speeches made by either the Leader of the Opposition or the member for Drysdale were inappropriate and were indicative of his mindset about matters yet to be considered by the PAC.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is a very serious motion we are debating here. Now, the member for Greatorex is commenting on supposed comments made by my colleague, the member for Johnston …
Dr LIM: Look in the Hansard.
Mr HENDERSON: … that have not been recorded in Hansard, and if they had been recorded in Hansard, he is bound to draw attention of this House to the specific nature of the comments rather than the broad allegation that he heard and has not been picked up in Hansard. Now, we are debating fact here, what is on the public record, and he cannot draw innuendo into this debate.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, all right.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, speaking to the point of order, it seems to me, listening to the member for Greatorex, that he is outlining the case and in outlining that case, I believe he is quite at will to refer to instances that he believes are pertinent.
Madam SPEAKER: I believe that there is no point of order. I am quite sure the member for Greatorex, from what I am hearing, is listing a series of events leading up to why he is taking this action.
Dr LIM: To paraphrase what I just said, I actually approached the member for Johnston about matters and his interjections were indicative of his mindset about matters yet to be considered by the PAC. I was given short shrift by the member for Johnston. He waved me away, and said angrily that he was not interested in talking to me about the matter.
On 29 November, the member for Johnston rose to speak to the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Bill. In his opening remarks, he commented:
He goes on:
And further, he added:
You admonished the member for Johnston, asking to keep in his mind that he is also the Chairman of the PAC. You also commented to the Leader of the Opposition that his point was valid.
So we see here a member who not only knows his responsibility on the PAC, he also knew of the matter that was coming before the PAC, who received a gentle reminder from myself that he should watch his comments, who was the subject of a point of order from the Leader of the Opposition, and who received an admonition from you following the Clerk’s advice. This member has had the best advice available.
I now come to the media statements made by the member for Johnston. This was highly publicised in newspapers and in the electronic media. I myself could not believe my ears when I heard the member for Johnston’s comments on the late news on Friday 30 November and over the weekend. On the 6.30 pm Channel 8 TV news, the following news item was broadcast:
What can be more damning that that? The reporter had formed the opinion - I repeat: the reporter had formed the opinion that the Chairman of the committee had already made up his mind…
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is absolute, pure speculation on behalf of the member. He is now telling us what the reporter had in her mind. All he can tell us, surely, is what is in his own mind at the moment.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Dr LIM: If the reporter, in her professional capacity, had formed that view, what did everyone else watching the broadcast think? Later in the same news, the member for Drysdale said:
The reporter responded to the comment with:
The member for Johnston was shown saying:
The member meant that it was evident that it was an artificial reduction so that the CLP could pretend that they were increasing the health budget in election year.
Mr Henderson: Yep.
Dr LIM: That was what he meant. Yep! ‘Yep’, he said. I pick up that interjection. He said that, and he meant that, that it was evident that it was an artificial reduction. So he has already made up his mind, that it was an artificial reduction.
The ABC TV News at 7 pm that same evening reported in a similar fashion and the reporter said:
The words uttered by the reporters are clear. There is no doubt here that the reporters were under the impression …
Mr Stirling: Why aren’t they before Privileges?
Dr LIM: There is no doubt here …
Mr Stirling: Well, you want to run the Chairman, but you don’t’ want to run the person who wrote this, who wrote this, who wrote this!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Leader of Government Business. You’ll have your chance to respond.
Dr LIM: The words uttered by the reporters are definitely very clear. There is no doubt here that reporters were under the impression that the chairman of the committee had already made up his mind - and that, immediately after the first day’s hearings. Journalists with their professional training normally would weed out the false from the truth. They were definitely under the impression that the chairman had made up his mind. I suggest to you that if the journalists were so impressed, so would be the public.
Let me now go on to the next few days following that disgraceful episode. On Monday 3 December, the following was reported on NTD8 TV news at 6.30 pm and I quote:
The Public Accounts Committee was called to determine the accuracy of the CLP government’s last budget. It sat
for the first time on Friday, the members hearing health boss Paul Bartholomew confirm $8m had been removed
from one budget to show an increase in health funding for the following year. Labor Chair, Chris Burns, jumped
on the evidence saying it proved that the CLP had artificially manipulated the budget for political gain.
In the same news item on channel 8, the member for Johnston had this to say:
This is a parliamentary inquiry and I have got every right to comment on the evidence.
Words from his own mouth. Half an hour later on the 7 pm ABC News, the reporter said:
In his first major role since being elected, Committee Chair and Labor backbencher Chris Burns told a hearing on Friday he was satisfied the former government had misled the public over the size of the health budget.
The member for Johnston, in closing the interview, responded thus:
We are not dealing with a court of law here. This is a parliamentary inquiry and I have got every right to
comment on evidence which is what I did.
On Tuesday, 4 December on 8.30 ABC morning radio program, Julia Christensen interviewed the member for Johnston and I will read the interview for the record:
The Public Accounts Committee hearing into claims the CLP falsified budget figures continues tomorrow with a
fair degree of controversy surrounding the hearings. Shadow Attorney-General Peter Maley has accused the
Committee’s Chair, Labor backbencher Chris Burns, of destroying the Committee’s credibility by pre-empting
the outcome. This is what Chris Burns had to say on Friday:
and this is the voice-over from Chris Burns:
The bottom line is that the budget was artificially reduced by $8m in health so that the CLP could
pretend that they were actually increasing funding in an election year.
That was the voice-over and then the reporter comes back:
The reporter went on further. After introducing the member over the radio, she said:
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Government members, your behaviour is outrageous. We are trying to listen to the member for Greatorex. Just settle down. The Leader of Government Business, I expect you to set a better example.
Dr LIM: For completeness, Madam Speaker, let me say this again: The reporter went on further after introducing the member over the radio, and she said:
Here we have a very professional journalist who, after hearing what the member had to say, was led to believe that the member had pre-empted the outcome. Listen to what the journalist had to say. She thought the member for Johnston had already made up his mind. If she did so, how many more people listening to the radio program on Friday and the weekend would have thought the same?
The journalist then said:
Madam Speaker, I believe that I have demonstrated quite strongly that the Chairman had his mind made up before the PAC even got to the first day of hearings. His commentary and the impression created in the journalists - not one, but several - all showed his bias, his mind set. He brought into the deliberations of the committee not only a bias, but more: he had already decided on the outcome of the review by the PAC.
It is not for me to divulge what was said and what was decided within closed sessions of the committee’s deliberations. There were many things said and many actions taken which I am not at liberty to discuss. This evidence needs to be heard by the Privileges Committee so that a fair assessment can be made about the member’s alleged breach of privilege. All that evidence must be brought to bear and that can only be done at a deliberation of the Privileges Committee. Obviously, the member for Johnston will have to be replaced as a member of the Privileges Committee while it deliberates on his fate.
Madam Speaker, I move that the matter be now referred to the Privileges Committee for inquiry and report pursuant to Standing Order 83.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to reply to this very serious charge that has been brought by the member for Greatorex, a matter of privilege.
I will begin by talking a little bit about the Public Accounts Committee under our government because prior to election, we made commitments about open and accountable government and about the committee structure and we have endeavoured to keep that. The Public Accounts Committee, when we came to government - looking back through former reports, talking to former Labor members and also looking through some of the Auditor-General’s reports - I believe was a very moribund committee and it was very closed.
We moved very quickly to open up the operations of the Public Accounts Committee to the public, and part of the controversy here is that there have been public hearings. We have also moved to include an Independent member on the Public Accounts Committee: Mr Wood, the member for Nelson. So we have moved to open up the committee, to have as many hearings as we can in public and also to table documents; that was not something that was done too often under the previous regime. So that is an important aspect. We have opened up the Public Accounts Committee.
Just turning to the main allegation here about - and a lot of it turns on a media comment that I made on 30 November last year after public hearings in which we heard evidence from Mr Paul Bartholomew, CEO of what was Territory Health Services, that was what he was talking about. The member for Greatorex has at length talked about what some media have attributed to me there and he is right. Paul McLaughlin on NTD8 News on 30 November said:
So that is what McLaughlin attributed to me. Now, here is what I actually said and, once again, this is what the member for Greatorex has also laid on the record here. The quote was:
Now, my recollection is also - I was asked a number of questions by the media, and most of them I also prefaced by saying: ‘We have heard in evidence today …’ so I was very clear that I was repeating evidence that was given in public hearings. Now, how the media attribute quotes is the media’s business. That is one element of it.
The second element of it is is what the member for Greatorex has attributed to me - or tried to attribute to me - during parliamentary sessions in November last year. The first one is - and he had no substantiation for this - alleged interjections on my part, negative or biased. So, there is not one shred of evidence on the record that he can point to. It is a fairly flimsy case that he is mounting here. He also mentioned in the speech, in relation to a number of matters, that there was a Point of Order raised by the Opposition Leader and was considered by the Speaker. I will quote again exactly what I said in that debate:
As members here would be aware, the Public Accounts Committee is currently examining a serious charge that was brought before this House by the health minister from the CEO of health services in relation to the alleged manipulation of budget estimates.
I was clearly stating there - and I will stand on it again, and I said I would stand on it on the day - that this was an allegation. Once again, I fail to really see where the member for Greatorex is coming from in this. He is trying to construct this case that is really a house of cards and really baseless. There is not a lot of substantiation that he has been able to bring to this House today to substantiate this serious charge.
Now, his approach to me to counsel to me - yes, the member for Greatorex did approach me, but I was busy. He planted himself in front of me; I was busy. I said - I don’t recollect the words. I said: ‘Not now, I’m busy. Go away’.
Now, the member for Greatorex also mentioned the crocodile jaws. The crocodile jaws really are a matter that was, I guess, a basis of what Professor Percy Allan had to say. They are not really a subject of inquiry for the PAC within the terms of reference. It is all about that yawning gap between income and expenditure over successive years under the CLP government. It was a matter that was also mentioned by the Under Treasurer in public hearings. So, the crocodile jaws are a matter of public knowledge; they have been in the newspaper. There is nothing secret about them, the crocodile jaws, and it’s happened over successive years, not the years that are involved in the focus of the inquiry of the Public Accounts Committee. It was something that was going on for quite a number of years. The crocodile jaws - I don’t know how he can attribute some sort of bias on my part in terms of the PAC inquiry, in terms of mentioning the crocodile jaws in debate.
Now, if I could move on. Look, I could have a lot to say. I guess - it’s true, it is true, I am a new member in this parliament, I am the new Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. I do acknowledge that I have a lot to learn and I am keen to learn. I think all of us on the PAC who are new, the four of us - that is, the members for Barkly, Sanderson, Nelson and myself - I think we all acknowledge that. It was a big fillip, I think, for all of us to get such positive press after a recent public hearing where we were complimented on our work, as backbenchers, about trying to discover the truth, about trying to get to the bottom of our inquiry.
I know the member for Greatorex puts great store on press comment and I am sure he probably would have been wounded by what he read there about the - if I could just get the quote here. I think they were called ‘churlish’. The editorial writer reminded them that they were the ones who lost the election and I guess he was hinting it was churlish behaviour that did it. I was, at a personal level, heartened by the comments within that particular editorial that I was well mannered and patient as a Chairman and I take that as a compliment.
Now, I know there has been controversy over my press statement, and I did seek the advice of the Clerk. The Clerk counselled that in the best interests of the inquiry, members should refrain wherever possible in future from making public comment. Now I have refrained - that was in early December - but I notice that the member for Drysdale has just chewed on and on with his public statements directly about the work of the Public Accounts Committee. In fact, I think since that time, I have made no comment but the member for Drysdale has made four comments about the work of the Public Accounts Committee. I found it a little insulting to hear him denigrate the work of the PAC. He was asked on the Col Newman’s show about how it felt to be a witness before the PAC and he said, in typical style: ‘Oh yeah, a bit like being mauled by a wet sheep’. So, denigrating the PAC, denigrating the work of the PAC.
I hold the work of the Public Accounts Committee in great esteem and respect, and I want to be working over the next three-and-a-half years. There are many important issues; issues raised by the Auditor-General that we will be taking on board, issues referred to us by the floor of this parliament that we will also be taking on board. There is a lot of work to be done; I would like to do it in a bipartisan way. I realise that this particular inquiry is politically charged, but I would encourage members opposite to join us to look at some very important issues that face the Public Accounts Committee, that can make this Territory work a hell of a lot better.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Before we go on, Leader of the Opposition, I wish to advise members of the presence in the gallery of our Year 12 students from Kormilda College, accompanied by their teacher, Pam Wallace. On behalf of all members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, listening to the comments from the member for Johnston has done nothing to convince me that there shouldn’t be a reference to the Privileges Committee. Now, I begin by saying firstly …
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: I make a plea to the government: this is a very serious motion. I recognise the government has the numbers in this House; I recognise the government can made any decision they want in this House and will get away with it. You have that weight of numbers, you have that absolute authority, and you can cackle and carry on and do whatever you like. I guess you feel very strong about it, and that’s fine. We don’t mind being the underdog, because that’s the way this parliament works. In fact, I actually look forward to being the underdog because the more you carry on the way you do, the more you look arrogant. The one thing that you always said was that you were going to change the way this parliament operated; you would not be arrogant, you would not carry on in parliament the way this terrible CLP did. You are so joyfully being arrogant, you are so joyfully using the weight of your numbers that you are making fools of yourselves every day. So, I hope you keep it up. That’s the first thing.
The second thing I would say to you is this: the Westminster system has checks and balances on this oppressive weight of government. It also has checks and balances on frivolous efforts by the opposition. We are talking about something that is really the backbone of the system of democracy that we operate in. The system of democracy allows for properly constituted committees to interrogate issues that are seen to be important in this House. I would say to you with absolute honesty that, in my opinion, right from day one - and that is why I stood up in this House and made the point of order on your comments - there is nothing that the member for Johnston can say to me that will ever convince me that, first, you want to operate in a bipartisan way and, secondly, that you are not totally committed to bringing up the most scathing report, and you were committed to that from day one. That is my opinion, and I believe that your utterances since that day have only reinforced that position.
I believe that what you have said in the House today - that I stood up and made a point of order - that alone, I believe, is sufficient reference for you to go to the Privileges Committee because it may not have done anything except demonstrate to you not only the importance of your position as Chairman but demonstrate to you that your comments were an affront to the Westminster system and this parliament, and that could have been the end of it. Get a bit of counselling from the Privileges Committee and that is the end of it, but that committee has a responsibility to this parliament to demonstrate to all of us that there are processes in place that have to be adhered to and that is what this motion is all about.
This motion alleges impropriety by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. It does not make a judgement of you; it alleges impropriety. I would have thought, if your defence is so strong, if the motion is so frivolous, the Privileges Committee itself would turn on the opposition and say this was a waste of time, this should not have happened, reinforce your position, reinforce your independence and that in itself would have been a demonstration to the opposition not to proceed with these sorts of things. But we have the confidence to put ourselves in the hands of that committee knowing at the outset that we do not even have the numbers. But we have the confidence to put this case in the hands of that committee if for no other reason than to demonstrate that this parliament is important as a house of democracy.
This parliament has a responsibility to all Territorians and any of us who sit here charged with that responsibility maintain the confidence of all of us in the way they conduct themselves and you, the member for Johnston, from the outset, in terms of the way you have handled this episode, have been an absolute disgrace in my mind. In terms of the fact that you have denigrated your position as Chairman, you have denigrated the PAC, and you are laughing at the authority of the Privileges Committee and so is the government.
But go on, do whatever you like. All we are saying is this: this is not a motion against you or condemning you or prejudging you. This is a motion to say that this issue is so important the Privileges Committee should deliberate on it. I look forward to the member for Nelson hopefully making a comment because it would seem to me that there is sufficient evidence to at least have the committee deliberate on it and to disallow that evidence from being heard, to my mind, is an affront to democracy and the process of this parliament.
If for no other reason - and you can say in this House that you have been counselled by the Clerk, you can verbal the Clerk, yet the Clerk has no opportunity to speak in this House but the Clerk does have an opportunity to speak in the Privileges Committee and at the very least he can balance what you say - we can see what the Clerk thinks of your actions, the Privileges Committee can. Maybe the reporters can be called and they can give their opinion about the full tapes, not the extract that you read that was on the news that night; what you actually said because they still have the tapes, and then let the Privileges Committee decide just whether you did prejudge this case or not.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to direct his remarks through you as he is bound to do.
Mr BURKE: I am almost finished, Madam Speaker. I would also say to you and refer to the fact that you yourself saw the issue when I made a point of order as having some gravity. I believe from those instances alone there is sufficient evidence to at least put a prima facie case before the Privileges Committee. If the Privileges Committee wants to admonish the opposition at the end of the day and totally rule in favour of the member for Johnston, fine. But we have sufficient confidence in that committee to at least deliberate seriously and we ask the government to support that committee in its effort to get to the bottom of it.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I must commend the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the member for Johnston, for his contribution to this debate. I was tempted to have the question put because I thought he had dealt with each of the issues raised in such a substantive motion that there seemed little left to say. Of course, that was made apparent by the bleeding heart contribution from the Leader of the Opposition who gets in here – now, he was elected in 1994 and I think it was the first time I have ever heard him refer to democratic processes in this Chamber and refer to the Westminster system. Music to my ears! Where has he been the last eight years? It was fine when he sat on this side of the Chamber, it was fine when he sat in the Chief Minister’s chair; he never once referred to democratic processes of this Chamber or anywhere else, let alone the Westminster system.
Now, if he has a problem with the way this Assembly works in making decisions on whether to refer a member of the Assembly to the Privileges Committee or not, I have to tell him that it was the CLP and his government that made this Standing Order the way it is; that it is the Chamber that debates the merits of a case on whether a member goes forward to Privileges or not. Prior to that, Madam Speaker, you may recall it was a Speaker’s decision on receipt of a letter from a member wanting to refer another member to Privileges and the Speaker worked through that issue and reported back to parliament. I think this is probably a better way to go. But we would be open to suggestions from the opposition if they do not like the system that they themselves put in place because I have to tell the Leader of the Opposition this is not going to succeed. This motion will be defeated because it is a farce. It is an absolute farce and it is moved with the sole intention of creating a smokescreen about the real work and the real job, diverting attention away from the real and important work of the Public Accounts Committee which has been charged with its work by this Assembly as a whole.
It is this parliament, it is this Assembly that gave the Public Accounts Committee its reference and it is that point, and the point at which the member for Greatorex’s motion goes to undermining the work of the committee itself, undermining the Chairman and in turn undermining the work of this Assembly that pushes the standing orders much more than the member for Johnston did. It could well have been ruled out of order because he is really trying to undermine the due and proper processes.
Let’s have a look at the terms of reference:
a) whether the data published for individual agencies differed materially from that
understood by agencies to properly reflect the best estimates available to each
agency at the time;
Treasury or the Treasurer’s Office with regard to these differences, and the nature of
that advice;
c) whether the agency undertook to advise its respective minister prior to the budget being
delivered that these differences existed;
It would seem that in one case at least that was the case.
d) the impact these differences had on the reported totals for the Northern Territory
public sector; and
e) examine both the expenditure and receipts attributable to each agency in regards
point (a) to (e); and
The member for Johnston and the Public Accounts Committee Chairman is doing a job for this parliament and for the people of the Northern Territory. It is very clear to me, at least, what the investigation is about when you read the terms of reference. And it is the former minister for health, above all others, along, of course, with the former Treasurer, who are right in the frame in this case.
We know that Dr Lim has been thinking about this motion for some weeks and it is really no surprise given the media reports of the committee. I am glad he went through what occurred on Channel 8 on a particular night and what occurred on ABC on another night because I did not happen to catch those news reports at the time, so it is good to see that they are now on the Parliamentary Record for all to read. That is helpful in itself. But certainly, the press clippings - and I have a couple here - do make interesting reading. One wonders in the context of headlines that say ‘Bottom line that’ll will suit your needs? Yes, Minister’ John Loizou, 6 February, ‘Misery for Reed’, Editorial, NT News, 6 February, ‘Budget didn’t add up, admits Clarke’, 5 February 2002, again by John Loizou.
One wonders how on earth the member for Johnston and the Public Accounts Committee Chairman can ever be referred to Privileges Committee in the face of this. What on earth did he say that was not out here? Let’s have a look:
You should listen, Mike. It might be informative.
The other one is ‘Bottom line that’ll suit your needs? Yes, Minister’ by John Loizou.
Truth, as every mother will tell you, will out. And at this week’s hearing of the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee in Darwin, a most unlikely quartet proved this to be true. The three ALP and one Independent members of the six-member committee showed in a single day that the age of an effective backbench MLA in a representative democracy is not dead.
And it is a pity that the Leader of the Opposition is not here to hear this:
It gets better:
Madam Speaker, one wonders, in the face of these sorts of remarks - there is a copy of it, it is available everywhere, it was widely read, I imagine, on 6 February 2002 - one wonders where John Loizou is in this and why is he not here before this Assembly to explain his actions and face a referral to the Privileges Committee compared to the innocuous remarks made by the Chairman of the Committee itself.
The work of the Public Accounts Committee is of critical importance to this Assembly, to inform the Assembly exactly what went on in the preparation of this very misleading 2001-02 budget. And it is important for this Assembly to get to the bottom of this process so that all steps available are put in place by this Assembly to ensure that that sort of dodginess and shoddiness can never occur again as part of future budget preparation.
These issues are, of course, very important for the Country Liberal Party because they go to the heart of their credibility on economic management, a mantra that they stood on for 26 to 27 years in this House. They prided themselves on economic management and, of course, the fallout over the 2001-02 budget has completely exposed them as charlatans. That’s what hurts them, and that’s what is behind this motion, much more than anything the Chairman may or may not have said. But the work of the Committee is not yet finished. The motive, as I said, behind this motion is simply not bona fide. It seeks to undermine the work of this Committee and this Assembly, and the motivation goes more to trying to protect the Country Liberal Party’s incompetence and dishonesty than furthering the work of this parliament, and it’s a tactic we have seen in the first two days of sittings this year. It’s a tactic that they are trying to employ in their desperation to get a headline.
Yesterday, it was the Commissioner for Correctional Services whose integrity and credibility was challenged by the Leader of the Opposition. Today, it’s the new Police Commissioner and the police force that the Country Liberal Party is trying to undermine.
Members interjecting
Mr STIRLING: These tactics are the desperate, negative tactics of political destruction and that destruction will be your own. That destruction will be your own.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr STIRLING: Madam Speaker, at the end of all of that, of course, is their ever-readiness to run the racist flag up that pole as high as they can get it.
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: As high as they can get it.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I don’t believe it is in the best interest of this parliament for members to call other members racist.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, will you stick to the motion and make sure you don’t deviate by making remarks that are inappropriate.
Mr STIRLING: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. Territorians saw through the charlatans opposite, and they saw through the charade in August last year, and they will see through it again, particularly if they want to get in the gutter with their destructive politics that they seem so hell-bent on pursuing. The real motivation for this motion is an attempt to smear the Chairman in the hope that, in turn, they can discredit the findings, whatever the findings of that Committee may be when they hand it down in due course.
Finally, the motion itself does the mover no credit and I can assure him it will be defeated. Madam Speaker, I move that the question be put.
Mr Dunham: You gutless bugger.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I would ask that be withdrawn.
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw.
Mr DUNHAM: I withdraw both words, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Before we go on, the Leader of Government Business has actually moved that the motion be put. Would you defer that until after the member for Nelson has his say?
Mr STIRLING: Absolutely, Madam Speaker.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I know this is a serious matter, but I must admit I didn’t know whether I should rise to defend wet sheep. That was a comment about the PAC and, being a member of that committee, I thought it was a strange remark.
My comments today I hope will not be taken as any indication of my views as to the outcome of the PAC hearings. There are a number of issues that need to be raised. This motion is basically singling out one person, the Chairman, as having made statements which could be seen as an improper interference with the free exercise by the committee of its authority and functions.
But you have to look at the whole way in which the PAC was set up, and you have to put it in to the context and the time it was established to look at this issue. It is difficult to not accept that this PAC, and the matters of which it has been charged by parliament, haven’t forced it to be political because we had a censure motion from the government of the opposition passed before this committee was set up. So, to some extent, you can say there was a judgement made about the government before the Public Accounts Committee released its findings.
For me, you tend to have a Public Accounts Committee on one side which will have a group of people supporting what the government already has passed and on the other side, of course, another group of people who are doing their darndest to say that was not true which leaves me in a position of trying to, you might say, sieve out the political rhetoric for the truth.
I turn to the comments that three people, members of the Public Accounts Committee, have made occasionally in the public arena. I think I have also said to the Chairman, Dr Burns, that perhaps some of his statements could have been worded better. We are all new. That is not an excuse, but four of us, at least, are new to this whole concept of being thrown into a Public Accounts Committee. Some of us had no experience in dealing with the media, and that can be daunting sometimes, especially when a microphone and a camera are stuck in your face. I am not necessarily saying that is an excuse but, again, I think you have to look at things holistically before you can make an overall comment. I think that the Chairman, since then, has refrained from making any more comments and any comments he has made are purely of what you might call a technical nature.
I’ll just quickly take out two other issues: I think at times other members have said things that perhaps could be seen to be not quite appropriate. Mr Dunham made a statement to Top-FM, I think. I have the transcript here. I think it is from 16 January this year. He made a statement, for instance - he is referring to the health minister here and he says:
So the question for the health minister - and we will get the opportunity. Gerry is going to get the opportunity, if he cannot get into to see her, because he is on the PAC and we are going to call Minister Aagaard to come before the PAC to talk about the budget papers that gave her the extra $34m.
I believe that the decision to call Minister Aagaard was at that time not public. I am just making a statement that perhaps that should not have been said until the PAC had officially announced that the minister was going to come before the Public Accounts Committee.
The second item I want to mention is that when the motion was moved for the setting up of this Public Accounts inquiry, there was a second motion made after that motion had been supported. This motion was - and it came from the member for Drysdale and it was in the form of an amendment, and the amendment said that the PAC investigate Professor Percy Allan’s two reports, the Access Economics investigation and assessment of Labor’s pre-election policies and that the PAC be allowed to investigate Labor’s mini-budget due in November.
Now, that was put before the House and that was defeated. In the public hearing on 30 November with Mr Paul Bartholomew, Dr Lim raised the issue, and I quote from page 20:
Now, Professor Percy Allan recommended a series of measures to address his perception of budget problems. Have you read them, are you aware of them, which of these measures that you read would you implement in the now Department of Health and Community Services?
I just take that one example. Again, I felt that - and perhaps in hindsight I had not realised that this amendment had not been passed until fairly recently - but we were actually starting to discuss issues that it was recommended by this parliament that we should not take on.
What I am saying is that I see a range of things that have occurred on both sides that may not have been up to scratch, may not have been technically correct, or perhaps some sort of motion should have been moved that they also should not have occurred. I would be happy if people felt that there had been a range of matters that had been raised during this Public Accounts Committee’s inquiries that were a bit dubious as to whether they should have been said or not, then perhaps we should be looking at all those matters in a Privileges Committee and that way, I think we would get a fairer outcome.
I say all of us have probably made mistakes. I have done a radio interview. In fact, I started off that radio interview saying that I felt that the censure motion was serious and the evidence that I had seen looked as though the government had certainly done something wrong. I was brand new; I have since heard a lot of evidence which may make me think one way or the other, but we do make mistakes and I think that we will learn and become a better PAC as we go along.
I think that this is picking on one person for, you might say, a number of perceived errors, but I think we are all perhaps guilty of that and if this parliament is to be fair and it wants to have a Privileges Committee look at the lot of us, I would welcome that.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be now put.
Motion agreed to; motion put.
Motion negatived.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Local Government Amendment Bill is to reinstate section 13 of the act which was repealed in 1995. This bill was presented to parliament in February last year but was defeated. The bill is designed to allow elected members of local government to contest an election of the NT Legislative Assembly and if they lost that election could, within seven days of the declaration of the poll, be restored without penalty to being a member of the council from which he or she had resigned.
I have heard all the arguments that have been stated in previous debates about this bill, but for me the best reason for restoring this section is that parliament should encourage people to stand for public office, not put impediments in their way to discourage them. This makes for a stronger, healthier and more vibrant democracy, and in a place like the Territory where we have such a small population, encouraging people to stand should be a priority. I know from my time in local government, local governments strongly support this change and would certainly welcome the reintroduction of section 13.
I am not going to go over old arguments or debate what was raised in previous assemblies unless there is opposition to this bill. I do feel confident that both sides of parliament will support this bill and that to raise the ghosts of the past would not be conducive to assisting a bipartisan approach for this change. This bill is about encouraging people to stand as representatives in our parliament. It is about strengthening our democracy and, surely, anything that does that is good for the Territory.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill is introduced with the intention to overcome difficulties that are created in section 357 of the Criminal Code. The bill is an attempt - and I do not really put it any higher than that - to grapple with the issues that are of critical importance to us all, and it is my hope that debate and further discussion will ensue so that, ultimately, a bipartisan approach can be adopted to this vexing area.
Put simply, the community must be protected from violent offenders who are declared unfit to plead and who, as a result, are not dealt with by a court appropriately. The fact is that often violent offenders are released into the community. They can be repeat offenders who commit particularly violent crimes. For instance, the case of Anthony Scotty in Alice Springs illustrates the difficulties created by several parts of the Criminal Code. Anthony Scotty was not, most would argue, dealt with sensibly by the criminal justice system over a period of years. Ultimately, a man who had a history of violent offences was allowed to roam the streets of Alice Springs, and he ultimately murdered a local woman, Rosemary McIntyre.
The inquest into her death illustrated that the justice system was not well equipped to deal with a man who had organic brain damage. Had the system been better, arguably Rosemary McIntyre would be alive today.
Today in Alice Springs, in particular, there are violent offenders roaming the streets with brain damage - often from petrol sniffing - and who, for one reason or another, are deemed by a court to be unfit to plead. Unless legislators take action to change this situation, it will be a matter of time until another innocent person is murdered. Hence, the introduction of this bill is an attempt to generate healthy, bipartisan discussion with a view to changing at least one part of the relevant legislation for the benefit of those for whom we govern.
The bill proposes changes to section 357 of the Criminal Code. The salient parts of section 357 are subsections (3) and (4), which read as follows:
(3) If the court finds that he …
an accused person:
that is, not fit to plead to a charge:
… it is to say whether he is so found by it for the reason that he is in a state of abnormality of mind or for some other reason that it shall specify and the finding is to be recorded; then the court may order the accused person to be discharged or may order him to be kept in custody in such place and in such manner as the court thinks fit, and admit him to bail, until he can be dealt with according to law.
Subsection(4) reads:
Pursuant to subsection (3) there are, put simply, three options or three dispositions available to the court when dealing with an accused person who is unfit to plead. They are, for all intents and purposes, defined in subsection (3). In simple terms, the options are:
To discharge the accused. That is a significant concern for many in the legal profession as well as members of the public because the effect is that the subsections provide that offenders can be discharged into the community only to offend again. A typical example is a person who has permanent brain damage from petrol sniffing who may not be fit for trial. As that person - based on medical evidence, of course - will never improve, it follows that the trial can never be held. In addition, such a person may not fall within the provisions of the Mental Health and Related Services Act and there are no other facilities suitable for protecting the community against the offender committing further crimes.
The second disposition available to the court, or the second option it has, is to order that the offender be kept in custody until the court thinks fit. This is a problem because, as a result of the decision of R v Jabanardi 1983 50 ALR 147, this means in practical terms that if a person is permanently unfit to plead, once having been declared so by a court, he can be discharged. Again, this is an unacceptable risk and poses significant risks to the community.
The third option under subsection (3) of section 357 is to give bail to the accused. In other words, to release him on bail. This, in particular, is a troubling disposition because if an offender is unfit to plead, he is also unfit to enter into bail conditions. So, it follows as a matter of logic that bail is often dispensed with. This means that offenders are not even subject to a variety of bail or protective measures a court can usually impose.
In real terms, this means that offenders who are permanently unfit to plead are not held in custody, nor are they bailed. Instead, they are systematically discharged or released into the community. Hence the extraordinary situation exists where a person may have been previously found to be unfit to plead and then discharged into the community; they will have been discharged regardless of whether they shoplifted or committed a violent assault.
In Alice Springs - and I’m sure the Attorney-General knows this well - there are a number of repeat offenders who have been declared by the Supreme Court as being unfit to plead. So that there can be no doubt, the type of offenders in question include the likes of Roland Ebatajitna and Seth Namatjira. Since they have been released by the court, they are free to roam the streets committing more crimes. Some of these offenders have histories of particularly violent offences and, indeed, a matter was in the Supreme Court in Alice Springs last week dealing with the ongoing difficulties posed by Roland Ebatajitna’s problems.
This, in essence, is a dangerous revolving door. It is a minefield to discharge violent offenders into the community. A safeguard must be created to protect the public and this is necessary, particularly in Central Australia, given the high rate of petrol sniffing and the link between this and violent offences.
As a result of the obvious difficulties created by section 357 and the risks posed to the community, the opposition’s view is that a legislative regime is required where, if an offender, on the facts, committed an offence, thereby disregarding the need to examine his mental state or his mental intent, he should be sentenced as if he were fit to plead. Otherwise there will be a group of violent offenders who repeatedly commit crimes and who are systematically discharged by the court.
It is noteworthy that every other jurisdiction in Australia has legislation on fitness to plead that says a court can still sentence a person previously declared unfit to plead. I think the leading jurisdiction is Victoria. In other words, just because an offender has been declared unfit to plead by a court previously, he can, nevertheless, be dealt with by a court in other jurisdictions.
The central aim of this bill is to provide that a hearing can be held to determine, on the facts, whether the accused committed the act constituting the offence and, if so, the court can then detain that person for a certain period, thereby protecting the community and, for that matter, the offender. In terms of the bill, it provides that existing subsections (3) and (4) of section 357 be omitted and substituted with new subsections (3) and (4). Those new subsections are fairly straightforward.
The new subsection (5) provides that if an offender is likely to become capable of understanding the proceedings, he may be remanded in custody or admitted to bail, but if the court is satisfied that there is a risk of the person offending again, then pursuant to subsection (6), he must not be released into bail unless under the care and control of another person who is capable of understanding any conditions the court imposes. This will provide comfort and security to the community. It is therefore a useful and practical amendment.
In addition, subsection (7) provides that if it is unlikely that the accused will become capable of understanding the proceedings for the next six months, the court has some options that are not presently available to it under the current regime. The subsection clearly anticipates those who are permanently unfit to plead. Specifically, it provides that, in such a case, a hearing must be held to determine whether, on the facts, the accused committed the offence for which he is held, and the details of that are outlined in subsection (8).
In the event that at hearing, the court does find that the accused did commit the act, in accordance with subsection (11), the court must then go on to deal with that person in accordance with the new section 357A.
Pursuant to section 357A, the court must either order that the person is to be detained in accordance with section 357B or discharge that person subject to the conditions the court thinks fit. However, the terms of any discharge contemplated by section 357A(1)(b), are limited and this is due to the inclusion of subsection (4) of 357A which provides that if there is a substantial risk of the person re-offending or posing a risk to others, he will only be discharged if in the care and under the control of another person who is capable of understanding any condition that the court imposes. This significantly improves the current provisions which are so obviously unsatisfactory.
Finally, section 357B provides that if an offender is found to have committed an act, whether it be shoplifting or murder, an option available to the court is to detain the offender and the period of detention is to be not less than the period of imprisonment that would have been imposed having regard to factors outlined in subsections (a) to (c) which include considerations such as the offender’s character, his history of offending, his mental condition and the public interest.
This bill affords protection for the community and gives the court practical options when dealing with an offender who is unfit to plead. The options included in the bill are workable and sensible and I know that there are people in the legal profession, and, I suspect, the judiciary, who are calling for this section to be worked on at the very least by government.
As I said at the outset, this bill is intended to promote discussion with a view to achieving an outcome that should have bipartisan support. As the number of violent offenders seems to be increasing, the stakes are high. For my part, I do not want the death of an innocent person on my conscious and for that reason I implore the government to look seriously at this bill.
I should also add that I became aware last week of the matter in the Supreme Court in Alice Springs involving Roland Ebatajitna. I assume that the Attorney-General has been advised of that. I understand that it is going back to court on 4 March. There is no better example I can illustrate than that case.
It is for that reason, Madam Speaker, that I commend the bill to members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The bill deals with an amendment to the Small Claims Act which will allow a court, in a limited number of situations, to award costs against an unsuccessful party in a small claims action. Too many times it seems people who owe less than $5000 to a creditor are not concerned about the prospect of civil recovery litigation as the costs associated with a recovery action by a creditor often makes the whole exercise uneconomical.
Small and medium sized businesses cannot afford to engage a solicitor or take the necessary time off work to pursue many outstanding debtors for sums of less than $5000. This bill gives the court the discretion to make an order in relation to costs in proceedings where the amount claimed is less than $5000 in two discrete situations. First, where there is a written agreement between the debtor and creditor stating that the recovery costs in respect of the debt will be paid by the debtor; and secondly, proceedings that are for the recovery of a debt within the meaning of section 46 of the Unit Titles Act.
I will just talk briefly about section 46 of the Unit Titles Act. Section 46 allows for a body corporate to recover money from a member of that body corporate for money that it has expended under the Unit Titles Act in the Northern Territory for any negligent act or omission on the part of the member of that corporation. That money is recoverable as a debt against the individual member of the body corporate, but once again, the situation arises where you have a recalcitrant unit holder who refuses to pay that debt and the cost associated with instituting recovery proceedings against that recalcitrant unit holder makes it uneconomical for the body corporate to proceed. The amendment to the Small Claims Act allows for recovery of costs against a member of that body corporate.
I have consulted with some small and medium sized businesses as well as a couple of managing agents of bodies corporate who are of the view that this type of amendment is required, particularly in regard to the tight economic climate which we find ourselves operating within and when margins are so small. The proposed amendment to the Small Claims Act will close both of the loop holes in which debtors in these two very specific categories who owe less than $5000 currently enjoy.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time. Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
The necessity for this bill to come on General Business day is because of the inaction of the government, notwithstanding that this has been seen as a very high priority area, and the growing suspicion from those of us on this side that the intention of the government is to do absolutely nothing about this because they have quickly realised that the promises that they made prior to the election and their many, many statements in Hansard are a charade and can be proven to be such.
I shan’t be visiting the wealth of material that is in the historical records of Hansard for two reasons. First, this debate will take place, obviously, when the bill’s passage is debated at the next General Business day, but second, I thought it was important to talk about it in a contemporary context because it is a matter that is now for this government and it is a matter that this government has to deal with.
Members would probably be aware that the Northern Territory Public Accounts Committee was established by temporary Standing Order 21A of the Legislative Assembly back on 16 August 1986. The committee’s status was altered by way of a motion of the Chief Minister on 23 August 1988 from a sessional committee on a trial basis to a standing committee of this parliament. As a result, as a committee of this Legislative Assembly, its authority is derived from the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act of the Commonwealth and the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act of the Northern Territory. The details of the Public Accounts Committee are enshrined in our standing orders and are at 21A which specifically describes the Public Accounts Committee. There are several other references through the standing orders, including select committees, and examination of witnesses, etcetera.
I draw the attention of the House to a sequence of events, commencing prior to the election of Labor presenting a position paper parading as Good Government. This position paper had a few references to the Public Accounts Committee, and it was seen as a fairly pivotal change that would be brought in as a matter of some urgency. For the benefit of Hansard, the paper is called Position Paper, Labor Northern Territory Good Government, and I quote from page three of that document:
And it cites several dot points, but under the dot point ‘Reform Parliament by’, it says:
That paper goes on, and a couple of pages later at page six, it talks about the parliamentary accounts system
in a little bit more detail. I quote again from the paper under the heading ‘Parliamentary Committee System’:
Parliaments in most democratic nations have established a system of Parliamentary Committees for the purpose of assisting public scrutiny and maximising accountability of the elected Government of the day
Parliamentary Committees should be free to operated unhindered, and to praise, criticise or call to account the actions of the government. The CLP has developed a limited committee system, and one that does not meet these criteria.
Parliamentary Committees in the Territory are established under Standing Orders. These can be changed virtually overnight at the whim of the Government.
Labor will enshrine the broad structure of the committee system in legislation so that the status of committees is raised, and they become part of the institutional framework of the parliament and not subjected to the wishes of the party that holds the majority of members in the house.
Under this new regime, Labor will have legislatively prescribed areas of responsibility. This arrangement will free the committees to investigate issues of public concern without the approval of the governing majority party. Each committee will have the power to consider issues, conduct hearings, report on them and make recommendations. The committees will have enhanced powers to call for evidence. The makeup of the committees will be changed to have six members each, only three of whom will come from the party in government.
So that’s when we went to an election, and it was interesting because immediately after the election there was some rhetoric about moving quickly to implement some of these changes. And, indeed, the Whip, on 15 October, wrote to the Opposition Whip, prior to the first sittings, about proposed changes to Standing Orders and Sessional Orders of the Territory Parliament, and he talked about a similar style of rhetoric, and I’ll quote from the last paragraph:
Public Accounts Committee nor the Estimates Committee.
We then were sworn in, Madam Speaker, a great day for us all, being successful in our elections. Very early in
the new parliament, I go to the debates of Tuesday 16 October 2001, at page 3, where His Honour gave his address
to this parliament, a fundamental first speech that forms a platform from which this government intends to introduce
and run its principles in government. At page 3, His Honour said:
And this is very early in his speech, this is merely a dot point to the second paragraph:
And members will recall that’s a lift from that other paper.
He further went on, and at page five he expanded on good government:
So, very early on, we on this side of the House were aware that they were going to use Good Government as some form of a blueprint to change some of these things. Those expectations were quickly shattered because we then moved to a variety of motions to set up the structures of this House, and they were the committees.
We are still on Tuesday, and I have merely got to page 16. The Leader of Government Business talked about the Public Accounts Committee. In talking to it, I did put the case that only that morning His Honour had described how we would be progressing with this committee, and that it was our understanding that it would be based in legislation, and that it would have some of those features that were enunciated to the electorate prior to the election. I put it that, and I quote again:
And that was responded to by the Leader of Government Business virtually shutting down debate. And we thought: ‘Well, there you go, that’s just another broken promise,’ and that was probably the quickest because we were barely sworn in and we had the Leader of Government Business saying: ‘Sorry, that’s a backflip job and we are not going to go there’.
What surprises is that the first speaker in reply to His Honour’s address, in the Address-in-Reply, was the Chief Minister. And somebody forgot to tell her speech writer, because her quote, here from page 21, she says:
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That approach was made in deliberative sessions within the Public Accounts Committee. I am not sure whether it is appropriate for the member for Drysdale to be discussing it here.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, please do not refer to anything that happened in deliberative sessions.
Mr DUNHAM: I shan’t refer to anything in closed session, and to put the matter at rest, I can say that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee heard that debate. He knows that it’s something we’ve asked, and it’s something we asked in the public record of Hansard, so when I said I sought the attention of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I am not going to divulge exactly what was said in closed session, but I can tell you that I am dissatisfied with the answer. And I am dissatisfied, notwithstanding anything in the Public Accounts Committee, about the fact that this is seen as an urgent issue that is now in the third sittings, and still no sign, no mini-statements, none of that rhetoric that was so very, very important on General Business days when the Labor Party was in opposition.
I have introduced what I would call a minimalist bill. It is broadly lifted from the Queensland bill, and I think it has some applicability here, given that that is the only other unicameral parliament in our Westminster system here in Australia. It is also, fortuitously for those opposite, a Labor government, so they can get some pretty good inside government advice as to how the thing works and whether it has any difficulty. I thought that that would make an easy road for them.
I am aware that there are still some jurisdictions in Australia that do not have Public Accounts Committees enshrined in legislation; they still form parts of standing orders or, in some cases, broad legislation covering committees in general which has Public Accounts Committees underneath it.
The bill also has the capacity to look forward and to look back. Members would be aware that the Public Accounts Committee basically is an historical committee. It looks at data that is already on the public record. We think there is some benefit in having the capacity of that committee to be a forward looking committee, to peruse the estimates of the government of the day and to talk about some of the issues that find themselves in estimates.
We think that this is in rough accord with those opposite, but I am prepared for them to put a countervailing point of view notwithstanding that it will put a lie to their election rhetoric and to much of the rhetoric that has been put on the Parliamentary Record that we can revisit at another time.
The bill only goes to five pages and 33 clauses. It is a fairly readable document. Certainly, for members of the Public Accounts Committee, it should present no problem. The area of responsibility is encompassed in just two points:
and I am sure I would have great agreement from those opposite on that:
which is a Public Accounts Committee style of activity and, interestingly, an estimates type activity so we can call for those documents, and
I would like to consider this bill to be a model style of a bill in the sense that it can be easily appended, changed and amended, and that we do have a substantial period in between the two general business days for that to occur. It is not my intention to put this bill out as the ultimate. My intention really is to say to the government that we would see some features of this legislation that must be embedded and for them then to treat this as a matter that they previously saw as having a high priority.
If the Labor Party is to be believed with its promises, the legs that must be included are: that it should be in the form of legislation under this House; that it should have even numbers on its makeup and members will note that at clause 6, membership is of six members, three appointed by the Chief Minister, three by the Leader of the Opposition.
Now, the obvious problem that could present is if there is a tied vote for the chairperson - and this is not lifted from Queensland; this is something that I thought might be advantageous - is the chairman could be agreed upon by this parliament. I can see an occasion where the opposition who seem to be very impressed with the fact that an Independent member is now on the Public Accounts Committee could actually nominate an Independent member. So the Chief Minister could nominate among her three nominees an Independent member and also nominate that member for chairman. So it leaves all those options open to the government of the day.
The features, getting back, first is that it is legislation; second, even numbers of opposition and government members; third, that it embrace the capacity for the committee to look forward in an estimates style of interrogation and also in the traditional backwards looking with public accounts. It should be able to investigate its own issues, and that is, certainly, something that is in the position papers that are here, and it should not have to be beholden on the government of the day to give it the issues that it believes to be important. The Public Accounts Committee should have the capacity to independently ascertain what those issues are and to pursue them. Last - and it is worth saying because it has got the potential to knobble a committee of this type - is that it should be provided with adequate resources.
I have not put that into the legislation because I think it is immensely difficult to draft, but in contributions to this debate, members should talk about the resourcing issues for the Public Accounts Committee so that if a future government wishes to merely pay lip service to this bill, the wishes of this parliament are clear in terms of its basic operating charter and the necessity for staff and for funds.
I shall leave it there on the basis that this is merely a model and a draft, and I intend it only to provide a vehicle for the Labor Party in government to achieve one of its fundamental ambitions. I am very happy to assist them to do that given that they seem to be fairly busy at the moment and incapable of bringing their thoughts to this legislation.
Debate adjourned.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move:
Commissioner, Mr John Valentin;
The men and women of the Northern Territory police have long been regarded by Territorians as an exceptional group. They enjoy a rapport with the community, I would suggest, that is unequalled elsewhere in Australia, if not the world. It is a reputation built up over many years and the basic principles on which it has been created are passed on to each succeeding generation.
They have an enormous task to police such a huge area, an area of 1 346 200 km containing so many different communities, towns and cities and a mix of cultures unlike any other jurisdiction in Australia. They are crucial to the functioning of our society and they deserve the full support of government in fulfilling their tasks. We in the CLP are proud of our relationship with these men and women and we are proud of our record of support over successive governments. In the past five years we increased the manpower by 150 and lifted the police budget from $92m to $129m, an increase of some 40%.
This Labor government went to the election promising to employ a further 50 police over its term, yet it has already slipped this by failing to achieve any increase in its first year. With only one recruitment class this calendar year, this government cannot meet its own target of an increase of 10 in 2001-02. We already know that this government is placing pressure on the budget for the police this financial year. At least two documents have been leaked, and this goes to the very question of morale in the police force, that detail this pressure. We have the infamous memo from Gary Manison, the Commander of the Southern Region, that stated bluntly, and I quote:
We have lost 3% of our budget.
Mr Manison went on:
I need you to advise me how you will cut spending in your division. The obvious areas that will have to be done
are higher duties allowance and overtime. Only in the most critical situations is overtime to be approved.
Mr Manison continued:
This means that where members go sick, they will not be replaced unless it is a critical area. This also goes for
relieving at stations when there are more than two members. You need to consider whether they can function
for a time without the additional member.
Then within days, there was a second leak to the Northern Territory News of the minutes of an Operations Command meeting which again made it clear that the police budget is short of funds. The newspaper quoted from the minutes:
Next year’s allocation has received $1m less than this year’s allocation and we have a 4% pay increase to pay
out of that.
The newspaper quotes the senior police as saying: ‘Operational costs are no better’. And what was this government’s response? What did the police minister do? Well, first of all he said the police have received more money because the CLP government gave them more money. Incidentally, perhaps the minister should pass on this information to his colleagues in the Public Accounts Committee who seem to have a different point of view. But after congratulating the CLP government for increasing the police budget and adding that his government had topped up these funds in their mini-budget to pay for the Falconio investigation and the pay increase, the agreement between police and government, he wiped his hands of the whole affair and left it to his new Commissioner to clean it up.
So much for ministerial responsibility. ‘We’ll sack the Deputy Commissioner, we will tell you how many police to put into various units, we will get you working on projects that the Chief Minister doesn’t want, like demerit points, but we won’t take any responsibility’. The police minister even left it to an anonymous government spokesman to contradict him and the commissioner and, again, I quote from the NT News of 6 February:
The Northern Territory government said the shortfall was caused by the $1m investigation into
Peter Falconio’s disappearance.
Our police men and women deserve better than this; they deserve to be supported from the highest level of government and they deserve to know that they are being supported. The forced departure of Deputy Commission John Valentin speaks volumes as to how much support they can expect from this government. It was a shameful episode, and the police minister stands condemned for the manipulative role he played in the whole affair. Let me put on the record the chronology of this sad affair.
First, John Valentin made it clear that if he was not selected as commissioner he would, in the interest of the force and the Territory, continue to serve as deputy for as long as was required - certainly, for long enough for whoever was to be the new commissioner to establish himself in the new job. This was known to Commissioner Bates and known to the government, or certainly should have been. On 22 November, Police Commissioner Bates …
Dr Burns: He did not want to serve the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr BURKE: Do you want to give your ears a go? On 22 November, Police Commissioner Bates rang Deputy Commissioner Valentin who was in Adelaide to tell him that Paul White had been chosen by the government to be the next commissioner. There was no further contact between the two men because of their various duties and commitments until 28 November when Commissioner Bates returned from several days in Sydney and Canberra. At that meeting, Commissioner Bates told Deputy Commissioner Valentin that he, Bates, had been asked by the government to stay on for a further two weeks until Commissioner White arrived. He told Deputy Commissioner Valentin that he, Valentin, would not be required to act as commissioner which he had invariably done on numerous previous occasions when the commissioner was absent.
Commissioner Bates further told Deputy Commissioner Valentin at this 28 November meeting that the new commissioner did not have a role for Valentin in the Territory police force. Finally, Commissioner Bates made it clear to Deputy Commissioner Valentin that if he sought to serve out the remaining two-and-a-half years of his contract, then the government would ensure that Valentin was seen out of his job. Not surprisingly, Deputy Commissioner Valentin said to Commissioner Bates at that meeting that he would take off what was left of that afternoon to seek legal advice on his position. The next day, 29 November, Commissioner Bates and Deputy Commissioner Valentin had another meeting in which Commissioner Bates confirmed the four points he had put the previous day.
On 30 November, Deputy Commissioner Valentin again spoke to Commissioner Bates and sought and was granted three weeks recreational leave to consider his options. On the same day, the police minister issued a media release indicating that Commissioner Bates would be remaining in the position because Deputy Commissioner Valentin had said he wanted to take leave to consider his position. Remember, this media release was put out the same day Deputy Commissioner Valentin decided to seek leave and at least two days after he was told by Commissioner Bates that the government had asked Commissioner Bates to stay on.
It was this police minister who spread the scandalous story that Deputy Commissioner Valentin had spat the dummy because he had not been appointed commissioner. It was this police minister who put out a press release saying retiring Commissioner Bates had been forced to stay on because of the alleged dummy spit when, in fact, it was this police minister who asked Commissioner Bates to stay because he would not allow Deputy Commissioner Valentin to act in the position. It was this police minister who made it clear to the retiring Commissioner Bates that Deputy Commissioner Valentin …
Mr Stirling: Is that right? Evidence? There’s a little old conspiracy theory here. Have you got the minutes or the agenda to verify this rubbish?
Mr BURKE: You should at least listen. It was this police minister …
Mr Stirling: Unsubstantiated tripe! You are a grub!
Mr BURKE: … who made it clear to retiring Commissioner Bates that Deputy Commissioner Valentin would be seen …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr BURKE: … out of a job if he tried to …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, we have a point of order.
Mr ELFERINK: If the honourable minister wants to make allegations of that nature he can do so by substantive motion, and I think he should withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, that was a very unparliamentary term. Please withdraw.
Mr STIRLING: Their sensitivity gets ever more precious, Madam Speaker. I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Now, it would be useful with members even from the Leader of the Opposition’s side that we don’t have interruptions while he is giving his speech.
Mr BURKE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would ask the police minister to listen because he will have adequate time to respond to these allegations, and I would hope when he does so, he does stick to the issue rather than spraying all over the place which might give him some satisfaction but never, ever addresses the issues that are being raised here.
It was this police minister who made it clear to the retiring Commissioner Bates that Deputy Commissioner Valentin would be seen out of a job if he tried to serve out the remaining two-and-half years of his contract. It was this police minister who forced Deputy Commissioner Valentin into the invidious position of having to write to all the Territory commissioned officers to tell them what the real situation was. In that letter, John Valentin made it clear he was prepared to stay on and assist the new commissioner for as long as the new commissioner wanted. He also made it clear that the only reason he was given for being pushed out was that he was perceived to be too close to the CLP.
Now, we accept that this new government might want their own people in these crucial positions, but why can’t they be upfront and honest about it? Why can’t this police minister stand up and be honest and say: ‘I didn’t want John Valentin as Deputy Commissioner. I want my own men’? Why must he make up stories and damage the reputation of a man who has given many years of meritorious service both to the Territory police and the Australian Federal Police? Why can’t he be upfront and say: ‘We are going to pick our own men for the top police jobs irrespective of any recommendations from selection committees or the views of the serving men and women of the Territory police’? Why can’t he be upfront and publicly say: ‘We are getting rid of John Valentin because we think he is too close to the CLP’? In that context, I would be interested to know what was the real recommendation from the selection committee.
How comforting it must be to the rest of the men and women who are still employed as police to be told the police minister knows how they vote. He told the NT News in December:
70% of police vote CLP. Does that mean I am going gunning for them?
This police minister owes an apology to John Valentin for the way he was treated, or put the record straight because there are only a few possible explanations for what occurred. The first is that Commissioner Bates acted independently and without the authority of the minister when he told Mr Valentin there was no wish by the government for him to act as commissioner in the interval between Commissioner Bates’ retirement and the arrival of Commissioner White. Second, that the government did not want John Valentin to continue as Deputy Commissioner. Third, the government had no role for John Valentin in the Territory police. Fourth, the government would get rid of John Valentin if he tried to remain in office to see out his contract. Last, the reason for all this was the allegation that Deputy Commissioner Valentin was too close to the CLP.
If the previous Police Commissioner acted without warrant to make those statements, the minister has opportunity to stand up and say it. That is the first option: that Commissioner Bates made it all up and told Mr Valentin those five points, independent of the government and the minister, and without any authority to do so.
The second option is that Commissioner Bates was acting as the agent of, and on the instructions of, the minister, and just passing on the minister’s position to John Valentin. The minister now has the opportunity to explain. I ask the question: is it his contention that at the end of a long and very distinguished career, Brian Bates made it all up, thus leaving an enormous blemish on a previously unsullied record? If that is the case, then the minister, on behalf of the government, should apologise to John Valentin for how he was treated and misled. I have had the honour to know Brian Bates. I have enormous respect for him, and I cannot and do not believe that Brian Bates would have done such a thing and acted alone.
That leaves us with the second option that Commissioner Bates was carrying out the instructions of his minister and passing those instructions on to Deputy Commissioner Valentin, a man he had worked with for many, many years both in the Territory and in the Federal Police forces. Forcing Commissioner Bates into this position was a cowardly act by this minister and this government.
Coupled with the allegations against the former minister for corrections, it demonstrates once again a very undesirable attitude by this new government and its new ministers. They have no compunction in directly interfering with the day-to-day operations of the police force. They have no compunction in shifting or forcing out public servants that they believe are politically incorrect. They have no compunction in forcing other public servants to carry out their hatchet jobs. That is what this minister and this government did to John Valentin, and for the cowardly way they did it and for the reasons they pushed him out, they owe him an apology. And they owe an apology to the remaining men and women of our police force. They owe it to the Territory’s police men and women to explain that their personal politics will not be any bar to their promotion and advancement in the force.
Further, they owe it to the members of the police and to the rest of us Territorians to explain just what all their fiddling with funding is doing to the operational effectiveness of the Territory police force. They need to address suggestions that ACPOs are being asked to carry out the same duties as commissioned officers. They need to make it clear whether they will continue to pay overtime to police officers in bush stations who have to stay overnight because they have people in the cells. They need to rule out any suggestion that the very successful School-Based Constable Scheme is to be abolished, or so severely curtailed as to be virtually non-existent. They need to explain just how they propose to increase the police establishment this financial year when they have only one scheduled training course which will produce no constables for the beat until next financial year. They need to explain just how far they are planning to go in telling the commissioner how many police he will have in the various squads, a matter that surely goes to the heart of who has responsibility for the day-to-day operations of the police force. Is it the minister or the commissioner or his deputy?
Incidentally, Madam Speaker, one has to wonder how the loss of its two most senior officers, one to an honourable retirement, the other forced out by the minister in the most despicable fashion is affecting the morale of the rest of the force. Equally, the situation that has been left behind, that is this round robin of Acting Deputy Commissioners. Until now it has been the Deputy Commissioner who is actually responsible for the day-to-day running of the force. Now we have the three Assistant Commissioners taking it in turns to give orders to the other two, and none of them are guaranteed to get the deputy’s job anyway. Such a stupid competition at the top can be doing nothing for the morale of the force. The amount of information that is seeping out is evidence of that low morale.
Certainly, I would think that anyone who has been in a management situation and who employs that sort of practice in selecting the new Deputy Commissioner needs to reconsider that approach. But in the case of Commissioner White, it would seem to me that he has no option because it seems to me also that he has been given a short list of three, and there is no possibility for him to go outside of that situation, and also to make it seem as if the process if proper.
As with so many issues in the Territory under this Labor government, the minister and this government need to start telling Territorians what they are doing, if anything, and what they are planning to do. They need to stop what seems to have been a six month long caucus meeting and start acting as the government.
The last clause of this motion calls on the government to urgently appoint a suitably qualified team to conduct a comprehensive review of the needs of operational police in the Northern Territory. The malaise they have produced in the force, the low morale, the penny pinching and the outright interference in operational matters calls out for such a review. It calls out for someone removed from this government and removed from the politics of it all to examine just where the force is, where it is going and how it is going to get there. It is time to review the role of the police in our community and how they can be more effective and helped out to be more effective.
It is seven years since the McAuley Bowe Review was completed and the changes in our community, the growth of the population, the increasingly technological society in which we live, mean it is appropriate for another dispassionate look and an objective look at the police force. In my view such a review should not be looking at how money can be saved here and there by fiddling with the conditions of our police men and women, but rather at the way the force operates for the good of the community, the demands on their operations and whether or not significant resourcing issues are involved and how they need to be effected. It should be tasked at looking at the adequacy and appropriateness of resources - human, cash, technology and machinery.
This is not just about how this government got rid of the second most senior policeman in the Northern Territory. Nor is it just about how much this government intends to interfere in the day-to-day operations of the police force. Nor is it limited to how accountable the minister is for his actions. What it is about is the passionate belief on this side of the House that we do have a great police force. We must constantly renew our efforts to ensure the men and women who serve our community so ably are adequately supported and resourced by the government.
Madam Speaker, I commend the motion to honourable members.
Mr STIRLING (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, this sickening self-righteousness from the Leader of the Opposition in relation to this motion - he uses that to try to disguise the damage that he is actually causing to our police force with a motion of this nature. Well, it does not wash.
I said yesterday in this Assembly that I am enormously proud of our police force in the Northern Territory and I meant it. The Productivity Commission figures that we went through yesterday, released in January, back up the confidence and pride that I hold in the police. Most Territorians, more than any other in any jurisdiction in Australia, to the extent of over 76%, really respect are grateful to the police for the job that they do. They have a tough job in the community. It is recognised by most, except I think the Leader of the Opposition, that it is a tough job and they do it well. I guess my greatest disappointment is to be standing here as minister for police having to debate such an unsavoury motion as this is before us today. The only time in my 11 plus years in politics in the Northern Territory as a member of this Assembly that I have seen the Northern Territory police force dragged into the public arena in the manner that this Leader of the Opposition is trying to do today, occurred just prior to the October 1990 election, subsequent to the furore of the Mulholland Inquiry, and the House was closed down for that October 1999 election in the midst of a fiery debate over those matters.
That highly politicised event centred around a drugs investigation, and really the central question appeared to be at the end of it all, certainly, in the media’s view, it came down to the question of when the then police minister and former member for Sanderson, one Daryl Manzie, had or had not met with a prostitute called Rhonda. Now the police force was dragged through unsavoury …
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: I was a member in the House when the Mulholland Inquiry was finally tabled, under such security that one Mr Andy Bruyn had to front the Bar of the Assembly for breaking privilege in relation to the release of the Mulholland Inquiry, so secretively and so highly secured was the release of the report.
I use that as an example, Madam Speaker, and I think it was a lesson to one and all to stay away from this sort of strife because it does the police no good, it, certainly, did parliament no good, and it did the people of the Northern Territory no good. In all the years since that 1991 tabling of that Mulholland Inquiry, there have been a number of police ministers and shadow ministers come and go through that role as minister for police. Certainly, Brian Ede held opposition responsibility for police for many years; the member for Fannie Bay, Marshall Perron; the former member for Port Darwin; the member for Katherine; and in all of that time police were kept out of the political fray. They were for a very good reason, and I know the member for Macdonnell would understand exactly what I am talking about because the basic reason is this: it is because a police force can act honestly, openly, efficiently and remain effective as long as it holds the trust and confidence of the public that it serves.
One thing the Northern Territory police do not need is to be dragged through the mud by the Country Liberal Party opposition because they have picked on this political wrecking style as the style that they are going to take forward in the remaining months under this current leader. I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he thinks it is in the best interest of the Northern Territory to talk down confidence in the police. If I ask myself this question: does it help the criminals or does it help the police if a false message is circulated and perpetuated that morale is low? Well, I will tell you.. Our new Police Commissioner is not long back from a pretty comprehensive tour of stations throughout the Northern Territory and it’s not his view. It is not his view that morale is a problem at all.
We, as a community, as in every other jurisdiction, rely on our police, rely on our police force as the front line against criminals and crime. And I ask myself, whose side is the Leader of the Opposition on …
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: … when he seeks to undermine our police? And this grub over here wants to scoff. It’s not for no reason that in the last 10 years, the police have not been dragged into the political fray as they have today, there’s good reason for it.
Does the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for police encourage the leaking of police documents? Who does he think he’s helping when he goes to the media, with a so called leaked document, detailing efforts by senior management to keep within budget? Well, I can tell you it’s not the police he’s helping, and it’s not the interests of the Northern Territory government because this is a foolish, short term, opportunistic grab at political capital at the expense of our police. That little exercise necessitated a press release by the Police Commissioner, and I’ll quote from it, but again I ask myself: wouldn’t the Police Commissioner have more to do than to have to put out a press release to respond to the likes of this grub over here because he thinks he’s gotten on to something now:
Mr White said the decision to not replace some officers on leave is based on balancing policing services to the
community in various policing districts.
‘In relation to staffing and absence, it has always been the case that short and long term vacancies are assessed
by managers. Replacement officers are provided whenever it is necessary to ensure the continuation of adequate
policing services to the community’.
A response that should not have been necessary but for the actions of this would-be shadow minister for police opposite. And I would expect that he never would get the job as police minister given that he probably has a reasonably short term left in this parliament. But I do ask this question: does the shadow minister for police think that his activities are in line with fighting crime, or are they more in line with helping criminals? I encourage the shadow minister to ask himself that question because I think the answer is obvious to any clear thinking individual.
The opposition also sought to undermine the new Police Commissioner and, again, I ask who they are helping here. They put out a myth, they perpetuated a myth that former Deputy Commissioner of Police John Valentin was not made Commissioner because of alleged links with the CLP. Well, I can explain what really happened, and the Leader of the Opposition went to some lengths on this point.
Commissioner White was selected on merit by a selection committee. I did not hesitate one iota in accepting the committee’s recommendation. Following some of the media about this, on 21 December, I received a letter from the former Commissioner for Public Employment, Mr David Hawkes. Mr Hawkes was, in fact, chairman of the selection committee that promoted Commissioner White. I will read that letter from Mr Hawkes and I will table that as well:
21 December 2001.
Dear Minister
Addressed to me:
Despite the fact I retired officially yesterday, I have a continuing concern about several aspects of matters raised
by Mr John Valentin in the letter published in the NT News and associated comments. I feel it necessary to set the
record straight as far as my involvement is concerned.
As you are aware, I was Chair of the selection panel which assessed applications, interviewed Mr Valentin and
two other candidates, spoke to referees and which then recommended the appointment of Mr Paul White. The
assessment of all candidates was based solely on merit in relation to the selection criteria. The panel’s assessment
of each was confirmed by the respective referees. At no time did the political associations or interests of any candidate
enter into the panel’s deliberations.
Mr White clearly established superior merit. The report reflected that result.
In the course of the interviews, both Mr Valentin and Mr Smith were asked what their reaction would be if they were
not selected. Given that both were local candidates with strong aspirations for the job, the question was valid and
relevant. The ability for the senior management team of the department to work well together is an important
consideration in the appointment of commissioner.
Mr Valentin made it clear that, if he was unsuccessful, he would resign within a reasonable time frame. Mr Smith’s
reply was more positive.
I must say that I find Mr Valentin’s subsequent claims inconsistent with this response. I also take personal offence
(as no doubt do my colleagues on the panel) that our assessment was based on extraneous factors.
As I have already made clear, it was not and neither would I, as Commissioner for Public Employment,
entertain such matters. The assessment was based on relative merit and merit alone.
I trust these comments are helpful.
Yours sincerely,
D J Hawkes.
I table that letter for the benefit of the shadow minister for police.
I think it’s true that the Country Liberal Party have found their adjustment to life in opposition somewhat difficult, and after so long in government I guess we can all appreciate and recognise that. What we as the government, and the Northern Territory community overall, do not appreciate, and never, ever will, is their willingness to try to undermine the police force and the Police Commissioner. I ask the shadow minister for police to reflect on the remarks I made earlier in relation to this.
I had concerns put to me at different times whilst I was shadow minister for police and, of course, I asked myself: Did I ever get out to the media, trying to promote a story for the opposition on these points? No, I did not. What did I do with it? I wrote to the Minister for Police on every occasion that I had these concerns, with a copy to the Commissioner of Police. I wrote directly to the Minister for Police. I did that because I balanced the concern I had in relation to whatever the matter was with the police against the view that I have of the police force being dragged through the political mud for what end? I always believed that going to the minister outweighed the short-term benefit. I learnt that lesson fairly early in my time as the member for Nhulunbuy after I had gone public with an unfounded allegation about the police, and I was dressed down in fairly strict terms by the then Leader of the Opposition and shadow minister for police, Brian Ede, to be further done over by the Secretary of the Police Association who Brian arranged for me to meet with. And it was a lesson I did not forget.
In my time as shadow minister for police, I gained a far greater insight into their role and a growing respect for the way they carry it out as well as nothing but a total admiration for the role and ability of the former Commissioner, Brian Bates. I sense that Commissioner White is not all that dissimilar in many ways to his predecessors. I meant what I said yesterday when I described him as a class act. The fact is the commissioner deserves the support and loyalty of all elected members, as does our police force.
In relation to the review that …
Mr Burke: No, no, no. You haven’t answered any of the questions yet.
Mr STIRLING: … a bit of self-righteousness …
Mr Burke: Come on, about the information …
Mr STIRLING: What questions? Your grubby allegations without a shred of evidence? You didn’t even bring in a scrap of toilet paper like the member behind you did yesterday. You don’t even pretend to have any evidence. You get up here and you rattle off a whole lot of spurious allegations, and because you stand here and make these allegations we’re expected to take them as truth? Get on your bike. At least he bought a scrap of toilet paper in; it was not worth much, and he did not know what it was that he had, but at least he bought something in to try and put his case.
Now, in relation to the review that the - I do not even like describing him as the shadow minister for police - Leader of the Opposition talks about that it is timely to conduct a review cloaked in these self-righteous terms, you know, it is seven years since McAulay Bowe. The new commissioner, as part of his style, is conducting his own review and some time you might request a briefing and he will take you through these things. He will explain quite clearly to you how he sees his role in working over the next 12 and 18 months with the police. I would have thought that a review imposed by government on top of his own internal review, the way he is setting it up, would do nothing but simply undermine him.
I think it is sad to see the Country Liberal Party degenerate into the politics of destruction which we have seen over the last couple of days whether it is the Commissioner for Corrections and now, of course, the Commissioner for Police and the police force. The member for Katherine may have his own reasons for being in here at the moment but he, certainly, never would have allowed rubbish like this to put forward if he had the role as shadow minister for police.
Madam Speaker, I move that the motion moved by the member for Brennan be amended by omitting all words after ‘Assembly’ and inserting in their stead:
(1) express total confidence in the Northern Territory police force;
(2) welcomes Commissioner Paul White to his new role and offers him the
Assembly’s full support;
(3) notes that under the Labor government’s mini-budget of November 2001,
the Northern Territory police will receive $4.9m more than it spent in
2000-01; and
(4) notes with concern the attempts of the Leader of the Opposition to create instability
in the Northern Territory police force.
Madam SPEAKER: Do people want to speak to the amendments, or to the amendments and the motion?
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, there is absolutely no doubt that the police are a crucial and important part of our community. I saw a sticker on the rear of a vehicle on the way into work this morning and it really sums it up: ‘You protect your police or you protect yourself’. There are many good people in the police force. They do a dangerous job and often a fairly thankless job. I am going to raise specifically some of the issues which have been articulated to me which are of concern, the end result being there has been an effect on morale.
I can speak with some authority or some qualification in respect of that. My father was a policeman for nearly 30 years in the Northern Territory, as was my uncle. I have grown up with many police families and am fortunate enough to be part of a larger police family. We’ve spent Christmases together. I have many good contacts in the police force and was a prosecutor for a couple of years.
I can say that from those contacts and from the people that I have spoken to over the last three or four months there are concerns - and these are perceived, but I think the government should be aware of them. At least, they can take them on board and, hopefully, address them in a responsible way. There is a perception that the Labor government has, certainly, gone soft on crime. There is, certainly, a perception amongst police that police do not enjoy the confidence and full support of the government and an example of that was the way in which the John Valentin matter was handled, and the message that was sent out into the force, to the fellow on the ground, to the operational police that this is a sign of things to come. It was handled badly and the perception lingers.
I understand that there will be a review by the government of the Crimes Compensation legislation, and the possibility that police or Correctional Services officers maybe excluded from the operation of that act has been a cause of concern. There is talk by the government of regional Fisheries officers - and I think that is the right phrase - but the member for Wanguri at the Amateur Fisherman’s Association talked about some of the commonsense reasons why there should be more regionalisation of Fisheries enforcement. The difficulty is that it seems the government has not given an assurance to the Police Marine and Fisheries Unit that they will not be disbanded, that there will not be a reduction in their number of operational police. Also that unit, and the members I have spoken to in a social context, would appreciate an assurance from the minister for police that the unit is not going to be affected by the regional Fisheries officers and the unit will not be transferred back into the public service.
The combined effect of some of those matters I have touched upon are that general police morale is low. Honourable members perhaps should keep this in mind: the police are a large section of our community. There are many police who have been in the Northern Territory for lengthy periods of time. They have family, they have children here and their lack of confidence in the government, their lack of morale is really - you can compare it to the lack of business confidence. There is a lack of confidence in the government on all levels, the police is one of these many levels.
There needs to be a comprehensive review which will put in place procedures to enable police to articulate these concerns in a meaningful way, and probably more importantly those concerns need to be acted upon in a proper and respectful fashion by the government. A person of the calibre of the late Peter McAulay who was a great police officer and a family friend, someone like that who is independent and strong needs to be in charge of that review, needs to hear submissions, needs to make frank submissions to the government.
The Labor government, in my view, and, certainly, from what I have heard, is not listening. Their response and the comments made by the current minister for police really confirm that he is arrogant. He only pays lip service to those concerns and so concerned about pursuing this social agenda the Labor Party have neglected the police. The facts speak for themselves. It seems the government, through their conduct, have demonstrated no intention to properly resource the police, and the one thing I did agree with that the minister for police said is that the police really are our front line. They are our front line; they are also our last line of defence. I do not have the history which some of my colleagues on this side of the House and the member for Nhulunbuy enjoy in terms of what has occurred in the past and what was said and what has been recorded in Hansard; I can only articulate the facts and concerns that have been given to me. What I have said are real concerns of real police and they have to be addressed in a real and meaningful way.
The police, along with many other sections of our community, gave the Labor government an endorsement on 18 August; they trusted the Labor government and it seems no doubt that that trust has been broken and they have been let down, and let down very badly. The very fact that the current minister for police will not even take on board the constructive criticism and suggestions which the Leader of the Opposition suggested is proof.
In terms of the amended police motion, I can say that I, certainly, express my total confidence in the Northern Territory police force. I think all members of this House should do so. I haven’t met Commissioner Paul White, but, of course, I offer him my full support in his new role.
Madam Speaker, the difficulty with the motion is that there’s not even an acceptance that there is a problem, and there’s not even an acceptance that we are going to do something about it. Subparagraph (3) of the motion is something outside my independent knowledge, but I, certainly, cannot support subparagraph (4) of the motion. In the circumstances, I can’t support the amended motion.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the story from the Leader for the Opposition, ably supported by his deputy, the dill from Goyder, and it comes to mind …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I’m not sure that affixing labels of this type are really in the best interests of parliament.
Mr KIELY: Madam Speaker, yesterday it was pointed out quite clearly, we either have a liar in our midst or a dill. Now, I don’t believe he’s a liar, but I do believe he’s a dill.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, you know that you cannot use unparliamentary language in these type of debates. You can only do it by substantive motion. Withdraw.
Mr KIELY: I withdraw it, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Would you just get on with your speech.
Mr KIELY: Madam Speaker, what is this motion about? The motion is about getting stuck into all of the institutions in the Northern Territory. It’s not only getting into the police. You see, this opposition here is not interested in the community. They’ve been down to Lake Bennett …
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Aren’t we speaking to amended motion which praises the institutions of the Labor government? I suggest that the member stick to the motion.
Mr Kiely: No, I can speak to both, as I understand it, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, and I advise all members now we have an amended motion so you are speaking to that amended motion, not the original motion.
Mr KIELY: All right, Madam Speaker, I will speak to the amended motion. I’ll speak to it in balance of how our motion - the government motion – is a far better proposition than that put forward by the opposition. It’s for this reason: that the opposition’s motion is one of wedge politics, it’s one of not really caring about the community, and it’s one of getting stuck into the institutions that uphold the way of our lifestyle in this community.
Their motion has not only been attacking the police force and the members of it in a destabilising, demoralising manner, but I have seen this activity from the opposition in the way that they talk about the public sector, in the way they talk about tourism, in the way they talk about small business. This just seems to be some sort of strategy that came out of their Lake Bennett lock-away. I think they would have had better strategy looking for that cat which is probably still missing and eating all the wildlife up there at Lake Bennett rather than coming back into this Chamber with half-baked, ill-conceived strategies to try and grab a headline. All they do is tear away at institutions that we value, that we share, that we support, that we want to see get ahead.
This government values the police force; that is why our motion is framed the way it is.
A member: The amendment.
Mr KIELY: The amendment. That is why we say that we want to express total confidence in the Northern Territory police force because we believe that the police force that is supported by its parliament is a police force that will be effective for its people. Not the sort of motion that the opposition has put up, one that tears away at the police force. It demoralises it, which will have an affect on the way it goes on.
As I said, I believe that the motion put up by the opposition – and the reason why the government had to put up an amending one - is because of this one of wedge politics. One has to question who benefits. Who benefits from this? And I would argue them that the opposition’s motion benefits only the opposition because they cause disharmony. I don’t know, I really don’t understand why they would want to set about destroying our institutions. I find that our amendment, one that expresses total confidence in the police force, one that welcomes the commissioner, is one of substance.
I find, on the other hand, the one put up by the opposition as one of carping, one of hypocrisy, one of sanctimonious backflipping, because that’s all it is. The opposition had years and years and years to fix up any issues – seven years, I believe the Leader of the Opposition said it was since the last review of the police force – seven years. What, I ask, was the opposition doing in that time? What were doing? You know, institutions do not get to the state they’re at in five minutes flat. It’s a cultural thing, they’re led into it. Slowly, slowly, slowly they take on a persona or some identity, and it’s because of the inability of this opposition over here, when they were in government, to actually do anything creative, to actually support the police force.
Mr Burke: That they’re in the state they’re in, is that what you’re saying?
Mr KIELY: I’m saying that - I’ll pick up on that, Madam Speaker. This gets back down to whole point that I’m making about destabilising our institutions. Nothing in these statements is creative, nothing is meant to help the police. They sit there, they harp, they carp, they carp, they badger, they badger, they just tear away at our institutions. Why? For their own good, for their own reasons, not for the good of the community. Don’t let the community be swayed by what you put up. Twenty-seven years you had to address any problems in institutions. All you did - and might I say under your stewardship, what was that definition given by the member for Drysdale? Stewardship? In charge of a mess! That’s what it was, and that’s what you gave us. You gave us a mess. We are about to get us out of the hole that you put us in.
This is called Drum. This is the official publication of the Northern Territory police, December 2001. And this is the commissioner’s message on his farewell:
That does not sound like a commissioner who feels like he’s been done by a government. This sounds like a professional public servant who will get on with the job. He is beyond the politicisation. He is beyond the politicisation that you lot would do. I’d also go to another part of this publication. It is an article called ‘The Changing of the Guard’. This is a person who the opposition are claiming not to have any faith in, a person who they say: ‘Look, we need to have a great review of this police force because we have got no faith because the appointee in here was done for political reasons’. And while I’m on about that, another one of these false claims that go on over this side - they consistently come into this parliament either waving bits of toilet paper around or just making allegation after allegation after allegation with no substance time and again. Time and again, we drag out the paper, we get the advice from the department, and we table it and we refute it, but they don’t seem to learn. You know, his mother - the Opposition Leader’s mother - told him: ‘Knock me flat on me back and I’ll get a clear look at the sky’. Well, by geez, he’s had a real sleep out this week!
I’ll get back to Drum. This is about Commissioner Paul White:
Mr Paul White has been appointed the new Commissioner of Northern Territory Police, and
Chief Executive Officer of the Fire and Emergency Services. Mr White has had a diverse
career in South Australia Police, most recently as Assistant Commissioner. His areas have
included specialist investigations, intelligence and general duties, as well as professional
development. Throughout his 33 …
How long did you last in the army?
Well, I would take this B-grader any day. Is this what you are saying? These are the credentials of a B-grader? Well, Leader of the Opposition, I would say the Territory is a fortunate place to have been able to have had this man put his hand up, and wish to come here and help us out at this hour. Because we need police like this. It is him who will give us a whole great leading culture within the police. This is a man about whom you wish us to hold an independent review into his abilities to manage. Well, I’ll tell you what, Leader of the Opposition, you’re barking up the wrong tree on that one again.
Mr Dunham: Nowhere near the tree, you goose.
Mr KIELY: A feeble contribution from the member for Drysdale. I have always enjoyed his input into debates no matter where they are, be they in the public arena, be they in the PAC, be they in the public toilet. They’re anywhere and everywhere, his contributions.
Madam Speaker, let me pick up on that point about the Labor Party clearing out people because of their political affiliations. Let me say that the Labor Party is well aware of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act. They value that act. They also value the part in the Anti-Discrimination Act. You know, that one we talked about the other day - vicarious liability. You have read that act, haven’t you, Leader of the Opposition? That act makes it a crime to discriminate against people because of political affiliation, not to mention the moral dimension which is another aspect that I guess we will address a bit later on. Let me say this: when it comes to political interference in appointments - Dr Notaras - let me say this, let me talk about political interference - I believe he is still on the government payroll. Andrew Macrides, another fine mate. A mate. A man I call mate.
Mr Dunham: Is that a threat?
Mr KIELY: Is what a threat?
Mr Dunham: The fact that you’ve mentioned his name here in connection with the fact that he’s got a job.
Mr KIELY: Once again, Madam Speaker, the member for Drysdale who has it down to a fine art, trying to put words into people’s mouths. Right? This is how he gets around. He hears one word, he will construct the sentence, he will construct the paragraph, he will tell a whole story. I will tell you what, the bloke should be a fisherman not a politician.
I will tell you another one: Constable Styles in my own electorate in the schools, the School Constable - a great bloke.
Members interjecting.
Mr KIELY: You blokes, you are amazing. Madam Speaker, this opposition - carping, hypocritical, back flipping, sanctimonious opposition over here, when they don’t get their own way - who cannot adjust to life as an opposition, might I also say - this mob over here, when they don’t get their own way, they turn. They turn like mongrel dogs. They turn and they bite the hand that feeds them. Look at this. They turned on …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It has been a colourful speech. Yesterday we were called possums, mongrel dogs. I have a list of wonderful animal names to call these people and I think that if we allow this I will peruse that list.
Madam SPEAKER: I do find that offensive if you are referring to me also as a mongrel dog.
Mr KIELY: No, no, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: So I really do think perhaps you should withdraw that remark and do watch your terminology. You cannot just throw insults around the room if I consider it unparliamentary, so withdraw.
Mr KIELY: I withdraw it. Madam Speaker, they turn on people who support them if they detect that they no longer do. The funny thing about this is that these are professional public servants. These are professional public servants who are only serving them out of their professionalism, not for any political affiliation, not for any other reason except they are professionals. But they perceive doing a good job as being with them. But if they don’t get the answer they’re seeking, then it is turned around isn’t it – they are perceived as enemies. They questioned Commissioner Bates and his integrity, they questioned the CEO of Health and Community Services, Mr Bartholemew. They questioned Correctional Services’ Mr Moore. Who next will it be? Will it be Mr Tyrell? Will it be Ms Butterworth? Will it be Mr Chambers? Who else? When these CEOs, these professionals, are working hard at their job doing government policy as all good public servants do, who else will they turn on then say: ‘Look, they are political appointees’? I tell you there are inconsistencies within the opposition in the way they view the world that are incredible.
Madam SPEAKER: Can I just interrupt for one moment, member for Sanderson, and say that I am uncomfortable with members bandying the names of public servants around in this House. They probably also feel uncomfortable being named in the House over different things. I would just say caution to all members on both sides not to raise names of public servants in your debating.
Mr KIELY: Madam Speaker, thank you for that enlightenment. I, certainly, wouldn’t have expected it from the other side.
Mr Elferink: I would have expected it from your leader to shut you up.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Macdonnell, I have spoken. I don’t think there is any need for you to add any more.
Mr KIELY: Madam Speaker, there’s been no ruling on carping or whingeing, has there?
I am amazed at the amount of would-be bosses in this Chamber. I am amazed at that. That is another indication of the failure to really accept the position that they are in, isn’t it?
Madam Speaker, I am proud to be part of this government. I am proud to say this government has put in $4.9m additional funds into the police to make sure that we can get it going again. I am proud that we have a good Commissioner in Commissioner White. I have met Commissioner White. As a matter of fact, I would like to swap barbecue stories with the member for Goyder. I would like to see maybe if I could count up as many police as he knows, see if I have been to as many barbecues with as many police as he has. Because I will tell you what: the police I know are happy police. Maybe I go to the wrong barbecues. Maybe the member for Goyder should come to the same barbecues as I go to. Maybe the member for Goyder should meet the police that I know because I tell you what: they’re happy police. They are very happy police. Once again, we have the member for Goyder coming in, this time waving some fictional mates around his head saying these blokes are unhappy. Well, I will tell you what: that’s the whole lot, isn’t it? I’ve heard stories at barbecues. Come on, come with the real stories. Come with the facts, member for Goyder. I know you have never let them get in the way of a good story before, but come with the facts and we will happily address them.
At the end of the day, as I surmise it all, I would like to say that this is a government that supports all NT institutions. This is a government that wants to see all our institutions strive for greater efficiencies, strive for better service to the community, and I am just flabbergasted by the opposition’s persistent attacks on the institutions.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I am stunned by what I have heard from both speakers from government who seem to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the direction of this motion. They would like to pussyfoot around the issue and try to divert any of the spotlight onto the very institution that they are charged to lead. If you are talking about troops of any kind who are going into perform any kind of action, the issue of morale is an issue that is related to leadership. That is exactly what we are talking about.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Blain, I need to remind - and I know we got off the track with the last speaker - but do remember you are talking to the amended motion, not the original motion.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The intent of the amended motion does not far differ from the original motion in the fact that we are talking about low morale. If we have to have an amendment on the floor to allow the responsibility to be diverted from those who are charged to provide that leadership and to provide a response to any kind of situation, well so be it, and be it on their heads if we are going to play silly games here and ignore the real issue.
We have had an incredible amount of time spent talking about Lake Bennett as though there is something strange going on here. Why is there this strange fascination with Lake Bennett? I think it would be time for those who are charged with leading and addressing this situation perhaps to go and visit Lake Bennett and spend some time working out how they can respond to the current issues that are affecting the Northern Territory community rather than have a speaker who seems to be a parody of some after dinner speaker providing, to me, a disgraceful response to a very serious matter, trying to find a place to stand where all responsibility is diverted from the shoulders of those who are charged with discharging that duty.
You cannot deny the fact that there is a matter of concern. If you want to word the amendment in a way that makes you feel a little more comfortable and you could just sheet the blame home somewhere else, so be it, but you cannot deny the fact that there is an issue that you need to be attending to. Take one, for example. There have been a range of reports, in the NT News for one, that are …
Members interjecting.
Mr MILLS: Don’t be ridiculous! They have presented alternate views about what is actually going on in the NT Police Force. That is a reflection of what is going on in the community. Now, it is not for the opposition to come charging in and providing solutions; that issue should be addressed by those who are in leadership. I cannot see any kind of meaningful response generated on this issue which has been placed in all seriousness, and what the government is endeavouring through its response is to paint us into a position where we are actually attacking the institution of the Northern Territory police. For goodness sake, it could not be further from the truth.
I, for one, as a local member have the utmost respect for the role that the Northern Territory police play in Palmerston. I would charge other members to take an active role in working with their local constabulary to address some of the local community issues. That is the kind of leadership you actually do need, not playing silly games and trying to find someone else who can take responsibility for your lack of action, but to get actually involved in the situation. It requires understanding what is going on in your community and working with your community and working with the local police to build morale and to build those partnerships. That is the kind of leadership we do need.
Now, you might laugh at that. You might scoff and think: ‘Well, what is this bloke talking about?.’ You just look at the crime figures: 43% increase in the northern suburbs. There has been a 20% decrease in Palmerston. That is to do with leadership in the community, of a community group taking an active role and working with the local police in meaningful and helpful and constructive discussions. That is leadership and that has an actual effect on the morale and the delivery of service to the community.
Rather than play games and try to shirk duties, and sheet the message home to someone who is not charged with the responsibility of dealing with this issue, we are charging this parliament to oppose and to bring a reflective view to those who are in government. We are discharging our duty in opposition and the issue here is not the opposition bringing disrepute upon an institution within our community, for goodness sake - if you would like to paint that picture - it is us in opposition bringing a message home to the government to do their job and provide that leadership.
There is nothing further from the truth in terms of our respect for the institution of the Northern Territory police. Absolutely nothing. What we have here is some silly political word game being played to try and find a place you can stand where you can distort this issue into a matter of the opposition being destructive. It could not be further from the truth.
Dr Burns: Support the new commissioner.
Mr MILLS: There is no problem there. No problem at all. You just attend to the actual issue there rather than play silly word games and try to construct some reality that suits yourself.
Dr Burns: Support the new commissioner.
Mr MILLS: There has never been anything that has been said in this debate that is contrary to that view. Nothing at all.
There are many issues that do need to be attended to, and it is a simple matter to understand, particularly for those who now find themselves in the position of government. I know it has been over six months. I must walk in different circles from those who are in government. I can tell you for one that silly games are not being played here. This is a real issue. It is to do with law and order, and it is to do with an institution that has the need of the complete support of our community and this parliament. The issue here is the leadership that is being provided by this government, nothing else, and they are charged to respond to the issues that are being presented in this motion, nothing more than that.
What I find most peculiar in the arguments that have been presented from the other side is the complete preoccupation with the mindset of the opposition. That, to me, is a complete betrayal of the charge with leadership. Why on earth would you be so worried about the mentality and the psychology of what is going on on this side? You do not need to be watching us; you do not need to be watching this side of the House, I can tell you that, because we are standing tall in our job to do what we have been asked to do in this Chamber. We are doing our job, and I can tell you what: if you are going to play games like have just been played by these last two speakers, the circle of people that might be standing around you and giving you a completely different picture, perhaps they have not gotten over the chardonnay that they had on 18 August because the reality is there is a distinctly different message out there in that community and it is my duty to reflect that.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, before I turn my attention to the motion, I would like to make a few comments about the parliamentary system under which we operate and, frankly, I have to say that sometimes I am quite disappointed that there is almost a rigid adherence inside this Chamber to the pack animal approach to politics which is the party political system.
The party political system, certainly, as a general rule, requires the members of this House to vote in certain directions, but it does not prevent members of this House sharing opinions which are not always directly in accordance with one’s masters. There is a certain amount of latitude to express opinions beyond that. In the past in this House, it has been the habit of members to do so from time to time. Indeed, former member Steve Hatton was wont to do it from time to time, as were members of the Labor Party. The fact of the matter is that it has been a culture in this House for the years that I have been in it to actually get along with the opposition, and I have had, I believe, a reasonably good relationship with the member for Stuart, a fellow whom I respect. I, certainly, respect the member for Wanguri, as I am starting to develop a very profound respect for the member for Arafura. I think that she has a very bright future, not to mention a laser beam smile.
But that as an aside, there are aspects to the behaviour of other members in his House which I find absolutely astonishing.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, I realise you want to make these remarks but you are talking to an amended motion, and I think you need to make the remarks relevant. Come back to the topic.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, in that case I will bring myself to the amended motion forthwith. The fact of the matter is that …
Mr Stirling: You should be proud to support this motion as a former officer.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection from the minister. As I proceed to the issues and the motions forthwith, I am concerned that the member for Sanderson’s Oliver Hardy approach, and with his cohort, the member for Millner’s Stan Laurel approach, to this House is starting to diminish the quality of debate.
However, on to the motion …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Millner has not spoken on this motion or the amended motion, so the relevance of his reference to the member for Millner …
Madam SPEAKER: I think we have already told the member for Macdonnell to speak to the amended motion.
Mr ELFERINK: As I was moving on to forthwith, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: We have been very tolerant of all speakers, but I think it is time we got on with the debates.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I have looked at the amended motion and I have no problems with Clause 1:
Clause 2:
No worries with that.
Well, that is little more than CPI if it even reaches CPI. In other words, no real increase but the dollar numbers have gone up. But at the end of the day, there is an expectation that this police force, in which we have so much confidence that we are not prepared to fund them to make up for the Labor government’s promises in relation to creating new numbers - 50 new police members in the first term. No effective or real budgetary increase; no real attempt to make more money available for these extra numbers. I don’t believe that the minister himself or the government of the day is showing confidence in the Northern Territory police force to recruit its own people. They are, certainly, not reflecting that in the budgetary approach.
Now, the Leader of the Opposition did nothing more in his motion than to ask the minister for police to be open and honest about the way they go through the process of appointing people. Yesterday we saw in this House that an open and upfront approach is not being applied.
Mr Stirling: Didn’t you listen? I went through this at some length. Waste of time telling you; you don’t listen.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection by the minister because I consider it extraordinary that he stood here and all he had to do was say no to the propositions put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. Simply had to say it did not happen. Yet the very second word that he said when he began speaking after ‘Madam Speaker’ was ‘sickening’. He then began to trawl through, in a most despicable way, some occasion in the past with which he had a hand in being a most dreadful operator in this House, where he helped try and sully the name of Daryl Manzie in a most horrible way. To sit here and then suddenly say: ‘I am cleaner than a white shirt; I am cleaner than any product Fab could produce’ is extraordinarily trite. He immediately climbed in the gutter when he had the opportunity to try and rise above it all, as he says.
He accuses the Leader of the Opposition of trying to drag this process into the gutter, hops into the gutter immediately, without hesitation, because it is the place he is most comfortable. In fact, I sometimes think he actually goes up a couple of flights of stairs to reach the gutter when he approaches debate in this fashion. Yesterday, he had a wonderful opportunity to support his Chief Minister and all he did was launch some meaningless tirade about trying to undermine the confidence of the opposition. Why don’t you get on with the business of government? You had a chance to support your Chief Minister and you barely said a word in support. Get on with the business of government and get on with dealing with these issues. If it didn’t happen, just stand up here and say: ‘No, it didn’t happen’ and that is the end of it. Once again, we don’t see that; we see this trip through the gutter.
The member for Sanderson pointed out amongst his barely rational words ‘support my police force’. Certainly, the first clause of the amended motion says that we should express our total confidence in the police force. If there is evidence or an allegation of any sort of political interference in any part of the police force - indeed, any part of the public service - then it is my contention that I would be supporting those public servants by bringing the issue in here and having the matter debated out. That is not an extraordinary assumption; it would be the correct thing to do. If you look at the Good Government policy that the Labor Party went to the last election with:
yet we have the member for Sanderson mentioning by name individual public servants and their political associations.
Mr Dunham: His assumption of their political association.
Mr ELFERINK: Mentioning by name, tacking his assumptions on. I can tell you now that if I, as a member of the CLP while I was still a police officer, had my name dragged across this parliamentary floor, I would be horrified and I would be charging to my union saying: ‘What the hell is going on? What on earth is happening in that parliamentary chamber to make me a target and a victim of the political discrimination that these people harbour?’ It is a disgrace and they are utterly silent on the issue.
While I was listening to comments by members - just interjections across the floor - I heard repeatedly interjections from the member for Wanguri about the Hells Angels motorcycle group. I support my police force and I applaud the member’s comments. I think the government should go after those groups of organised crime with gusto and passion. No problem with that. I am happy to support the member for Wanguri on that and, indeed, I point out to the member for Wanguri that if you look at a lot of these motorcycle gangs they have the little leather vests - I am sure we have all seen them before - and on the back or around those vests they have little badges. Those badges indicate certain things. Some motor cycle groups have a set of brown and blue wings, and I encourage the member for Wanguri to find out what that means. Some motor cycle groups have a little 1%. It is in a diamond and usually sits about here on the colours. I encourage the member for Wanguri to find out what the insignia mean because it will mean that he will become even more passionate about going against these villains. I take great heart in the suggestion that they are going after organised crime and I wish the members opposite great luck.
Ms Martin: We are going after the drug dealers and manufacturers which you never managed to do.
Mr ELFERINK: Really? What, me personally or we as a government? I just pick up on the interjection by the Chief Minister. That is an extraordinary thing to say. This former government has set up and prosecuted successfully many hundreds of drug cases; I personally have done so. All of a sudden we have a criticism of the police force from the Chief Minister saying: ‘Oh, no, you guys never did anything about it’. Well, that is a reflection on the police force. That is going to have an effect on morale in the police force and those sorts of things.
Ms Martin: Oh, sit down!
Mr ELFERINK: Absolutely. You’ve just basically said that they are losing the battle. You have just said that they’re losing the battle, as the member for Sanderson has said on repeated occasions that they are losing the battle.
Ms Martin: I said very clearly that you guys never started the battle.
Mr ELFERINK: I’m actually sitting here agreeing with one of your ministers, and you’re still interjecting.
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: This is extraordinary. The habit of interjection is so deeply ingrained - and this relates to comments I started these observations with - is that these people don’t know when people are agreeing with them. I’m speaking in support of one of her ministers and she’s interjecting. So it’s just this tirade by habit which concerns me so grievously.
The fact of the matter is that there are problems out there. I have, certainly, in my travels in the bush, been approached by members who are not getting relieved in bush communities where there are more than two police officers gazetted to those stations which means - and there are any number of police stations in the Southern Command area which are affected by this. Now, this directly came back from the document that Commander Gary Mannison put out in relation to the Southern Command, and the effect on morale is real. These guys have to work in these bush stations under-strength because of that direction.
Whether or not there is an increase of funding across the board because you’ve padded it out with capital works programs or something like that, the truth of the matter is this: police officers in the bush, because of this particular directive, are not being relieved in three or more man stations when members go on leave. That has a work health effect, and that part concerns me.
There is no attempt by the Leader of the Opposition, I believe, to create any form of instability in the Northern Territory police force. The Leader of the Opposition has walked in here and quite directly and correctly outlined a concern he had with the process. The minister for police simply had to answer a couple of simple questions with ‘Yes, that did occur’ or ‘No, that did not occur’, and he has failed to do so. His failure to respond to a simple question put to him is the sort of thing that can create instability in the public service. When you consider that Labor’s position is that they strongly believe in good government and it is not served by major disruption to the public service, he should be giving clear, unambiguous, unequivocal statements about the matters put to him. Put it to bed right now; it is finished and there is no attempt by the opposition to create instability. The opposition, quite correctly, brings issues into this Chamber. It is for that reason that I cannot support Clause 4 in the amended motion.
Madam Speaker, I move to strike Clause 4 from the motion.
Madam SPEAKER: You are moving an amendment to the amended motion?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes.
Madam SPEAKER: Okay. The amendment that the member for Macdonnell has moved is that Clause 4 be deleted. The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, I seek clarification. Is there no opportunity to speak to the proposed amendment at all before the vote is taken?
Madam SPEAKER: You do it now.
Mr Stirling: What was just carried?
Madam SPEAKER: Let me just seek clarification. We have an amendment to the amendment. The amendment that has been put to the amendment is that Clause 4 be deleted. Before I put that, I will call on the Leader of the Opposition to speak to that amended amendment motion. I hope you’re all with me.
Mr Burke: In doing so, I assume I can speak and close my remarks to the original motion.
Madam SPEAKER: And then I will put the amendment that has just been put and then the final.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, speaking expressly to the amendment that was first put to the motion, and confining my comments only to that, it seems to me that it is very easy to get agreement on (1), (2) and (3) of the original amendment because there is no disagreement on this side of the House with the fact that the opposition is pleased to express total confidence in the Northern Territory police force. Secondly, welcomes Commissioner Paul White to his new role and offers him the Assembly’s full support and also, as a matter of fact, notes that under the Labor government’s mini-budget of November 2001, the Northern Territory police will receive $4.9m more than it spent in 2000-01. Now, that is a matter of fact. How that money has been apportioned and affects operational aspects is another issue.
But, where it comes to supporting those three aspects of the amendment, the opposition has no concerns with that and thinks it is valuable, actually. In terms of the Deputy Chief Minister’s comments that this Assembly should show confidence in the new Police Commissioner, here is an opportunity to do so. Certainly, with those three subparagraphs, we can have bipartisan agreement and we can agree to that amendment.
Subparagraph (4), I believe, is unwarranted and unnecessary. It concerns the original motion, and the Deputy Chief Minister has adequate opportunity to vote in that context on the original motion. But, if we want to have a fruitful result from this debate, I would ask all members of the Assembly to agree with the amended motion which now deals with paragraph (1), (2) and (3) without change of the amended motion and strikes subparagraph (4).
Mr STIRLING (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, speaking to this amendment which I have not, of course, had an opportunity to do, it is all a bit too cute. For the Leader of the Opposition to come in here with a vehement anti-police motion before us: ‘notes the current low morale in the Northern Territory police force, expresses its concerns about this government’s treatment of former Deputy Police Commissioner Valentin, seeks an explanation from the government on the full extent and effects of budget savings as revealed by the Commander of the Southern Region …
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
We are confining ourselves to an amendment to an amended motion, and you should be confining your comments to that particular amendment.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, you have to speak to the amendment that has just been raised, not to the original motion.
Mr STIRLING: He comes in here with this tripe. When we amend it to: expressing total confidence; welcoming Commissioner Paul White; note the increase in the police budget; and, most importantly, note with concern the attempts of the Leader of the Opposition to create instability in the Northern Territory police force, he doesn’t want to hear it. This is a reflection on your grubby tactics of coming in here and trying to undermine the police force and the new police commissioner and then, when we shove it back down his throat, he doesn’t want to hear it. He has brought this other motion in, wants to walk away from all that, accept three of the four points of our motion, but not the fourth. You are the biggest hypocrite that ever sat in the Leader of the Opposition’s chair. You can cop this, and there will be no acceptance of this amendment. You’re a grub!
Madam SPEAKER: The question is the amendment to the amended motion be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Mr Stirling: This will be on the record to show the police clearly what you think of them.
Mr Burke: Exactly! You just knocked a good motion.
Members interjecting.
Mr Stirling: You can’t come in here and change the motion, then want to walk out from under it. You’re a coward! You don’t even have the guts to stand beside your motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business!
Mr Burke: Have a pill.
Mr Stirling: You’re a coward!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Stirling: You’re a coward! You just realised you haven’t got the numbers, you dill! You want to …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of Government Business, you are still in the House. This is a warning to you. You’ve been over the top! Just settle down. Even in Division, I don’t want to hear this debate going on across the floor.
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! A four-letter word was uttered in this House …
Madam SPEAKER: I’m afraid I didn’t hear it.
Mr Baldwin: An ‘F’ word, Madam Speaker.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: I don’t think these remarks are fruitful or helpful, and I don’t find any comedy in the behaviour of members.
Members, the question is the amendment to the amended motion be agreed to.
Ayes 10 Noes 14
Mr Baldwin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Burke Mr Ah Kit
Ms Carney Mr Bonson
Ms Carter Dr Burns
Mr Dunham Mr Henderson
Mr Elferink Mr Kiely
Dr Lim Ms Lawrie
Mr Maley Ms Martin
Mr Mills Mr McAdam
Mr Reed Ms Scrymgour
Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Mr Wood
Motion negatived.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the amended motion be agreed to. If you would like to go back to your seats, we are back to the amended motion and the Leader of the Opposition closes debate.
Before we do go on, though, Leader of Government Business, if you did use an ‘F’ word that I didn’t hear, I ask you now to withdraw it.
Mr STIRLING: Absolutely, Madam Speaker, I do withdraw.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, can I begin my closing remarks by saying that, specifically to do with the amendment to the amended motion, that the opposition, as we tried to propose before, agrees totally with points 1, 2 and 3 of that amendment. What we do not agree with is point 4 which is nothing more than political tripe that has been inserted there, and from our position for the same reasons that you would make allegations about the original motion, it is unwarranted. It could not get the opposition’s support and it won’t receive the opposition’s support.
It has been a fairly unfortunate debate in many respects, not the least being the episode which just happened in the Chamber. Notwithstanding the fact of what occurred as we divided, it would seem to me that it is a pretty unsatisfactory situation when you have a government with all of its members here and when the Leader of Government Business is not present in the Chamber, no one, not even the Chief Minister, had any idea of how to deal with an amendment to an amended motion. It was that that caused the most concern.
Ms Martin: Yes, I did. I beg your pardon.
Mr BURKE: And it’s no good - you were speechless; you did not know what to do.
Ms Martin: Because it was not printed, it was not circulated and it should not have been done like that.
Mr BURKE: It is no good then trying to get the Leader of Government Business to stand up and yell at everyone when he simply wasn’t across what was going on in the Chamber and his requirement and capacity is to be there.
If you want to talk about pieces of paper, that is an issue for the Speaker to deal with, not me. The Speaker was dealing with what was happening in this House and the fact is that the government, without the Leader of Government Business here, had no capacity to deal, it did not have a clue …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr BURKE: In terms of the motion that I put - once again, one listens to the tirade of the Leader of Government Business and the Deputy Chief Minister, personal attacks, trying to put a spin on what was a motion that deals with process in terms of a number of issues but most specifically, and something that was not addressed at all, was the process in which Mr Valentin found himself having to write to every member of the police force and to go public in the media to defend himself. That was not addressed at all in the debate. It seems to me that there were clear options for the police minister to deal with it.
There were only two options, and as I said in debate, it was either the fact that - there are now three options raised by - there is only one obvious option at the end based on the what the Deputy Chief Minister said and that is this: that Mr Valentin has lied in saying publicly that what was said to him occurred when it is clear from the police minister’s point of view that that never occurred. Because Mr Valentin is very clear that he was given instructions by the previous Police Commissioner on a number of issues with regards to his future in the police force in these terms: first, that there was no wish by the government for him to act as Commissioner in the interval between Commissioner Bates’ retirement and the arrival of Commissioner White; second, the government did not want John Valentin to continue as Deputy Commissioner; third, the government had no role for John Valentin in the Territory police force; fourth, the government would get rid of John Valentin if he tried to remain in office to see out his contract; and fifth, and the reason for this was the allegation that Deputy Commissioner Valentin was too close to the CLP.
Now, that has not been dealt with at all and the option was one of three things. Either previous Commissioner Bates acted without warrant and spoke freely and gave his own opinion without any warrant from the government when he spoke to Mr Valentin, which I doubt. That is the first issue, and the police minister, I would have thought - and I asked in this debate that if that was the case as one of the options, at the very least the present police minister should have inquired as to what actually happened, sought some discussions with Mr Valentin, perhaps written to him. Nothing has occurred at all. He has been given no response at all by this new police minister or this government based on the very serious concerns that were raised with him, and statements supposedly with authority that were said to him by the previous Police Commissioner.
The second option could only be that Police Commissioner Bates felt confident enough to act with the authority of the government and with the authority of the police minister in making those comments to Mr Valentin. If that is the case, I said in the debate it was a cowardly act by the police minister and he should have the guts to stand in this Chamber and say publicly that that was the case. You have responded to neither of those allegations in any way whatsoever which leaves only a third option, and that is it is the opinion of this government that Mr Valentin has lied in those five aspects. And if that is the end result, I find that most unfortunate because the end result is that it is the police minister’s opinion, the new Chief Minister’s opinion, and her Cabinet and her members that the previous Deputy Police Commissioner publicly and to all of the police force has lied in the things that he has said. Now, I do not believe that happened.
I have spoken to Mr Valentin on a number of occasions and he is adamant of the sequence of events that occurred and unless that man is a liar, there are only two other options. In this debate it is most unfortunate that none of those issues have been dealt with by the government. The police minister stands up holier than thou and talks about when he was the shadow police minister he acted so correctly in all of his dealings with government. A quick search of the Hansard in the little time available - a couple of examples: 19 October 2000 - a question to the CLP government police minister:
Your CLP government has done nothing to counter the ongoing incidence of vandalism and antisocial
behaviour. Can the minister please explain to Territorians why small businessmen and women are now
being forced to consider hiring a private security guards and why their police force has not provided the
resources to protect them?
Why their police force has not provided the resources to protect them. Did you write to the police minister on that issue? You said in this House that on every issue, you wrote to the police minister, you never, if you recall, never raised an issue in this House unless had previously written to the police minister. That was his modus operandi. Did he write to the police minister on this occasion? There is the Hansard. 19 October 2000. Now, either the current police minister has misled this House by that statement or he can correct the Hansard and tell us what, exactly, happened.
On 13 October 1999, the current police minister, this man who is above reproach when it comes to dealing properly on these sorts of matters and reproaches us for raising allegations in the Chamber, said this in a question:
We have real concerns about the state of the Territory police force at the present time. Fifty police officers have
resigned in the last 12 months. The current recruit training course will not cover the numbers that have left or
retired. I ask the minister: why is the resignation rates so high and what is the government doing to stem it?
In answer, the minister said:
Mr Speaker, the opposition continues the line of deceit it has been pursuing, not mentioning any figure, but
presenting as fact what they perceive, and making a statement of fact that the resignation rate is horrendous.
The situation is bad, that is all they can focus on, the negative, without anything to substantiate it and also
without, of course, any representation to me as minister to seek some advice.
Now, the question was from the member for Nhulunbuy, the question was from the shadow police minister, the question was from a man who has said in this House - a House where you are not supposed to mislead - that there was never an occasion, except one, when he was reproached by his own leader, when he was a new member of the Chamber, that he has raised an issue critical of the police without writing to the police minister first.
I submit that the police minister, on this question alone, has clearly misled this House, and in many other things that he does in this House, he sets out to present himself as being pure when, in fact, the Hansard record is adequate there to show that the man continues to mislead at every opportunity.
The classic was the fact that he said that in 1991 he raised something and he cannot quite recall what it was, that it had something to do with the Mulholland affair. And when he made a few comments, he was not only chipped by Brian Ede, and he mentioned he was chipped by someone else. It is worth reminding ourselves how this man, the current police minister, the man who says he never raised an issue without writing first to the minister, actually learnt his lesson, because in that debate - and I do not have to go through all the debate but it happened, and I assume - is this the one? - is this the one - 14 November 1991?
In this debate, I ask the police minister, was this the context that he got a chip from Brian Ede? Is this the context in which he now fully supports the police force and would deride anyone who would make any comment that would sully their reputation? Was this the comment when he said:
What do you reckon? This is the man who looks after the police force. This is the man who looks after their reputation. This is the man who would turn and say: ‘You are terrible, you opposition, you have not learnt your lesson. You should be fully supportive of the police force. Take my example’. This is the man who said they were on the take. Now, it is one thing to raise a concern about process, which is what happened in this House. I raised a concern about process in the way Mr Valentin was dealt with, and I raised that concern of process because of direct representations to me by Mr Valentin himself. Mr Valentin himself is a man who has served in the federal police and had an honourable career in the Northern Territory Police, and it is Mr Valentin …
Mr Stirling: He spat the dummy with the AFP the same way.
Mr BURKE: I pick up that comment. We now have the police minister’s opinion. It took a while to get out, but the police minister has now put on the Hansard record Mr Valentin spat the dummy. Therefore you deny that he was ever spoken to by Commissioner Bates, as commissioner, and given that information that Mr Valentin claims he has, that he simply spat the dummy.
So the end result at this stage, and the atmosphere in which the new Police Commissioner can begin his task in the Northern Territory police force, is that the police minister now sends a very clear message to every member of the police force of the Northern Territory and that is that he reckons, it is his opinion that the previous Deputy Commissioner of Police was so unprofessional that he spat the dummy when the new commissioner was appointed.
Now, that is the situation we have ended up with, we will just see what the police force of the Northern Territory think of that., what the police force of the Northern Territory think of their police minister and how he defends the reputation of their previous Deputy Commissioner, and perhaps what they can look forward to if they ever get into a situation and they have to look to him for any sort of support.
The motion that I raised was a serious motion, it was designed to flesh out what process applied in the circumstances in which Mr Valentin felt himself dealt with, it was a motion that dealt with the fact that we should look at a review of the Northern Territory police force because they have been quite constructive in the past. I have heard garbage from the police minister and other members on the government side that suggest that, somehow, a review that is not done internally by the CEO is something untoward. Yet, in all of these parliamentary sittings so far, all we have heard is that the government is going to move on a whole range of areas and conduct reviews because they are not satisfied with the situation that might exist.
The government has no problems moving in areas such as indigenous education, indigenous health, smartening up how the health or education system works, making better processes, working smarter in a whole range of areas. But if we suggest that the government should institute a review of the Northern Territory police force, somehow that is seen as being mischievous. Now, you have to learn to deal a bit better than that. Everyone knows that the McAulay Bowe report, when it was brought down, created an atmosphere that resulted in at least 40% rise in police funding over the seven years since that report was brought down. It was done in an atmosphere of little argument because the McAulay Bowe report independently stood on its own. It got away from all this politics of we’ve got enough police, they are going to hot spots, they should go to hot spots, they should have police constables, they shouldn’t. It put the whole issue of the circumstances in which our police dealt with in the Northern Territory in context, and provided government with not only good advice but also, I can tell you from experience, it nullified argument in Cabinet from other ministers who wanted the departmental funds for their own efforts.
It put a priority on what the police needed, it put a priority and an atmosphere that was constructive and, in many respects, it was supported by the then opposition at the time. How you can dismiss such a suggestion out of hand beggars belief, and how you can deal with a motion that deals with the professional reputation, a reputation of a man who has to live with what has transpired for the rest of his life, in such a dismissive way, and suggest that he shouldn’t have raised it and by the way he spat the dummy. It’s just disgraceful. It’s just disgraceful to simply dismiss a suggestion that we should a independent review in the police force.
Madam Speaker, once again we see an example of this government, I believe, interfering in the internal processes of the police force, interfering in the reputation, the good reputation of fine officers, whether they be uniformed or not, and also in their conduct in this House in this debate acting in a disgraceful manner.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move –
for the protection of Aboriginal women.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise this issue because many people in Alice Springs have come to me and expressed their concern that they feel there is an increasing incidence of violence against Aboriginal women. I seek the support of both sides of the House because I am quite sure within your communities you have similar problems to what we are seeing in the Centre in particular.
It is a problem we all face every day and it’s something that we cannot keep ignoring. It won’t just go away. I raise it as a matter of urgency for this government to address and I ask them to make it a priority in their planning and programming.
There has been large amount of research and documentation done over a number of years expressing the concerns that we all know are happening within our community. We really don’t need any more research. I don’t want that. I don’t want any more papers to be written. There is a pile this high in my office that I’ve taken from the library just to get some background research on what is there. You can look at ones that have been done 10 years ago; you can look at papers that were written 12 months ago. They all seem to be saying the same thing over and over again.
Many of the papers outline the aspects of what happens about violence against Aboriginal women, the circumstances the victims are in when they occurs, the theories about why it occurs and how often violence is dealt with in Aboriginal society and by the public sector agencies of both the Territory and the Federal governments. What I need from this government are some answers, and I need some action to address this problem. I am quite sure members on both sides will be able to say that they see this problem occurring over and over again.
All you have to do is walk down the mall of any town or any city in the Territory; look and see for yourself the number of Aboriginal women who are bandaged or on crutches compared with the rest of the population. Go and visit the emergency departments of our hospitals. It’s been likened to a war zone. Night after night in Alice Springs Hospital, a number of Aboriginal people come in to be patched up, waiting and deciding whether they are going to be admitted or whether they are going to be sent out again. Recently the four beds in the intensive unit in Alice Springs Hospital were are filled with Aboriginal women all with ruptured spleens - the whole four of them at the same time and I think we all know how it happened.
Women come through that emergency department and they suffer not just from the horrific injuries that they have received, but their general health and hygiene is usually so poor that they have little strength or resistance to combat any injury so because of their health, it is very difficult to fight against their injury and many of them die.
I have been advised by a senior nurse that the number of admissions at the Alice Springs Hospital due to the injuries sustained by assault have escalated over the last 18 months, and I believe that there was a paper prepared by one of the officers in the hospital showing that the increase has been quite remarkable. It seems to me that as violence increases in our community, so we see that Aboriginal women are disproportionately represented. There is good reason to believe that not only are Aboriginal women the principal victims of these crimes, but the stats of reported crimes often understate the instances of violence against these women.
The sad part of this issue is that we are all becoming desensitized to the violence around us. We are becoming desensitized. Many of us turn the other way when we see an incident, not wanting to interfere for fear of being abused. Just last week in the Alice Springs mall I was told an Aboriginal woman was on the ground being kicked. People just kept walking by. That is not an isolated incident. That happens in all our towns around the Territory. While we tolerate this behaviour - we, the legislators - that violence will continue.
In the Northern Territory violence becomes almost an everyday experience for many of our Aboriginal women. I am repeating what Aboriginal women have said to me because they are so concerned. They are often reluctant to report violent incidents to police and the amount of violence that is occurring in the Aboriginal communities is often not recorded. Much of the violence, as we know, is alcohol and drug related, but not all of it is. The stats show in the Alice Springs Hospital that possibly something like 97% of the assaults are caused by alcohol or drug related incidents. So that is a fair indictment of what alcohol is doing to our society.
There are many other contributing factors, though, and they include a variety of elements. For instance, the lack of direction and the motivation in one’s personal life that many of these Aborigines experience. They really don’t have a purpose in life any more. It has been exacerbated by the welfare dependency trap that they are in. I think we have all heard Noel Pearson talk about the welfare dependency trap and it certainly is affecting many of these people.
We see also the loss of self esteem by Aboriginal men, and I think this has come about by the changing roles occurring in our communities. It seems that many of these Aboriginal men are now displaced and are not sure where they fit within their communities any more. It comes about through poor financial management which leads to poverty, and we all know the feast and famine syndrome: one day a fortnight they are rich, the other 13 days they are poor, and the personal displacement where many people are no longer able to go back home, are no longer wanted, are no longer welcome in their communities. So where do they go? They are lost souls out there.
It also needs to be recognised that much of the violence being perpetrated against Aboriginal women is not traditional violence. Traditional punishments apply to cases where Aboriginal law has been broken, but the violence many Aboriginal women are experiencing has nothing to do with culture, and culture should not be used as an excuse and it shouldn’t be used as a defence. Aboriginal women are clearly saying that they are sick of the violence and they want it to stop. And might I say that it has taken a long time for Aboriginal women to be brave enough to speak out.
We have seen success in the way women at Ali Curung have dealt with this issue and introduced measures that have reduced the incidence of violence considerably, but those women were strong enough to speak out, to say: ‘We have a problem’ and go searching for solutions. Aboriginal women tell me that they are adamant that much of what has happened to them is no way traditional.
Melissa Lucashanko, in her article Violence Against Indigenous Women 1996, quoted Aboriginal women saying that they are being subjected to three types of law: ‘white man’s law, traditional law and bullshit traditional law,’ the latter being used to describe a distortion of traditional law used as a justification for the violence.
I am not talking about domestic violence. ‘Domestic’ usually implies a home, a spouse. It needs to be acknowledged that much of the violence that I am referring to does not occur in the home; often is not perpetrated by a spouse or a partner and often occurs away from the home community. We see it in our river beds, in the camps, in the main streets of our town.
The motion I am asking the Assembly to support and adopt is aimed at taking some action to address this problem of how we can help eliminate - or at least reduce - violence against Aboriginal women. I have referred in my motion to the pro-arrest policy that enables police to lay charges in cases where the victim may not do so. As with the domestic violence no-drop policy, the police also use a pro-arrest policy. The domestic violence no-drop policy is an example of how this works in favour of the women, and you would be familiar with how that works: if a woman does go to the police, lays a charge and then decides she doesn’t want to give evidence, the police can still go ahead with a prosecution.
It concerns me that many cases of assault, the results of which can be seen in our regional hospitals and on our streets, are just not reported or followed up. I understand the difficulty police have when women refuse to give evidence; do not want to lay charges or often do, and then withdraw them. But these attacks that leave women so brutalised shouldn’t be ignored. There was an incident last week in the Alice Springs emergency department where an Aboriginal woman arrived with a knife embedded in her. The police, in this instance, were called. But not all cases of assault are so obvious, so the victim who turns up at an emergency department is often just patched up and let go.
I am seeking an examination of how this pro-arrest policy is being implemented and a way in which it can be utilised more. I’m not having a go at police because I think they do a tremendous job, but I am trying to seek a way for justice to occur for these women. It disturbs me that there is a perception that to investigate an assault is often put in the too-hard basket, and police are often discouraged by the end result when it does get into court. We should be out there encouraging, assisting police to be proactive and bringing the perpetrators of these horrific crimes to court.
One of the ways this policy could be implemented, is not just relying on a woman to make a complaint, but by introducing mandatory reporting of suspected assaults by medical staff. I can hear the reaction to that suggestion, but in the same way as child sex abuse is a reportable offence, in my opinion, so it should be with cases of physical abuse. I’ve been told of the frustration of doctors and nurses working in our emergency departments and, whilst it must seem to them to be a revolving door of bruised and battered women - they patch them up only to send them away to return at a later date in a similar state. As far as I am concerned, the perpetrators should be accountable and not get away with believing it’s not a crime and that they can do it over and over again without reprisal.
The latest media campaign against domestic violence, It’s Got to Stop Now, is rather disappointing in that it is very urbanised in its approach. The Chief Minister will recall that, at the launch of the media campaign, one of the Aboriginal women pointed out quite bluntly: ‘Where are the black faces?’ I’m not knocking that campaign; I think any campaign that will heighten awareness is a good thing. But that campaign will only reach a certain sector of our community. Community women don’t feature: that’s what this Aboriginal person was saying. They are not there, and yet they are the one sector of the population that really needs our protection and support. One of the comments was made to me that Aboriginal women don’t like being portrayed in advertisements such as this, that they are reluctant to participate in anything that may go across for general exhibition. So I’m suggesting to the Chief Minister that perhaps she should be looking at going into the communities, getting some Aboriginal women, strong women, and some Aboriginal men, to make an ad that can then be shown exclusively on the BRACS system.
Now, the BRACS system is not available, I know, in all communities, but the coverage is fairly widespread. In many communities, the service is used heavily to provide information as well as entertainment. It can be a useful medium to spread a message. The Broadcasting in Remote Areas Communication Services is in many communities, and I think this is a way we should be getting our message across to the Aboriginal women in those communities who have access to that. That is just one way we could actually get a message across to these people.
I also see the need not just to educate women, but to get a strong message across to Aboriginal men, particularly those who are displaced and no longer living in their communities. I think we need to say to them clearly that violent and abusive behaviour is not just unacceptable, but it’s degrading to them as well as to the woman.
Media campaigns, of course, are not sufficient on their own. There is a need for resources to be allocated to programs that will support Aboriginal communities that are prepared to respond and accept responsibility in trying to resolve their problems. It’s been said to me: ‘But we don’t have the resources to do it’. I think this is where I’m asking government to back-up any support they have for this motion with the resources to do it. We all speak of Ali Curung with pride, of how a community has taken steps to introduce measures to protect their women. But without the help of both men and women in that community, without the support of their community council, and without the support of their elders, it wouldn’t have happened. As the Ali Curung women say: ‘Alcohol outlets are still there, we are still married to the same men, but the violence has disappeared because we have a system now in place with the support of different layers of the community. That means that we’re all addressing the problem, and we’re all getting success’.
Other communities have indicated their ambition to do a similar thing, but they need not just lip service, they need government to start implementing programs and strategies. Encouragement and rhetoric are not enough; they really need, Chief Minister, money to finance programs. They must go hand in hand with any of the decisions that are made. I was told of a young Aboriginal girl living in the river bed in Alice Springs who hasn’t returned home for some time. To be honest, if she’s not helped, it’s inevitable that she will become another statistic. It was suggested to me that a halfway house be set up in towns where women who are isolated from their families can seek safety and be assisted to return to the community. This girl needs assistance; she just doesn’t know how to do it herself. She just doesn’t have the means to be able to focus enough to do it herself. So, if there was a halfway safe house established, perhaps some of those women who are living in the creek beds, in the long grass, could go there, be assisted, helped and return to their communities.
I hear of Aboriginal men who say they need a refuge where, if they were on a drinking binge, rather than return home, they can retreat, because they know if they return home in the state they’re in, a violent confrontation is likely to occur. The men at Ali Curung have said that: ‘We should also have a place that we can go so we won’t get into trouble’. I’d like to see the men’s health unit be more proactive and provide education and support to these Aboriginal men and, particularly, to assist them to recover that self-esteem that so many of them seem to have lost. We need to assist these communities to take the responsibility of seeking and implementing solutions to their own problems, and give them also a good understanding of the legal rights of women. If communities can resolve the relationship breakdowns that are occurring, then agencies also need to be there to assist the men. Many Aboriginal women say they do not want their men in gaol; there are enough there already. But if there is no alternative then gaol is the only option.
I am concerned by what we would regard as soft sentences often given. I won’t go into details of cases reported; I am sure you all know them. I just grabbed a few headlines: ‘Horror Axe Death Shocks Community’; ‘Wife Basher Cops Lecture’; ‘Woman Died After Prolonged Bashing’; ‘Barefoot Kick Killed Woman’. You know, it’s absolutely disastrous when you see over and over again these headlines highlighting what’s happening out in those communities, and you notice so many times that it’s women who are the victims of what is happening. I do wonder about the sentencing regime. Does it actually reflect the severity of the crime, particularly as we’ve heard many community members and many sectors of our community saying we need to seek protection of our Aboriginal women? I hear Aboriginal women say that they’re not getting the protection from the legal service available to them. They see CAALAS as always defending the men. Perhaps there should be another service that particularly supports Aboriginal women.
I’m asking the Attorney-General will he review the Criminal Code, perhaps with a view to introducing minimum sentences? There is the maximum sentence laid down in the Criminal Code - I know it’s the discretion of the magistrates and judges - but if there is such concern by people in the community that they do not think justice is being done, perhaps we, as legislators, should be talking about minimum sentences. Should there be more guidance from this parliament to ensure truth in sentencing and do we as legislators have a role to play in determining the best way to ensure justice for the victim? It is an area that needs to be addressed and discussed.
We should not always hide behind the separation of powers. We are not trying to get in to that debate because that often muddies the waters completely. All I am saying is let’s have a look at the sentencing regime and let’s see whether it is sufficiently strong to protect these victims. If we do consider violence against Aboriginal women is a problem, then we need to address all areas to achieve the best results we can. There is no point in just doing a patch here and a patch there. We need to have an overall plan.
I am asking this government to provide leadership and backing for Aboriginal women. The number of murder and manslaughter cases involving Aboriginal women are far too many. Who was the first person to be murdered on New Year’s Day this year? An Aboriginal woman in this town. Aboriginal families have expressed their frustration with the system that seems to find excuses for the perpetrator but fails to satisfy the victim or the family. We need to ensure that the sentencing regime reflects the severity of the crime in line with our concern for the protection of these women.
I have moved this motion to highlight the concerns raised with me by many people from different sectors of our community. It is a serious problem. Too many Aboriginal families are relying on grandmothers and great grandmothers to bring up the children. Too many mothers are at risk in the cycle of violence and the alcohol trap. At the weekend there was a swimming carnival in Alice Springs and there was a group of Aboriginal children from Warrego who came down with the teacher. There were Aboriginal grandparents and even one great grandparent with them. When I asked where their mothers were, their mothers were in town. They had almost abandoned their children so it was up to the grandmothers to bring them up. There is a whole generation out there of Aboriginal women who are at risk and if we are not careful, they will never grow to be grandmothers.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask all members from both sides of the House - and I know that you have indicated to me that you give your support to this motion - I ask you to support this motion and relay a message to Aboriginal women that we in this House do care and that government will introduce measures to help them.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the member for Braitling for bringing this important motion in to the House. I do want to make some amendments to the motion. Those amendments have been circulated and I have talked them through with the member for Braitling. Essentially, it doesn’t change the motion a lot.
I move that all words after “this Assembly is of the option that” be omitted and the following inserted in their stead:
I will be talking over the next 15 minutes or so about why I think we need those small amendments. This is a very serious issue in terms of the Territory and it is a very serious issue for this new government. We certainly support the general direction of the member for Braitling’s motion. The elimination of violence against Aboriginal women is an urgent priority. Violence against any women is not acceptable and it is an issue that all of us in this House and the community have a responsibility to tackle.
I recently launched the mass media domestic violence education campaign. The major message of the campaign is: ‘Let’s stop it now’. This message is an important one. As I travel around the Territory and meet many indigenous women and listen to their stories, they tell me: ‘We must stop it now’. And they tell me that they want to work at stopping it now in partnership with all levels of government, in partnership with their community, with their families, with other services and with their men.
I acknowledge that this is a serious problem but I also want to acknowledge the efforts of many agencies and indigenous communities who have come together, who have worked to address this serious problem and who are making gains. Examples such as Ali Curung and work being undertaken at Wadeye around a range of social issues including family violence should be recognised and applauded.
Safe houses are developed in some communities. Women are key players in night patrols on communities and innovative youth services tackle the issue of violence as part of their programs. I know that these responses are happening but I also know that more has to be done. This problem cannot be ignored. Figures from the Territory’s data collection project from 1999-2000 illustrate the seriousness of the problem. The Territory has the only jurisdiction-wide domestic violence data collection project in Australia. Relevant statistics from this project include over 8600 incidents of violence were reported by a range of services and agencies across the Territory; 76% of both victims and offenders were indigenous Territorians; and 84% of offenders were affected by alcohol or other drugs at the time of the incident.
The statistic around the involvement of alcohol and other drugs in incidents of violence against women cannot go unnoticed. Alcohol is not an excuse for violence but it must be recognised as a contributing factor. This issue only reinforces the need for a whole-of-government approach which is multifaceted and incorporates a range of strategies. While this data assists government to identify trends and assists with the development of strategies, one of the sad realities is that there is serious under reporting of assault on indigenous women. This under reporting occurs for a variety of reasons ranging from fear of reprisals, family pressure not to report, lack of infrastructure to facilitate reporting and a fear that reporting will only make the situation worse. These factors must be understood and worked with. However, they should not be used as excuses for doing nothing.
All violence is a crime and violence in close relationships or within families is no less a crime because it occurs in the domestic setting. The setting is irrelevant. Violence against indigenous women - all women - whether it happens in the family home, in a community, in the Darwin Mall or on the streets of Alice Springs, should not be accepted.
This government has adopted strong measures to combat crime and we are ensuring a whole-of-government approach with a whole-of-government structure that includes the formation of a new Office of Crime Prevention; creating and amending legislation including legislation targeting violence in the domestic setting; and piloting new programs to assess their effectiveness.
This initiative is part of my government’s commitment to working in partnership with community to prevent crime. There is also a need to review existing structures, legislation and policies and protocols to ensure that the intent and outcome of such initiatives such as the no-drop policy is being realised. The no-drop policy is designed to make sure that a prosecution is not terminated because the complainant has been convinced or coerced into withdrawing the complaint. The intent is to emphasise the protection of survivors of violence over all other considerations. In summary, it requires that once a criminal prosecution commences, the prosecution will not be terminated by the actions of NT police.
An independent consultant was engaged last year by the Department of Justice, then Attorney-General’s Department, to undertake a review of this policy. A draft report will be available shortly to guide future deliberations. The consultant has interviewed all key stakeholders to provide information that considers all aspects of the implementation of the no-drop policy. This review will report on a range of issues, including whether the no-drop policy should be modified in any way in order to operate more effectively in the Territory. I look forward to this report and to improvements being made to assist both victims and police to implement this policy in the most effective manner. I understand the need for adequate resources to assist indigenous communities to tackle these serious problems. As I’ve said before, a whole-of-government coordinated approach in partnership with the community must be seen as the most effective way to tackle the problem.
Health, education, substance abuse, employment, economic opportunities and development, access to land, housing and infrastructure needs are all issues impacting on indigenous communities and indigenous Territorians. Violence against women cannot be viewed in isolation from all these factors.
The establishment of a new Indigenous Policy Office within my department is a reflection of my government’s commitment to working towards making real changes in the life experiences and opportunities for indigenous Territorians. This new office will be responsible for tackling the complex range of economic and social issues impacting on indigenous communities. The office will provide strategic whole-of-government advice to myself and to my government.
The Office of Crime Prevention has been formed by government, and $6.7m allocated to bring about a whole-of-government approach to crime prevention. The office will be forming regional councils to bring about strong community based initiatives and that is one of the key initiatives of the Office of Crime Prevention, that there will be strong regional councils that can have strong regional solutions to the crime problems they face that are relevant to those regions. The Office of Crime Prevention will have strong leadership through this government and integrate prevention issues relating to family violence. It will have the support and guidance of a statistical unit and provide a grant program for communities and organisations wanting to address crime, including violence. It will provide an opportunity to pilot, test, monitor and evaluate programs designed by Aboriginal communities, and women as well as men in those communities.
The Northern Territory Domestic Violence Strategy has been in place since 1994, with the Aboriginal Family Violence Strategy introduced the next year, 1995. Both these strategies have been evaluated and are currently being reviewed. The government has allocated $1.08m core funding to implement key programs under the Domestic Violence Strategy. This allocation assists to provide specialist legal and counselling services, community education programs, and specifically sets aside $300 000 for a whole-of-government response to Aboriginal family violence. The office also convenes regional forums and indigenous gatherings across the Territory to engage with communities in all parts of the Territory.
The information gained assists to refine the strategy, refine policy and design new pilot projects. The Aboriginal Family Violence Strategy was based on the philosophy of a community driven and community based response. It is currently under review to determine how effective government agencies have been in implementing the goals of the strategy and what should occur in the future. The review was conducted through consultations with key stakeholders and further work is underway to take this strategy into the future. And it is important to acknowledge that there have been strategies in place dealing with domestic violence since 1995-96.
We are a new government of six months; we have to take a look at how those policies are working, how those strategies are working, and apply the focus of our government, which is that whole-of-government focus, and also a focus on tackling the problems that affect communities through the Territory, but attacking them in a whole-of-government manner. So it is important that we are assessing and reviewing the policies that are in place. That doesn’t mean that some good work hasn’t taken place, but there has to be, within the framework of this Labor government, a review of those policies.
Territory police have formed two specialised domestic violence units and established a network of Domestic Violence Liaison Officers so that there is one in every police station, including remote localities, so that police responses are appropriate and timely. The role of police in tackling this issue is paramount as they are the front line. I believe our police force is committed to working with all relevant agencies to be effective in their role.
The Victim Support Unit of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions provides information, assistance, support and advice to victims, witnesses and their families throughout each stage of the prosecution process. The support provided to women and their families is essential, and it is an important service that facilitates women through the court system.
Offender programs have been piloted with and for indigenous offenders with support for victims and children. These are being evaluated with standardised measurement tools up to 12 months after an offender attends a program to assess whether or not they have been assisted to bring about a change in an offender’s violent behaviour. This has led to the first nationally accredited training program being developed in the Territory for use by training providers throughout Australia around this issue. The Behaviour Change for Indigenous Family Violence Offenders course was a collaborative project between the Office of Women’s Policy and the Council for Aboriginal Alcohol Program Services.
Indigenous communities are currently involved in the design of new community education messages and products that are relevant and appropriate. These will assist communities dealing with sexual assault and family violence. Indigenous Territorians are the first to state that this is a highly sensitive and difficult area and that they should be fully consulted and involved in each step of the process. Highlighting resources, strategies in place, and efforts to date does not mean that there does not need to be more done. If answers were simple, they would be apparent. This is one of the most complex and demanding areas that a government has to tackle, and this government has made crime prevention a key priority. The need for all in our community to take a role in working towards the elimination of violence against women is evident. There is a range of professionals who come in to contact with both victims and perpetrators through their work. The health sector is often the front line in dealing with the effects of violence on women.
Mandatory reporting for adults has proved to be unacceptable to the professionals who have acquired the expertise and experience to make decisions with and in the best interests of clients - for example, doctors and legal practitioners. Those experienced in working in this field also relate that mandatory reporting of assaults could create barriers to women seeking assistance. The Territory has therefore put arrangements in place to pilot and, if successful, extend a more appropriate model of intervention under the Domestic Violence Strategy.
Routine screening for domestic violence will be introduced in two Territory hospital sites in 2002 and, if successful, will be extended to other Territory hospitals. The project is designed to provide domestic violence checks for clients - patients - reporting for medical assistance in accident and emergency units and antenatal and birthing suites. It will ensure that clients are not only provided with medical services in relation to the presenting injury or problem, but are also assessed to see if the injury or health problem may have come about as a result of domestic or family violence. This project involves high level strategic direction, training and retraining, the design and piloting of documents and forms, developing reliable referral information and overall evaluation. A support mechanism will be put in place for the staff involved in the hospital setting. This will include an opportunity to debrief and strategies to keep staff safe. The safety of staff is an important issue and this project will reflect this.
In looking at crimes of violence against women, the sentencing regime does take this issue seriously. The courts are bound by law to sentence in proportion to the seriousness of the assault. The courts are bound to take into account all of the variables. The seriousness of the physical harm on the victim will determine the seriousness of the charge. Under the Sentencing Act, the courts must take into account the impact on the victim. The courts themselves and various members of the judiciary have stated consistently that violence against Aboriginal women will not be tolerated. For example, Justice Kearney in Amagula v White, January 1998, in upholding a magistrate’s sentence for the assault on an Aboriginal woman, agreed that there was a need to, ‘send the correct message’, namely that Aboriginal women will be protected against personal violence. Justice Kearney went on to say:
said the judge,
Other work is underway around the issue of violence and its impact on all Territorians. It would be premature to make any announcements at this stage, but I assure the House that my government is serious.
I commend the member for Braitling for bringing this motion before the House. It is an issue that requires collaboration, concentrated effort, and it is an issue that my government makes a commitment to. Violence against Aboriginal women is not acceptable, and I believe that with a whole-of-government approach, a real commitment and my government’s plans to work in partnership with indigenous Territorians, we can make real progress in this priority issue that impacts on many Territorians.
I would like to add that I know that it is an issue that concerns all members in this House, and I would say, considering that we now have seven women here in the House, that I’m sure that we can get a much more concentrated effort and bipartisan support on this issue because all of us feel this issue very deeply and know that the impact that it has on the lives of Aboriginal women, particularly Aboriginal women around the Territory. We see the evidence daily, as the member for Braitling said. To be able to put in place effective strategies – I’m not saying that some of the work done already hasn’t been effective, but we need to be able to raise the effort and continue with as effective strategies as we can. So to know that I have the support in this place from all members but particularly - because it does affect us as women - the women members of this House, I think that we can achieve a lot working in partnership.
Again, I commend the member for Braitling for bringing forward this motion. It is one that is of great concern to this government and, I believe, to all Territorians. But I think that you’ll note that the amendments are not radically different and the reasons for them that I’ve outlined - particularly in terms of point four, the mandatory reporting by medical staff in the original motion, in public hospitals. The advice is that this is not the best way at this time to go, and that you might in fact, by making it mandatory - unlike the issue of child abuse which means that an adult is reporting it or that it doesn’t affect the number of people coming to a hospital - in many cases it might stop women seeking the medical advice they need.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we have that screening process in place and I believe that we’ll monitor it and make sure that we do understand whether that is the best way to proceed at this time.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Deputy Speaker, I’m struck by how similar my response will be to the Chief Minister’s. Can I say from the outset that I also thank the member for Braitling for bringing this motion to the Chamber. I was going to say that I supported the sentiments of the motion but that I had some concerns with parts of it. I’m very happy, if not a little relieved, to see the amendment and it is on that basis that I will be agreeing to it.
Of course, I support the proposition that violence against Aboriginal women is unacceptable and that it should be a priority for any government. Indeed, violence against all women must be a priority for all governments and, like the Chief Minister, I think there wouldn’t be a person inside this Chamber who doesn’t agree with that proposition. I also support that part of the motion that any campaign should be backed up by adequate resources that will assist communities dealing with violence, however any campaign or injection of funds into indigenous communities must be done in a culturally appropriate way and must be done, where appropriate, in partnership with particular communities, and others will be community-based, grass roots programs. I would urge the government to draw on the volumes of expert material published both within and outside government.
In this regard, I would urge the new government to look at the work undertaken by the Office of Women’s Policy over the years and I am again relieved to hear the Chief Minister’s comments in that respect. I would additionally, however, encourage government to increase funding to that office, rather than reducing it, so that it can extend its resources.
I support that part of the motion that states that the sentencing regime for crimes of violence should reflect the severity of the crime and, indeed, it should reflect that both for indigenous and non-indigenous violence against women. Knowing this government’s approach to the issue of sentencing generally, I won’t hold my breath in anticipation of any statutory increases in sentences nor the imposition of minimum sentences. The opposition’s view is that sentences should always reflect the severity of all crimes of violence against women and children, but I might say that the prospect of exploring minimum sentences for crimes of violence and sexual assaults against women is, in my view, arguably worth further exploration.
The concerns I had with the original motion related to the mandatory reporting by medical staff of suspected assaults being introduced. While no doubt well meaning, the fact of the matter is that the medical profession and, indeed, the legal profession would not, on the basis of inquiries I’ve made, be supportive of it. The fact of the matter is that we have mandatory reporting for child abuse by reason of the Community Welfare Act and, of course, by reason of that legislation, there is an ability to remove a child from the location of the abuse. A similar statutory scheme does not exist for adults, nor can it, and there are sound policy reasons for mandatory reporting of child abuse, not the least of which is because a child does not have legal standing and cannot bring a complaint.
I agree absolutely that Aboriginal women are tolerating outrageous levels of violence, however we must have sufficient respect for them and their capacity to run their lives, unlike children, and not to take the decision to report to police out of their hands or indeed the medical profession’s. Ultimately, violence against women will significantly reduce when women themselves report it and I applaud any attempts by any government to implement campaigns ensuring that they do so.
Further mandatory reporting raises two practical issues for the medical profession. The first one, briefly, was the issue of confidentiality. The question is whether patients are going to trust their doctors if, through their eyes as patients, they breach their confidence. The second, more practical, matter is that if every case of assault against a woman is reported, then all doctors in all hospitals will be spending all of their time at the court houses throughout the Northern Territory because they will need to give evidence in relation to each and every prosecution. Given the shortage of staff, this problem obviously could not go unmentioned.
As for the pro-arrest policy, there is a pro-arrest policy in existence already. If a complaint is made, it is investigated, and the very sensible, no-drop policy introduced by the former government applies to women who are the victims of domestic violence. So there is, in fact, no distinction between a no-drop policy and the notion of pro-arrest, but I can assure the member for Braitling that my experience is that the police and prosecutors always take violence against women very seriously. I would agree absolutely that violence against Aboriginal women has nothing to do with culture. I might add, however, that I have on occasion seen defence lawyers sail fairly close to the wind in submissions of pleas of mitigation where they just fall short of putting some submission along the lines that it was culturally appropriate for the woman to receive a beating. Obviously that is rubbish but, surprisingly, my experience has been that it has been suggested either subtly or, on occasions, not so subtly by lawyers who are employed in Aboriginal legal aid services. I am pleased to say, however, that my experience is that such nonsense is not bought for a minute by the judiciary which takes violence against women seriously.
I agree that the recently launched media campaign It’s got to stop now was disappointing because of the level of funding - $119 000 as I understand it - and it has been questioned by a number of women around the Territory on the basis that it is just not enough.
The references made by the member for Braitling, about victims attending the Alice Springs Hospital in particular put pressure on this government to improve the hospital which has so obviously slipped over the last six months, and I invite government to get on with implementing its election promises in this and other areas.
In conclusion, government does have the opportunity to pull out all stops in doing what it can to address this problem of violence against Aboriginal women. I very sincerely wish them well in tackling the challenges that exist. I also look forward to the outcomes of the routine screening programs, and I’m sure many of us in this Chamber await the results with interest.
Finally, I thank the member for Braitling for bringing this motion to the Chamber because the issue of violence against indigenous and non-indigenous women confronts us all and is of real concern. As I said, I was going to conclude by supporting the sentiments of the motion, but having difficulty with the detail. Again, I am delighted at the amendment moved by the government, and on that basis, I will happily support it.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I, too, would like to thank the member for Braitling for her motion, and the Chief Minister for her amendment. Based on the amendment, I will be delighted to support the motion.
This is an issue that has been placed in the too-hard basket for decades. I am very pleased to see that it’s coming out of it even further tonight. Twenty years ago, I came to Darwin as a new nurse. It was the first time I’d had exposure to Aboriginal people. I was working in the Accident and Emergency Department and in Orthopaedics for nearly 10 years. In the Northern Territory, the most common fracture for a woman is a bilateral fracture of the radius and ulna, and that’s an injury sustained in defence from being bashed. In Australia, the most common fracture for a women is a fractured neck of femur which is sustained in a fall as an older woman.
Every day I would nurse Aboriginal women – sorry, going back to these nursing stories cracks me up - every day I would have to nurse the victims of this assault. The fractures were disturbing enough, but what really got to me were the occasions when I would have to nurse elderly Aboriginal women who had been - as the term goes - thrown on the fire to speed their death. I found that, obviously, very upsetting, as something that was happening. At that time, there was no such thing as debriefing, and perhaps it’s a shame that it wasn’t happening.
I would like to quote a nursing story from an article by Penelope Andrews:
It was a cold and winter night in 1989 in Central Australia on an Aboriginal community. Although late, muted
sounds of fighting could still be heard coming from the camps. Suddenly, the screams of a woman rent the air
as she ran towards the nurses’ quarters and hammered desperately on the locked gate. Blood poured down her
face, and her left arm hung limp and broken. In close pursuit was a man brandishing a star picket. As the nurse
struggled to open the gate to admit the woman - at the same time excluding her attacker - she noticed the woman’s
T-shirt. Emblazoned across the front was the statement: ‘We have survived 40 000 years’. ‘Yes, but will they
survive the next 40?’, the nurse wondered.
In 1996, approximately 38% of reported DV victims in the Northern Territory were Aboriginal. In the year 2000,
it has increased to 76% who are Aboriginal women.
This is an increase of nearly 40%. Attachment 5 of the same document provides the numbers. In six years, there has been a massive deterioration of the situation in that in 1994 to 1996, the number of indigenous women reported as being the victims of domestic violence were 419. In the year 1999-2000, the number had increased to 1269. This is a huge increase. Arguably, of course, reporting may have increased also during that time. But there’s a feeling - and the statistics support it - that the incidence is increasing. We must act now, and I’m delighted to hear what the Chief Minister has had to say today on this topic.
One of the outcomes of this high rate of violence is death. Who is the perpetrator? In most cases, it’s Aboriginal men - in particular the victim’s intimate partner. A report from the Australian Institute of Criminology, No. 124, on Femicide 1989 to 1998, details how:
The proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander femicide victims that were killed by an intimate partner
was 75%. This was much higher for the Aboriginal women than for Caucasian women.
Nearly three-quarters or 75% of femicides that occurred involving Aboriginal people, both the victim and the
offender were under the influence of alcohol. In contrast, only 12% of the victims and offenders of
Caucasian appearance were both under the influence of alcohol at the time of the killing.
Alcohol is one factor, and a key factor. Alcohol, as most of us know, makes us lose our inhibitions. Unfortunately for the perpetrators of habitual violence, they often believe that it absolves them from any responsibility. The Violence in Indigenous Communities report I have already mentioned comments on page 27 that it has been argued that:
Unaccountability is a key component of a widely held construct of drunkenness amongst indigenous people.
People believe that they are not to be held responsible or accountable when they are drunk.
One of the big problems when dealing with this taboo topic is under reporting. A report to the Queensland Office of Aboriginal Women in 1990 cited one worker who commented:
I have found the majority of sexual and physical assaults against Aboriginal women are not reported. Most
women are terrified of the police interrogation where anything from a woman’s sexual history to whether she
is a fit mother or not is brought out into the open. Reporting an assault sometimes seems to be just as traumatic
as the actual assault.
This incident has been raised in a public meeting which I co-hosted looking at the issues of safety and security in the inner city area of Darwin. Police were there at that meeting. The issue was raised. What happened with this case? We have a woman who was almost gutted in public. Nothing has happened, and that article comments on it, the reason being that the victim refused to lay charges so it has just dropped. Now I am told - I don’t think the police have told me this - that the police know who the perpetrator of the crime is. This was a woman injuring another woman, still a form of violence against Aboriginal women. They know who the offender is. This is the third time she has attacked in this manner – known third time that she has stabbed somebody. She is currently lying low, and that is an allegation to me, in one of our Housing Commission blocks here in Darwin until things calm down.
Why haven’t the police pursued it? Because the victim has refused to lay any charges. Yet here we have in Raintree Park, arguably the centre of the Northern Territory - and I do use that term loosely - but, certainly, a very well populated area, middle of the day, an incident like this occurs and there is no action from the police because the victim didn’t want to press charges.
What is going to happen? Do we have to wait until the perpetrator of this crime kills somebody and then we can take action? In that case the victim is dead and, therefore, we do not have concerns about whether or not charges may or may not be laid based on the victim’s concerns. I find it very disturbing that now, of course, we probably have the perpetrator back on the streets and able to commit this crime again. It is a very unfortunate situation. I have written to the minister for police on this matter and I look forward to his comments on this concern which I and other citizens in our community have.
I acknowledge there is a lack of any quick fix solution. What is needed is a multifaceted approach which is not scared to address the issues. Political correctness, I believe, is a huge burden and I, certainly, hope that we are not going to see any of it here tonight. I feel confident that we won’t. But for a very long time the feeling has been that we don’t talk about this topic. I was delighted to see some time in the last 12 months Sunday ran a program on this very issue. Many very important Aboriginal people in our community spoke out about the issue of Aboriginal family violence and it was great to hear that coming forward in our media in such an important program as Sunday.
I believe everybody should be able to talk about this issue. It has been slid to the side in the too-hard basket for too long. All of us should be able to comment on it because we all care. I can’t imagine anybody who does not care about seeing people injured and attacked and put down in this way.
As we know from our own Northern Territory Domestic Violence Report, Aborigines do want access to justice. I suspect, and this is just hearsay, that the Aboriginal Legal Aid Service is such that it supports often men because they get there first, and I may stand to be corrected about that in the future, but I have, certainly, heard over the years concerns from women that there is not such ready access to legal aid for women.
The domestic violence program that we have here in the Northern Territory - the statistics bear it out - appears to be working for non-Aboriginal women. Why isn’t it working for the victims of family violence? Here’s hoping, from the initiatives mentioned by the Chief Minister tonight, that we are going to see those statistics turned around in the near future.
Some key steps need to be taken. There needs to be, of course, community recognition such as we have with domestic violence but family violence is not acceptable. I remember during Marshall Perron’s time as Chief Minister when launching of the domestic violence strategy here in the Northern Territory - I was not involved in women’s issues per se; I was working as a nurse educator down in Katherine - but I can distinctly remember the television ads saying that ‘it is not on’. And then the media coverage from the Chief Minister of the time saying anybody who thinks that domestic violence in the Northern Territory is appropriate better leave because it’s just not on here in the Territory. And it was a very powerful message which struck many of us. Well, this is the same sort of message which has to come through now to the Aboriginal people and to the Aboriginal women that it is no longer acceptable and you do not have to be a victim anymore.
Dr Burns: What about the non-Aboriginal perpetrators?
Ms CARTER: Indeed, the non-Aboriginal perpetrators, that is true and I will pick up on that.
Dr Burns: Let’s not put one label on it.
Ms CARTER: Absolutely. Whoever is a perpetrator, and I accept that comment absolutely.
Also we need to see programs that have a significant level of self-determination by Aboriginal communities as to how the problem should be addressed and how resources should be allocated. We need a whole-of-government approach - and I am sure that is what the Chief Minister is going to be organising - incorporating health, education, housing and employment strategies. The development of appropriate community facilities need to be provided for and these may well encompass refuges for the victims of violence.
For many, of course, the justice system has at often times been a joke with regards to the way that it deals with violence against Aboriginal women. All of us have seen the newspaper articles over our years in the Northern Territory which indicate that if you kill an Aboriginal woman, you might get three years - off in 18 months. That scenario happens time and time again. It is just not right that there should be two levels. I am quite sure that if you did a comparison between the sentences handed down to the murderers of non-Aboriginal people and the sentences handed down to the murderers of Aboriginal people, you would see a marked difference between those incarcerations.
Ms Carney: There is a PhD on exactly that issue written by a friend of mine.
Ms CARTER: Well, I am pleased to hear that.
So I think the justice system needs to look carefully and needs to punish for these crimes because that sends a message out to our community that this thing is just not on, that Aboriginal women matter just as much as anybody else and that if you should kill an Aboriginal woman then you are in deep trouble and you get that message very, very easily.
Obviously, I think that if someone murders anybody, that’s the end of it. But for people who perhaps have not been quite so offensive, there should be programs available to them and those programs to assist with coping with domestic violence or family violence could be either community or prison based depending on the circumstances. But what we need most of all is a demonstration that our community cares, that we are outraged and that we will not tolerate this situation any more. Currently Aboriginal women do not receive justice and this community fails to care enough. When Aboriginal people were felt to be dying at an unacceptable rate in prison, a Royal Commission was established. Today, Aboriginal women are suffering much greater rates of injury and death and yet, to date - and I exclude the last hour or so in here - but to date there has been very little outcry. More must be done and I am pleased to hear it will be.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am pleased with the member for Braitling’s motion. I am delighted with the Chief Minister’s amendments and I will be very pleased to support the motion with the amendments.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to applaud the member for Braitling for bringing this motion forward. There are probably a number of Aboriginal women amongst the sisterhood for whom she would probably be the champion of their cause. This is an issue that just has not come to fore in the last couple of years or over the last six months. This has been an issue that’s been around for a long, long time. And like the member for Port Darwin, I have spent about 10 years working at the coalface of health. I have actually witnessed a lot of those women coming into the health services feeling totally helpless. Yes, sitting down and talking and counselling those women, asking them if they wanted to take further action - to little avail.
There are a number of problems with why those women didn’t want to take that action. I suppose this is an issue that, for someone like myself, is difficult because I have a personal opinion about the violence and the assaults that are perpetrated on Aboriginal women. At the same time, I have to weigh up that I am the member for a huge electorate, and it is not just the women out there. I talk about this issue with the men as well, and there has been - and this is something that I have to say at the outset - there has been a major shift in a lot of the men that I am talking to out in the community. A lot of the men are saying: ‘No, it isn’t culture and we have to stop this’. So a lot of the Aboriginal men are recognising that this violence has to stop.
The member for Barkly, the member for Arnhem and the member for Millner, all Aboriginal reps in this parliament. We do want to take this issue on. I think it has gone on for too long and it has to be addressed.
In the member for Braitling’s motion, one of the areas I was going to talk on was the pro-arrest policy, and then the Chief Minister presented the amendments to that emotion - sorry, motion – which, of course, we fully support. Look, this is an emotional issue for me. For a long time I’ve had a dilemma about this issue, and sometimes you stand here and you look at issues and you have to try to separate the emotions from what the issue is. And, like the member for Port Darwin, when you’ve seen - and, look, myself having gone through violence - it is hard to separate yourself and try to look at it systematically and without any emotion because you can’t talk about this issue without emotion.
I completely agree with the need for police to protect women from continuing or threatened violence by removing the source of the violence from the place where the woman is staying. The more difficult question - and I suppose this is with a lot of the work that I’ve done in the past with communities and now with my electorate, and talking to those women and talking to those men - of when you’re looking in a remote area setting - and I’ll get to the urban centres in a minute, but I suppose the remote areas is where I am looking at first - is where is the man to be taken once he is in control of the police?
If he has already inflicted bodily harm on the victim then he should, of course, be kept in police custody pending a bail hearing before a magistrate. But if no actual violence has been inflicted, there needs to be established, in particular in remote communities, an alternative to holding the man in police custody. We need to look at establishing - and this is something I suppose when we are reviewing and looking at different programs - something that is seriously lacking in remote areas, yes, we have safe houses for women. The member for Braitling did mention establishing counterparts to women’s safe houses for men. I mean, there has to be some sort of strategy of looking at how the men can be accommodated.
There should be secure places, the supervision of which is shared between the police and the responsible male community members. Suspected offenders or men whom the police and the community fear may have inflict violence, if not temporarily removed from their domestic setting, should be granted police bail, a condition of which would be to remain at the men’s house until permitted to emerge and a further condition of which would be a prohibition on returning to where the woman is staying at least until such time as the police are satisfied that the threat to the woman has receded.
That is just one view. A lot of that with looking at the safe houses, where women have had safe houses, a lot of the men are saying maybe if - and, look, a lot of these things need radical changes, and sometimes we have to start looking beyond what have been processes or systems or policies that have been in place - and safe, safe for governments to stay within that system. Sometimes we need to look at, for the best interests of what these communities are saying, is moving outside of what is the best for governments in terms of working and being more creative on the ground.
Some of the comments that I’ve just heard in terms of the welfare dependency and Noel Pearson’s paper - yes, I was sitting in this Chamber yesterday - I carry the Noel Pearson paper around with me most of the time to read a lot of that. Although Noel Pearson, with that paper - and he makes his document quite explicit that Aboriginal people must take responsibility - certainly there is a message in there that that responsibility can only come when that responsibility is transferred from governments to the people and Aboriginal people taking that on.
The BRACS system, yes, they are in most of the communities and yes, we do have to look at ways of getting the message across, whether it is videos made by local people, so that it is out there in the community and people can watch it.
The Aboriginal legal aid services and yes, a lot of women - I worked in Katherine for a long time. I took on the Katherine Regional Aboriginal Legal Aid Service because I, too, was under the impression that this was a male dominated service and Aboriginal women were being excluded. Part of that was ignorance but, yes, the reason why a lot of the males were going there was because they were the perpetrators. And, yes, the women were being excluded because Aboriginal legal aid has a conflict of interest policy that they cannot represent Aboriginal person v Aboriginal person. So, yes, this caused a whole lot of problems for the legal aid service. Talking to them, it was a huge dilemma so, as the Health Service Director with the legal aid service Director, we looked at, okay, what can we do to try and approach either the Commonwealth government or the Northern Territory government in trying to get some funding to set up a specific legal aid service for Aboriginal women so that they could get some support.
The then federal Labor government was in power and Graham Richardson, on his famous tour to Katherine, came and I was fortunate enough to have a meeting with him. The effect of that was - I think about six months after that - there was some funding released and that was the beginning of the Top End Women’s Legal Service and also the Legal Service in Katherine. And even though they represent all women, it is not specifically Aboriginal women, but I do know that a lot of the Aboriginal women accessed both of these services. And the Top End Women’s Legal Service certainly is doing some good work with the women out at Gunbalanya, which is in my electorate, looking at this. I mean, sure, a long time ago there was this shift - you know, the legal aid services, it was perceived that it was male dominated or there was this perception that only men would be represented.
Picking up on the newspapers, there needs to be a fundamental shift in the media not just portraying stories like that. When I talk about the shift in the media, I recall an incident in Katherine. This was about a young lady who I was fortunate to have on my Board of Management. Quite a stunning young lady, had gone to school both in Darwin and over in Western Australia. She got into an argument with her partner. Anyway, she died as a consequence of the fight between her and her partner. The insensitivity of the media - and that’s something that has to certainly change - the next day and right through the week, the family of that victim - front page of the Katherine Times - reading in full, graphic detail the injuries that were sustained by this young lady. It not only affected and impacted on the family, but also everybody else who knew this young lady. Certainly, the police in Katherine I talked to were amazed at the story that had been portrayed in that newspaper. Sometimes the media - and the whole thing with these issues, especially indigenous issues, is that they’ve got to stop being used as the political football. We certainly have to get serious about it.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I could rave forever. I could stand up here and rave forever, but I won’t because I think what we need is actions speaking louder than words. We certainly have to go ahead with the actions rather than standing up and saying the words all the time.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Deputy Speaker, I also rise to make a few comments in support of everything that’s been said here tonight, but also I pick up particularly on one of the comments from the member for Arafura in relation to the problem she has with separating out a very emotional issue from a what-to-do issue or an issue of how to approach these situations logically.
I, too, could stand up here and with some 14 years of police experience trot out an absolute litany of the death that I have seen associated specifically with this problem. I can recall any number of occasions - in fact too many occasions - where I’ve seen Aboriginal women the subject of the most obscene violence and violence which led not only to grievous harm but from time to time, very sadly, to death.
I agonised and still do when I see these sorts of things happening; indeed, I had a walk down the street the other day and although it wasn’t physical violence, there were a couple of people in the street - one of them was an Aboriginal woman who was getting a mouthful of abuse from her other half. I hung around to make sure that it didn’t go any further, but at the end of the day it was very sad she even had to suffer that sort of abuse.
It brings us to the issue of policy and I don’t know if there’s anything to be achieved by dwelling on the litany or the sadness of this issue. On the issue of policy, how does one approach this problem? One of the problems that I perceive is that policy delivery from federal government, from NGOs, from the Northern Territory government, councils, come from a whole series of different directions and I’d care to make some observations in relation to that, so I ask members to bear with me while I make some fairly ranging comments.
When one looks at the state of Aboriginal affairs in Australia as a whole or more particularly in the Northern Territory, one cannot help but be struck by the desires of policy makers and the outcomes that we see unavoidably every day. Millions upon millions are spent trying to bring about improvements to the conditions and circumstances in which Aboriginal people live. Speaking personally, I despair at the things that I see happening every day in Central Australia and fail to see any real outcomes for the expenditure.
My years as a police officer in this community exposed me to so many of the living tragedies, and I know that not much has improved for a lot of traditional people who live in a world that is changing about them at an enormous pace. It is my concern that change is widening the gap between non-Aboriginal culture and traditional people rather than closing it. I do not intend to revisit the problems of Aboriginal people in Central Australia because we all know what these problems are. Indeed, the very existence of ATSIC or departments dedicated to Aboriginal issues reveals that there are specific needs that have to be addressed.
My comments and questions will be reserved more to observations as to why there are so many failures in policy generally and an overview of what I believe some of the mistakes that have been made in terms of how policy has been delivered.
The first point I wish to make is in relation to the protection of Aboriginal cultures. It is often said by commentators that it is important to protect Aboriginal culture, and this should be a central plank of policy delivery. I have a question mark over this, not because I do not believe that Aboriginal culture should not be protected, but rather that I am not qualified to speak for those cultures. The only qualified people themselves are the holders of the law for any particular culture. From time to time as a member of parliament, I have been struck by the numbers of cultures that exist in my own electorate, let alone the number of cultures that exist beyond the electorate and in the rest of the Northern Territory as well as the rest of this country.
It seems to be the nature of many of these cultures that they are identifiably different from each other, and they are cultures that have been affected to varying degrees by the influence of European culture. My concern is that if I or any person, be they Aboriginal or otherwise, makes assumptions about someone else’s culture, they are engaging in a level of conceit by making those sorts of sweeping assertions.
Speaking from my own experience, I am not an initiated man in any of these cultures, nor do I possess any of the language, stories or secrets that would make me an expert in any of these cultures that exist even in my own electorate. I believe that for me to do so would be arrogant in the extreme. I cannot determine what is good for Aboriginal culture simply because I am not qualified to do so.
As someone who had the duty of formulating Aboriginal policy in the Northern Territory for the possible return to government as the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, this appears to leave me with limited options in terms of the policy developments that are appropriate. This is not only true for me but for every policy framer, wherever they may be. I do not believe that such a apparition is necessarily the truth. As a person who believes that freedom is a central part of governance, then any policy that is constructed should reflect the ability of the participants in that society to choose their own courses in life. This being the case, then the policy that I would like to see advanced should recognise that experts in Aboriginal culture of any given place should have the right to determine what is of value to them culturally and what is not.
I do not profess expertise in Aboriginal culture, but I do believe that as a general rule, there are few areas in which Aboriginal culture is repugnant to the operation of European law. Indeed, I believe that cultural law could be of great assistance to European law when dealing with particular issues, as the issue before the House today. Land rights settlements, native title determinations are two areas where traditional law has been and will continue to be of great assistance.
Policy problems: what, then, is the role for you, me and, indeed, this nation to develop policy? To that question I answer there needs to be a yardstick by which we can, as policy makers, all turn to, to give us a system of general measurement to examine a policy as being consistent with other policies in the field. I humbly suggest to those of us present today that such a yardstick does not yet exist. Policy is developed from disparate directions with disparate objectives in mind. Where some policy is of a political nature, others are of a social nature; some seek to interfere, others seek to create space. Depending on who is framing the policy, the nature of the policy changes.
The solution of this begins then to sound like the whole-of-government approach system that we hear so often talked about but never seems to happen. The reason that such an approach fails is because the yardstick to which I have referred is never examined. When one considers policy created of a social nature and then examines that policy with one which is geared to bring responsibility back on the people who are affected, then the two policy positions will fail because they seek mutually exclusive outcomes.
The competing policy of paying welfare and generally asserting the freedom to obtain liquor is a glaring example of this dichotomy. Currently in Australia, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, CASA, is preventing regular passenger services from landing on unlicensed strips because of inherent danger of landing in such places. Accidents however, are historically rare with such landings. This certainly keeps people from danger in the aviation sector, however it does prevent dialysis patients from getting to treatment, a cause of death which is common. It is as though CASA is happy to play their part, so long as their part of the Titanic isn’t sinking.
Different policy makers will have different intentions as well. ATSIC will engage in policy development, as will land councils, federal, NT and local governments. This will occur because they have different areas of responsibility. There is also a more subtle reason for this failure: each of these organisations will have a different constituency. ATSIC’s constituency is national, where the land councils are area specific. Local government is only interested in its particular community, where a state government has a broader base, and federal approaches deal with national interests beyond the realm of ATSIC.
By way of example, when the federal government seeks to create an Aboriginal policy, it will do so with one eye on the voters who live in Sydney and Melbourne. It will seek to create policies which are not seen as excessively burdensome or harsh to people in those constituencies in an effort not to be seen to be tyrannical in any way. It is safe to suggest that the vast majority of people who live in those major cities are not people of Aboriginal descent and so the federal government of the day will create policies that, on the face of them, seem to be caring policies. Therefore, it follows that vast amounts of money will be spent on welfare approaches that will reflect well in those constituencies. Nevertheless, people who live with outcomes of such policies then reserve serious criticisms for such approaches. Indeed, the comments by Mr Noel Pearson are nothing short of scathing in terms of passive welfare. I agree with Mr Pearson. Indeed I have a copy, for those members who haven’t read it, of his address on the Dr Charles Perkins’ Memorial Oration. I seek leave to table that, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: The question arises then, from this, of what to do. Is welfare policy our primary goal? Does the taxpayer simply pay the rent to Aboriginal people and hope the problems resolve themselves? What is the yardstick that all policy makers use to measure the policy and deliver consistent outcomes? I’m not in the habit of making criticism without offering some sort of answers, and I will turn to history. I will turn briefly to the history of passive welfare, but I do direct members, in terms of a much better oration, to the comments made by Mr Pearson in the Dr Charles Perkins’ Memorial Oration. I will reserve my comments to say that welfare, in its own right, has the effect of removing dignity.
The other lesson that I gleaned from history is the human need for a meaningful existence. There is no greater destructive force to human existence than to remove a meaning from a person’s life. There is nothing unique in history about poverty to any particular place. Even today, if I want to see poverty similar to what I see in Central Australia, I may choose to visit areas like the Bronx in New York, or Brixton in London, or perhaps Sowheto in Johannesberg. Indeed, I have seen these places and discovered that when people lose meaning in their lives, they suffer from the same forces of entropy that we see working in communities in Central Australia. The drugs or abuse may be different, such as crack/cocaine in Los Angeles or petrol in Papunya, but I firmly believe that the desire to escape meaninglessness arises out of the same human condition. In some people, it is stronger than in others and therefore at an individual level, there will always be exceptions. But at a social level, the experience seems to be constant.
At the national level, our economy is seen to be robust and it has resisted enormous pressure to slip into recession and has sustained consistent growth throughout a global downturn. However, at a particular level, the economies in localised areas have never been out of a recessive phase for decades. This is true of small rural communities in many places in Australia and particularly so in Aboriginal communities. The reasons for this are manifold: health, education, ownership of land and a raft of other forces or lack of them bear down on remote Australians with crushing pressure. I find it astonishing that when I talk to older men who live in my electorate, the days of the cattle stations in missions are viewed with nostalgia. In these times, they were poorly paid and did not enjoy many of the services that they have today, and still the response amongst them is almost universally that they were the good old days.
Despite the fact that they did not have these services, they had meaningful lives, and they were providers to their families. It is, therefore, my contention that if purpose is to be gained by any people, then it should be done by constructing policies that recognise the need for meaningfulness. I further contend that the best place to develop meaning is by granting economic independence. This should be the principle that underlines all policy development. Economic self-determination is the only true form of self-determination.
So what is the yardstick we should use? If one examines education policy, the thrust of policy, generally, is to prepare the recipients of education with a means to create a productive life. An obvious statement, but when it is examined in a place such as Kintore in the Northern Territory, it becomes less obvious. When a child in Kintore attends the local school, that child is given lessons on the normal subjects of reading, writing, arithmetic and the like. The problem lies not with the education of the child, assuming that it is properly delivered. The problem lies in what happens to the education when it leaves the classroom. The child sees no meaningful application for the education. If the child visits the health clinic, they are not required to fill out any of the forms, and should the child visit the shop, the chances are that their arithmetic is done for them at the counter. There is no work that requires such an education, and it is not long before it becomes apparent that education is largely without context. It is as abstract and has no real relevance on their lives outside the classroom. It is because policies that may provide the education with contextual environment are not vigorously pursued.
A response should not be to change the education system, but perhaps to change the environment in which it operates. The education department’s responsibility unfortunately stops at the school door. Welfare policy, in the way it is delivered, is one of effective helplessness. Therefore, even the process of obtaining welfare is done for the applicant by the delivering body. There is no work available because the land management process, either locally or through a community council or generally through a land council, does not provide work in which the education has a purpose. The sad thing is that in some communities such as Hermannsburg, the community did provide work in a tannery, a local butcher’s shop, running cattle and the like. Hermannsburg once provided for its many needs and largely stood independent of outside help.
Certainly, a whole-of-government approach, which has been touted for years, is fundamental. But policy formation has to go one step further. It needs to be consistent, but there must be a clear goal in mind for all policy development across the board. Welfare policy, independent of economic development policy, will cause a nexus of failure because the intended outcomes of each are stated to be the same and have a deleterious effect on each other’s operation. It is folly to suggest to a person in a remote community that they carry part of the burden of their own development and then provide a means by which to usurp that development. The only pressure on many people to turn to themselves for their own salvation is consequently a vague sense of responsibility that they are expected to feel after having that sense of responsibility dictated to them from afar.
Therefore, I believe that a policy framework that is adhered to from the very top down should be developed that accepts the principles that are outlined here today. The framework should become the yardstick by which all policy is developed and should be consistently delivered by each organisation with carriage of policy delivery. Failure to do this will continue to mean that millions will be wasted in delivery of policies that work against each other’s operations. It is important to remember that any policy developed should be developed with the intention of making that policy redundant so that a public policy is aimed at dealing with a specific problem. In a perfect world, policies that solve problems render the policy meaningless at their final outcome. This is a lofty principle, but nevertheless, it is a rational goal to strive for. Therefore I look forward to a day that the concept of an Aboriginal bureaucracy is also redundant
The relationships between citizens in a free country is that all people engage in relationships with each other including economic relationships on a voluntary basis that is recognised under a generally accepted law. This has been the goal of the common law in the past and I believe that it should continue to be the goal of policy makers and law framers into the future. However, while the system exists where one clearly identifiable part of a society is some way dependent on another part of that society on a basis which is not voluntary, there will always be a cause for resentment.
The Mabo decision on Aboriginal land rights has gone some way to address these injustices of inequality as the have been perpetrated in the past. Nevertheless there is now an environment in which the burdens of the past must not be allowed to become shapers of policy in the future because policy developments based on guilt alone are not necessarily rational. Policy needs to be structured in such a way that the subjects of policy can be brought to a place where they can make their own decisions.
I suggest that policy should be developed that will encourage economic independence. When such policies reach their goals then the people who are the subject of those policies will be in a position to decide for themselves with whom they treat and on what terms. That is self-determination. Any other approach is little more than romance and is doomed to create division in the future. The greatest protection - Mr Deputy Speaker, I know I am running out of time, I have little more than a page to go.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would allow the member for Macdonnell to complete his presentation.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I think incorporate would be better. We are happy if he incorporates.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will take a vote to allow the extension of time. That is the motion that was put.
Mrs BRAHAM: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Could perhaps the member incorporate the rest of the paper into Hansard?
Mr ELFERINK: I am willing to do so, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is only a little more than a page.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate the rest of the speech into Hansard and I conclude by saying that I support the amended motion of the government.
Leave granted.
The greatest protection that can be offered to any cultural group is the protection that they
enjoyed prior to settlement. That is the protection of economic self-reliance.
Because it comes with an identifiable bottom line as well as immediately assessable measures
of success, it provides the real objective test for success or failure of a particular policy
delivery. Once a person or a community is self-reliant, they enjoy an esteem that will have
its own outcomes in health, community development, education and the raft of other areas I
referred to earlier.
To summarise, the thrust of my comments are twofold: first, it is necessary to decide what policy
outcome is to be achieved. This has generally been expressed in terms of self-determination as
there is never any real freedom while living under the dictates of another. Second, if that be
accepted then policy should be structured with that in mind. This approach should be consistent
and that means that a realistic acceptance should entail that will in some instances bring pressure
to bear upon the subjects of that policy.
If I should bear these responsibilities in any future government in the NT, then I will be seeking advice,
as I am doing now, to assist with the development of consistent policy approaches. This means that I
will need to talk to all the players including ATSIC, the land councils, local councils, associations
and the federal government. There will need to be a flow of communication that ensures that everybody
is singing from the same sheet. It represents an enormous challenge, especially if we burden ourselves
with the past.
Nevertheless, I have been watching the development of all players over time and all players have moved to accommodate each other. What needs to occur now is that this softening becomes coordinated and clearly directed. This is the challenge that will visit us all within the next few years. We need to put our assumptions aside and create a policy yardstick that is consistent and universally acceptable. It is a measure of our leadership as to whether or not that occurs.
In conclusion, the only measure of success for any policy organisation is the degree in which it can achieve
its own redundancy. The object of policy should be to limit the amount of interference that is required to
make sure that Aboriginal people prosper in the general common wealth of Australia. Ultimately, that limit
should be reduced to the levels of interference that are currently brought to bear on the rest of society. If
that is to be achieved then the systems that are in place now should operate with a clear and dedicated
approach that is not inconsistent with other approaches. To achieve this, there needs to be a general
agreement on desired outcomes. This has yet to be achieved and until it is, the problems will remain
insurmountable.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will be brief, unlike the previous speaker on this subject. I am speaking to add to debate, not to go over past ground. Like most of the other speakers, I congratulate the member for Braitling for bringing the motion before the House and thank her for her concern in terms of the existence of unacceptable levels of violence against Aboriginal women in our community. However, I support the amendment that the Chief Minister has brought before the House. I share the concerns that have been stated in terms of perhaps providing further barriers to women presenting themselves to our health institutions if there is mandatory reporting.
I want to identify a link between the increase in violence against women and also the positive side that I see which is the increasing empowerment of women. Throughout the ages of time and throughout various cultures there has been a strong correlation between an increase in violence against women as women’s empowerment has increased and I believe that that is also a force at play in the Territory. I believe that after decades of oppression women are feeling more and more empowered and they are starting to stand up for themselves and their rights.
An example that led me to form this opinion at a very young age was in the 1970s when a young indigenous woman from a community near Alice Springs had been betrothed - for want of a better word - to an elder in her tribe. However, this young indigenous woman had, at a very young age, the opportunity to go to school in Alice Springs. At about age 14 her tribe decided it was time for her to come back and for the marriage to proceed. While she had been in Alice Springs she saw a little bit more of life outside the tribe and, indeed, had fallen in love with a young indigenous man. She was forcibly removed from school and taken back to her tribe. She tried to run away, she was caught, she was taken back to the tribe and she was raped. She ran away again, she was caught, she was taken back and she was gang raped. She ran away again. This time she got far enough to get into the hands of someone who brought her to Darwin and put her into what, at that time, was deemed as the only safe house in the Territory for her - indeed, my family home. The view at that time was that no Aboriginal person would cross the hearth of my mother and commit any violence in recognition of the respect the indigenous community held and still holds my mother in.
So I learnt at a very young age that a young woman who became empowered through access to education and life options suffered violence as a consequence. This instance occurred in the Territory in the 1970s. Here we are in the new millennium debating in our Assembly the need to become proactive in our care and our concern and our resources to protect indigenous women. I pose the question: what has happened in those intervening decades? I question what successive governments have failed to do, and I ask members who have had roles to play in those governments to ponder what they could have done, what they should have done, what they failed to do and the costs, the very real costs that have been borne by women in our society through their failure to address absolute glaring needs.
We heard the member for Arafura talk about her experience in Katherine, how on identifying the need for a legal service to represent women specifically they were able to secure funding. This funding went to the Top End Women’s Legal Service. It is a domestic violence legal service specifically. Yet, recently in the Territory, government funding was removed from that service in terms of its domestic violence service and given to a private, white legal firm establishing fresh barriers, new barriers in a very modern context to indigenous women accessing a domestic violence service that was always intended to be there for them. That is a very modern example of the legacy that we have inherited.
I commend our Chief Minister for her amendment. It is fantastic. It has my full support and I commend the member for Braitling for bringing this issue before the House.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, could I just speak to the amendments? I am delighted that there seems to be bipartisan support for this motion and that people on both sides of the House have recognised that it is an issue and we should all be working together.
I notice the Chief Minister moved that the no-drop policy review should be carefully examined and I think that is great and I am happy to support that. The fact that you threw out my little part on the pro-arrest concerned me because the no-drop policy really relates to women who lay charges and then drop them whereas the situation that the member for Port Darwin referred to, where it was a violent crime that occurred and nothing has happened, that was what I was referring to when I talked about pro-arrest, that the police should be doing something. Now that I have raised it, I hope that you and the Attorney-General will examine that pro-arrest policy and see it is happening.
I knew that when I put in the part about mandatory reporting it would be provocative, and I guess I did it purposely because I thought I would get a reaction. If you are going to establish routine screening in hospitals – good! - can you come back to us in 12 months time and tell us what actually has happened, what you have found? It is important that we have some follow up to make sure these programs are actually working.
I will support these amendments mainly because they are in the spirit of the motion that I originally put up and it is the spirit of the motion that I get the feeling that you are all happy to agree to and all happy to support. I guess it is a long time since we have actually seen bipartisan support on an issue such as this in the parliament, and I thank members very much for what they have said.
I hear the emotion, I hear the feeling that’s coming through from speakers and, now, I am sure all of us will be saying to government: ‘Okay, you’ve made these statements. Please tell us what has happened in a few months time, what you have actually implemented’. Perhaps in 12 months time, we should revisit this issue in this parliament so we can report as a group on what we see. Have we made steps to improving this situation? Have we made steps to eliminating that violence out there? If we haven’t, then we have to really rethink again what we are actually doing. But I do thank members for their support and I will support the amendments with a little reservation.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would just like to make one comment because I couldn’t comment during the debate. I would just like to thank everybody for their bipartisan, or perhaps tripartisan, approach for this most important issue. I thank all members who have contributed to this debate.
A long-lasting memory for me as a young man was seeing an Aboriginal man holding an iron bar while an Aboriginal woman cowered on the ground before him. And another case of a woman standing outside the Daly River Church with her head split open and her face covered in blood. I hope the passing of this motion will be a real catalyst for real change so these instances will not continue to recur. I would also like to thank members for the civil manner in which this important debate took place, and I say that because of the obvious contrast between this debate and the previous debate.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move –
1. failing to provide adequate support to the Northern Territory tourism industry;
2. reducing the promotional effort of the Northern Territory Tourist Commission both
in Australia and internationally; and
3. failing to secure Virgin Blue services to Alice Springs and Yulara.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will try my utmost to ensure that this debate is as civil as the one that preceded it. This motion arises from the incompetent and blundering approach that this government has adopted in dealing with the tourism industry since taking office. Strong words, Mr Deputy Speaker, but they need to be said in any event. It is recognised by we in the opposition that the disastrous events of 11 September and the collapse of Ansett a few days later had a dramatic effect on both domestic and international tourism. But, while the opposition accepts that these events were beyond the control of government, we do not accept the lacklustre and short-sighted approach that this government has adopted in responding to the needs of the tourism industry. Industry expects that such circumstances will generate a dynamic and innovative response from the tourism minister and his government. This government, however, has had what could only be described as a comatose response to these events.
Governments must be dynamic, innovative and responsive if they are to make things happen. This government is obviously bereft of these attributes that are so critical to an industry as competitive as the tourism industry, both at the domestic and international levels. This underscores the reasoning behind this motion. Tourism is the Territory’s second largest revenue earner and largest employer in the Northern Territory. In the year 2000-01, visitors to the Northern Territory accounted for $936m in direct expenditure. Economic activity generated by tourists, known as the flow-on effect, expands this figure to $1.563bn.
As the Territory’s largest employer, the tourism industry accounts for around 8100 jobs directly and a further 3500 jobs indirectly, many of which are in remote and regional centres where employment is normally difficult to create. These figures clearly demonstrate the tourism industry’s value to the Territory economy and why so many Territorians have significant investments in it. What this government does not appear to understand is that people’s livelihoods depend on tourism and, in turn, these people need the continued support of the Northern Territory government and the Northern Territory Tourism Commission, hereafter referred to as NTTC.
This government has placed social issues high on its agenda, which has merit, but the priorities must be questioned. Is the preservation of business confidence and job creation not of higher priority than the rush to remove mandatory sentencing? Apart from skewed priorities, an overview of the government’s performance in tourism over the last six months highlights the effects its indecision and blundering have had on the industry that is well illustrated by the minister’s performance in Question Time this afternoon.
Of course, any overview cannot, nor should it, omit reference to the Chief Minister’s decision to have a ministerial reshuffle only nine weeks after first appointing her ministry. This was largely brought about by the member for Arnhem, whose incompetence obviously demanded that he be demoted, but appointing a new tourism minister to a rattled and already shattered industry trying to come to terms with 11 September and 14 September was disastrous. The new minister had to start from scratch at the time when the Territory’s tourism industry was bleeding and preoccupied with unprecedented change on top of which it had to establish relationships with the second minister in as much as nine weeks.
Apart from demonstrating incompetence and poor organisation, it showed all Territorians that the Chief Minister’s approach to tourism was and is low, very low on this government’s priorities. To make matters worse, the Chief Minister assigned the important tourism ministry to a minister with an unmanageable workload, thus removing the hands-on approach which is so critical and that has been so important to this industry over many years. Such is the minister’s workload and demands from his other portfolio responsibilities that he has been unable to give tourism the focus and attention it demands. Again, a statement well illustrated by his abysmal performance in Question Time this afternoon.
Very few people in the industry have seen him at all, let alone seen him do anything for or with the tourism industry and this is typical of the Labor government’s approach: It doesn’t matter; it’s only tourism; it will look after itself.
Compounding this, people in the industry don’t even know who the ministerial advisors are, but they do know that they, certainly, have no experience in the industry, or are not well known to key tourism operators throughout the Northern Territory. That is a sad indictment.
Moving now to the government’s talkfest of the Economic Development Summit, that produced only negative outcomes for the tourism industry, which brings me to the first two points of the motion being this government’s failure to provide adequate support and funding to the Territory’s tourism industry. This was manifested in cuts to the NTTC budget which are having and which will continue to have a negative impact on the commission and, in turn, the industry. The former manager of the commission advised regional tourist associations that they will share the impact of the budget cuts and can expect reduced financial support as a result of the cuts to the commission’s budget. This will impact on the ability of the associations to properly service their members and extend adequate services to tourists visiting the regions. The mini-budget papers show a cut of $241 000 to the NTTC budget, but this conceals the real negative effect and impact on the commission by this government’s failure to support the industry. Government has tried to conceal the real impact from the mini-budget, which was a reduction in the NTTC budget of $2.241m. This comes about through the revealed cut of $241 000 plus government’s much publicised $2m commitment to Virgin Blue to commence services to Darwin. Whilst this initiative was welcomed, the deceitful approach by government in concealing from industry the fact that the initiative was unfunded and that the $2m had to be found from within the existing NTTC budget has, certainly, not been well received.
In recent public statements, the minister has advised that funding for promotional activity in the United States has been reduced for the first time in years at the very time when we should be taking the initiative to promote the Territory in the United States as a safe travel destination. This reduction is just another manifestation of this government’s lack of understanding and support for the tourist industry. Within two months of 11 September and the Ansett collapse, the government slashed the NTTC’s funding at the very time when there should be have been more, not less.
This government was, as I understand it, the only government in the country to cut funding to its tourism industry at the time of its greatest need and when our competitors were becoming more aggressive. This appalling action clearly demonstrates that this government has a very poor understanding of the needs of the tourism industry and that the economy and job creation are poor cousins to its other social agenda priorities.
Exacerbating this, the NTTC is still without a Managing Director notwithstanding that the former holder of that position gave notice of his resignation back in November 2001. The government needs to ensure that an appointment is made quickly in order that the commission and industry can finally start getting the support and direction they need and deserve.
In short, the changes of minister, unknown ministerial staff, and still no appointment of the NTTC manager have had an unsettling and demoralising effect on the tourism industry, all of which has been made worse by the indecision which pervades this government. This slack approach by government to the tourism industry contrasts starkly with that of the former government as demonstrated in the Tourism Development Masterplan 2000-2005 - you should read it - prepared by the former government and from which I now quote:
The major role in government in determining the future direction and sustainability of the tourism
industry in the Territory will be through providing strong leadership in establishing partnerships
with industry and other stakeholders to drive the recommendations and findings of the plan through
to fruition.
I’ve actually done some leg work on this. I’ve walked the streets of Darwin and Alice Springs, spoken to people in between. They are appalled by this government’s attitude to tourism. They are similarly appalled by the minister who is known to be extremely busy - indeed, too busy to take appointments from people when they contact his office - and even if they’re the lucky winners of an appointment, they often see ministerial advisors. Not good enough, minister; not good enough.
I move now to the third point of this motion, domestic and international airline services to and from the Territory. In December, domestic flights to Darwin received a boost with the commencement of Virgin Blue services as a result of initiatives by the federal government and earlier by the Territory government which, in turn, were founded on discussions commenced by the former CLP government.
The start of Virgin Blue services to Darwin together with increased capacity by Qantas has partially offset the loss of Ansett services. However, concerns remain across industry as to the adequacy of services in terms of meeting peak season demand in the middle of the year, and I need only point to articles that have appeared in the press in recent times pointing to, for instance, a loss to the Central Australian tourism industry anticipated to be in the region of $6m this year.
Ironically, the day after the Minister for Tourism told two business gatherings in Katherine that tourism in Central Australia was going gang-busters, the Central Australian Tourism Industry Association reported in the Northern Territory News, 19 February 2002, as saying:
Once peak tourism season starts in July, we will need another 1000 seats to maintain the level
of last year.
Hardly gang-busters. Hardly gang-busters. These industry comments are in stark contrast to the views expressed by the tourism minister and demonstrate how out of touch he is with this industry, the needs and concerns of which have all been made much worse by the inept way he and his government has handled, or should I say omitted to handle, tourism issues. The government has obviously abandoned the needs of Central Australia by failing to take the initiative and gain Virgin Blue services for Alice Springs and Yulara.
Now, it’s worth reflecting on what has been said in this house over the last few months. It wasn’t hard to find where the government went wrong. In October in this House, the then tourism minister, the member for Nhulunbuy, said and I quote:
We are still continuing dialogue with Virgin Blue to determine the commencement of operations in the
Territory; it will mean further passenger capacity as well as an alternate service provider into and out
of the Territory.
Then, when the government apparently realised its mistake, the new tourism minister said in this House on 27 November, and I quote, he:
… met with senior management of Virgin Blue in Darwin last week to discuss these issues and implored
them to put Alice Springs on their schedule and whilst no commitments can be made at this stage, talks
are productive and ongoing.
Now, this is a sad tale of missed opportunities and botched deals in which this government has misled Territorians and those in the tourism industry by giving them false hope that Virgin Blue would fly to Central Australia. It is a damning indictment and must be remedied now. Words are not enough. Words are nowhere near enough. This government has time and time again said Virgin Blue is coming, Virgin Blue is coming. Every morning I wake up, I go outside, I look up at the sky awaiting a flight of Virgin Blue, and I can’t see one. The minister needs to realise, of course, that I’m not the only one looking up to the skies in Central Australia, keeping our eyes open for Virgin Blue flights.
People in the industry are beside themselves with rage and disgust about this minister’s conduct. It’s a damning indictment on the minister and it must be remedied now. Talk is not enough. But, of course, this really does summarise or typify the government’s approach. It talks, it workshops, it consults - or so they say - but they never actually achieve anything.
Territorians from all walks of life would actually like to see something get done. I know that that concept is a difficult one for the government but, on behalf of not only those in Central Australia, but those in the tourism industry - and I have spoken to lots of them - they want some action. Again, I repeat: this government must do something. It must stop talking or it must stop giving false hope to Territorians - do something. Almost anything will do, but you must get another airline into Central Australia. At the very least, you must stop misleading Territorians saying: ‘You’ll get it, you’ll get it, you’ll get it’, because it’s not coming.
The story, of course, in relation to Ansett #2 doesn’t get any better. Of course, there was the announcement today by Tesna that it withdrew from the Ansett #2 deal. I think, in any event, there is nothing to be lost from reflecting on the government’s inaction when considering the Ansett #2 saga.
In January, the CLP federal member for Solomon caught the Chief Minister out - he caught her out. The federal member for Solomon, showing initiative and a determined effort to do something, seeing that the government was doing nothing - although I suspect the minister was still on holidays at that time. Anyway, the federal member for Solomon went and met with Lindsay Fox and Lindsay Fox told the federal member for Solomon that the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory was the only state leader he had not heard from. Shame on this government. Shame! Only after this government was caught out by the member for Solomon did the tourism minister get on a plane to go and meet with Lindsay Fox.
Then, when she was caught out, the Chief Minister had the temerity to tell Territorians that everything was under control. It was all right because she was dealing with it. I have managed to locate an excerpt of an interview recorded on ABC radio on 16 January. When the Chief Minister was asked:
What sort of incentives are you talking about with Ansett #2?
the Chief Minister said:
That was a very long and very inactive moment. We didn’t hear from the Chief Minister on this subject again. She misrepresented Territorians by leading them to believe that this government had offered Ansett #2 something and she hid under the veil of it being confidential negotiations when anyone with half a brain would clearly see that it was nothing of the sort.
The tourism minister, in his response to this motion, can place on the public record precisely what negotiations have taken place, what assistance was offered to Virgin Blue and Ansett #2 to commence services to Central Australia, and why his government failed to achieve these.
People in the industry were screaming for arrangements to be struck with Ansett #2 or, in the alternative, for government to be having a go on their behalf - for this government, going in to bat not only for Territorians but for those particularly involved in the tourism industry. They wanted something to service the Centre and Darwin, and for Virgin Blue in particular to service the centre of Australia to meet the needs so adequately defined by industry.
I note with a great degree of interest that in the minister’s press statement today, he said:
Well, if that’s all you have done with Qantas, shame on you, minister; shame on you. You did know that Tesna, even on a best-case scenario, were not contemplating flights into Central Australia for many, many months. With that knowledge, based on the comment in your dreadful press release today, you said we have written to Qantas today asking them to see what they could do for services in Central Australia. Well, too little, too late, minister. Too little, too late.
This government’s inaction over aviation in the Northern Territory is shameful. It continues to be deceitful, and its deceit is very easy to find. Again, in the press statement the minister says:
It is misleading, and the minister knows it’s misleading, because by the Centre, the minister is actually talking about a plane that’s a little bit bigger going to Yulara, and that’s it. And some of his answers in Question Time today were equally as slippery.
The minister said in Question Time today:
I think not, minister; I think not. A thousand seats a week is misleading because they are essentially seats for Darwin and there’s a plane that’s a little bit bigger going to Yulara. Alice Springs has the Alice Springs Convention Centre. It’s the Year of the Outback. What is this government doing to address the air services into Central Australia? Nothing.
To further illustrate this minister’s absolute incompetence, he said, again in Question Time this afternoon:
Mr Henderson: $500 000.
Ms CARNEY: $500 000 for three weeks of marketing. It’s been long time since 11 September. It’s been a long time since the collapse of Ansett and, in late February 2002, this government announces that it will spend $500 000 on a few ads over a three week period. Oh, how you have failed, minister.
But wait; there’s more! There’s another dismal story and that revolves around the very serious reduction in international air services in to and out of Darwin and about which we have heard very little from this government. These matters are being raised today by me on behalf of industry, and industry is expecting answers from government. Industry wants a detailed response from the tourism minister explaining the scope of discussions he has had with both domestic and international carriers regarding improved services to the Territory, the outcome of those discussions, and incentive packages offered to airline operators with whom the minister or other ministers have met.
The international services into Darwin have reduced to a level not experienced in the last decade, and the shortage of airline seat availability into Darwin for the Territory’s lucrative United Kingdom and European market is having a disastrous impact on our international marketing efforts. Qantas has reduced its Darwin-Singapore service, and Malaysian Airlines withdrew its Darwin-Kuala Lumpur service leaving a huge void in international capacity into the Northern Territory. The impact of the loss of those services was illustrated in December when Northern Territory airports released figures showing very clearly the reduction in tourist numbers arriving at Territory airports.
Our domestic holiday destination competitors moved quickly to address these issues over the Christmas period, with the Premiers of Queensland - a Labor Premier - and the Premier of Victoria - a Labor Premier - visiting Singapore Airlines and approaching Air New Zealand in an attempt to gain services for their states in support of their tourism industries. At the same time, the highest priority for this government and the Northern Territory tourism minister was a nice holiday, a lengthy holiday, leaving industry in limbo, unrepresented and still with reduced air services. What a disgrace! What an absolute disgrace. If the minister actually bothered to get out and about and talk to tourism operators, he would know how angry they are about his conduct. He is overworked; they are not getting to see him; it is abundantly clear he knows very little about his portfolio. On behalf of Territory tourism operators I implore you to get your head around these issues and to get on with doing something.
Qantas will commence international services later this year with new, low cost operator, Australian Airlines Ltd. The announcement of this operation by Qantas heralded a new opportunity for the Northern Territory government to pursue the establishment of a daily service between Singapore and Darwin using this low cost operator. Our tourism industry is eagerly awaiting advice from the Minister for Tourism about what approaches he has made, if any, to Australian Airlines to attract them to Darwin to fill the enormous void in international services and remove the restriction that this places on overseas travellers visiting the Northern Territory.
The minister’s response to this motion provides him with an excellent opportunity to report on whether or not he has initiated discussions with the airline and, if so, what the outcomes of those discussions were and an explanation as to those matters is long overdue. It will also provide an opportunity for the minister to detail for industry, and for all Territorians, the action he has taken on their behalf relating to this most important of issues.
This government’s performance in the tourism arena has been, quite frankly, appalling and has fallen far short of industry needs and expectations. This government has even failed its own Labor Party tourism policy, which states, and I quote:
An objective in no way met by this government. If it wasn’t so serious, it would be funny joke. It is a sad reflection on any government when the only things it can hold up as achievements are projects put in place by a former government. Sadly, such is the case with this government. Pointing endlessly to a number of CLP initiatives, this government goes on and on and on. It is time for this government to start supporting the tourism industry with its own initiatives and in a way that industry expects and deserves. We call on the government to do so now and look forward to positive responses from the minister to the issues raised in this very important motion raised by the CLP.
Mr HENDERSON (Tourism): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, really, the start of the shadow minister’s comments about trying not to - I forget the exact words - inject some sort of vitriol into the debate does leave me moved to mirth.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to move an amendment to the motion.
Leave granted.
Mr HENDERSON: I move that all words after ‘that’ be omitted and inserted in their stead …
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! My understanding is that there should be a vote on whether or not the motion is put, and I ask that a vote be taken accordingly.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I take advice over that? My advice is that the member is on his feet and he is moving the amendment and he can continue.
Mr HENDERSON: I move that all words after ‘that’ be omitted and insert in their stead:
to guarantee an additional 1000 seats per week into the Northern Territory which benefits
the whole Territory economy and notes the total failure of the then CLP government to secure
or support Virgin Blue;
(2) congratulates Qantas for its magnificent efforts in rebuilding airline capacity into the Northern
Territory following the collapse of Ansett and further congratulates Qantas on their recent
announcement of additional services in to Darwin and Ayres Rock and notes with disappointment the collapse today of the Tesna consortium’s bid for Ansett;
of 11 September and the collapse of Ansett, particularly its campaign to refocus marketing on the
domestic and drive markets;
business case for increased capacity into Alice Springs; and
for growth of the tourist industry in Central Australia.
In speaking to the amended motion, I will pick up on the statements made.
Dr Lim: Do you have a copy of that?
Mr HENDERSON: Yes, there is a copy here to be circulated.
I will pick up on the shadow minister’s comments. First, the comments about the restructuring of government after nine weeks in government. Well, I don’t know where the shadow minister has been, but the absolute necessity to restructure government was a direct legacy of the unsustainable financial position that this government found itself in, the unsustainable budget position that we inherited from the former CLP government, and the reason to reshape government was the absolute requirement that was totally hidden from us in opposition in terms of the actual fraud that was the previous budget that was handed down in this parliament, meant that government did have to be restructured. We had to consolidate 38 independent agencies and reallocate portfolio responsibility. I do not understand where you were when all of that happened, but that was the reason to restructure that.
Again, we say yes, this is not a good time for the tourism industry either in the Territory or anywhere else in the world. And this is for reasons that are well known, but mostly beyond the control of the Territory government. However, we will continue to work tirelessly to overcome the impact on this part of Australia, more dependent than any other on air travel.
The portfolio needs to be handled responsibly, and the member for Araluen has remarkably to date, in terms of her time as shadow minister, managed to demonstrate neither any responsibility in her carriage of this portfolio or an understanding of it. The member for Araluen brought to the House a statement, when my predecessor held the portfolio, regarding Flight West in terms of this mythical airline that was supposed to be around that the Northern Territory government was implored to throw buckets of money at, and the member for Araluen claimed that the Queensland government, the federal government, Nabalco, Alice Springs Town Council, every one of these organisations had put their hands in their pockets and committed money to support Flight West.
We never actually saw any business case from Flight West which was ever put to the Northern Territory government. Certainly, when we rang all of those organisations to see if there had been any business case put to them, if they had made any commitments to fund Flight West, the answer was a resounding ‘no’. But we had the shadow minister at the time running around saying how terrible it was that we were not supporting this magnificent initiative and how irresponsible we were for not throwing buckets of money about it. This is a matter of credibility, and the shadow minister was asked at the time to put these issues on the table and she was unable to substantiate any of those claims.
Moving on to talk to the amended motion., of course, the airline industry is volatile at the moment both nationally and internationally, and as well as the demise of Ansett, many other airlines around the world have had to drastically restructure their organisations. With this background the current opposition must acknowledge the importance of the Chief Minister prior to the last election approaching Virgin Blue and delivering Virgin Blue’s presence to the Northern Territory. The arrival of Virgin Blue in the NT from December last year has been great news for the NT tourism industry. I haven’t met a single operator who thinks that it was bad news that we secured this capacity. So I don’t know who the shadow minister has been talking to, that we somehow shouldn’t have made that initiative and secured that additional capacity, an additional 1000 seats a week into the Northern Territory from the beginning of December. Goodness knows where we would be without the additional capacity. The Chief Minister did demonstrate great responsibility in delivering to the Northern Territory Virgin Blue, along with my colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy, who was the minister at the time.
Unlike the CLP, we did get on the front foot and deliver the results. The Leader of the Opposition at the time accused Labor of a pre-election stunt when we announced the deal, and the former Treasurer accused us of jeopardising airline services into the Northern Territory. This was the comment: ‘No, no, we don’t want this additional capacity; it is a terrible thing bringing competition into the market place, you are going to jeopardise airline services into the Northern Territory’. If the CLP had bothered to talk with Virgin Blue, they might have been here sooner. But no, they didn’t want the competition, they didn’t want the extra capacity, they wanted the old status quo to be maintained with Ansett and Qantas, the nice comfortable duopoly that existed. But we had the vision to bring that competition into the Northern Territory to the benefit of the tourism industry.
On the ABC TV News of 24 September 2001, Richard Branson said that if the previous government had given its blessing, Virgin Blue would have been here many months earlier. If the CLP had done their job - but no, they weren’t interested in competition; they weren’t interested in additional capacity. Again, we hear from the shadow minister continued veiled criticism of securing Virgin Blue’s services to the Northern Territory.
Virgin Blue are currently looking at demand for flights from one or two key source markets interstate to Alice Springs. Now, we heard much from the member for Araluen, the shadow minister, in speaking to her motion saying: what are we doing, how absolutely incompetent and blundering we were that we didn’t secure Virgin Blue’s service immediately into Alice Springs.
Well, I’d remind the shadow minister that at the time we did secure Virgin Blue into the Northern Territory, we had Ansett flying into Alice Springs. The issue was to bring additional competition and capacity into the Northern Territory market. Since that time, obviously, we have seen Ansett collapse and Virgin Blue have, quite naturally in a competitive market environment, sought to capitalise on the failure of one of their competitors and did expand into other markets to the point where they were absolutely constrained by airline capacity. That’s the main reason that since the period of the Ansett collapse back in late September and today that, given the number of planes that Virgin Blue have, the routes that they are committed to at the moment, and the tussle that has been going on in the market place in terms of was the Tesna syndicate going to buy out Virgin Blue, or was Virgin Blue going to buy out Ansett, the issue of capacity in terms of the number of planes has certainly restricted their capability to move in to Alice Springs.
We cannot, Harry Potter-like, conjure up aeroplanes out of thin air and hand them over to Virgin Blue. So in terms of Virgin Blue and Qantas, obviously any additional flights into Alice Springs will be based on a commercial decision. So, short of the Territory government investing in an airline, and I suppose there is one for sale today, maybe they are suggesting …
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I seek a ruling and the advice of the Clerk in accordance with Standing Order 93. Today is a General Business day where the priority of business lies with the opposition. What we have had here is an amendment to the motion by the opposition, which is a substantive motion in that it amends the whole of the motion. So what we are now debating is not opposition business; we are actually debating government business and, in accordance with Standing Order 93, it seems to me that the whole principle of General Business day has been lost.
It is a day for General Business; it is a day for opposition motions to be debated, and we are now debating, not an amendment, we are debating a new motion in fact. There may be a way around it whereby the amendment can be debated in its entirety and then we can return to the original motion which is the General Business Day’s intent and the intent of the opposition. I ask for that to be clarified.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ll take advice from the Clerk. The advice is that until the motion is put on this side – this is my understanding of what he said - that the minister can continue. Based on the advice of the Clerk, I call on the minister to continue with his statement.
Mr BURKE: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the advice of the Clerk has to be transmitted to the whole of the Assembly. I understand - and correct me if I am wrong - that notwithstanding the fact that there is an amendment and an original motion, any member can speak either to the amendment or to the original motion, saving the original mover who must confine any comment that she might have to the original motion. Is that correct?
Mr Stirling: No. She gets a chance at the amendment, and she gets the reply closing debate.
Mr BURKE: I’m asking if that’s right. Both. She gets two choices?
Mr Stirling: Of course, she does. It’s a pity you didn’t know standing orders. You’ve been here long enough. You blokes did this every time. It’s pretty standard procedure in here.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, could we have silence? I’ll ask the Clerk to brief the Speaker, please.
Madam SPEAKER: Where are we up to? Okay, I think we are all comfortable again with that. Minister, you’re speaking?
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
So, we are at the point of debating that the government, from the opposition’s point of view, failed to secure Virgin Blue into Alice Springs. I believe that, as a result of today’s sad decision that the Tesna consortium are not continuing forward with their purchase of Ansett, one of the issues that has been constraining the industry in terms of making those commitments long term in to additional schedules was the total uncertainty in the market place as to what the competitive nature of the industry was going to be. Until such time as there was some certainty in terms of the viability of Ansett, the status of Virgin Blue, none of the airlines including Qantas were prepared to commit to anything other than short-term scheduling in light of understanding what the competitive nature of the industry was going to be.
Now, that has been resolved to the medium term today, and I would expect to see aggressive competition from Virgin Blue, and that will be returned by Qantas, to actually look at the market opportunities. In terms of the comments made by the Northern Territory Qantas Manager, Steve Farquhar - and he said this publicly at the launch of the new schedule at the airport last week - he was confident that Qantas would be providing that additional capacity in to Alice Springs for the peak tourism season come June-July.
So the issues in terms of the government, what are we doing? We are continuing to work - the Aviation Committee, myself as the minister - to work to build the business case. It’s not about throwing buckets of money and putting cash on the table; it’s about building the sustainable business case that will allow the airlines to actually survive long term and thrive long term. The absolute last thing that the tourism industry needs in Australia and the Northern Territory is another third airline to emerge, to last for 12 to 18 months and then to go under. We will continue to aggressively pursue Virgin Blue and Qantas into Alice Springs, but until they come to a commercial decision that they can get a return on investment in terms of moving additional capacity in there, short of the Northern Territory government purchasing Ansett #2 and flying planes ourselves, it’s not going to eventuate in a sustainable way, but I do believe with the information that we have put before both Qantas and Virgin Blue, that they will come to the acknowledgement that there is a sustainable return on investment by putting that additional capacity in to Alice Springs.
The second part of the amendment congratulates Qantas for its efforts in rebuilding airline capacity into the Northern Territory post-Ansett. Now, I know there’s been veiled criticism by the shadow minister in terms of Qantas taking advantage of its monopoly situation in the market. I say: good on Qantas in terms of actually committing to the Northern Territory. They could very easily have abandoned us and Steve Farquhar, the local manager here, certainly badgered board rooms down in Sydney and implored the Qantas Board to remember the Northern Territory - as it stands NT in the name Qantas - and Qantas have been good. Yes, of course, we would like that additional competition, but by goodness, we wanted the capacity, and that’s what we have.
In fact, with the announcement of the additional Qantas schedules last week in terms of the biggest bodied aircraft into Central Australia and Alice Springs, I am advised that the capacity into Alice Springs today exceeds that of 12 months ago. The problem is two or three months hence in to the peak season where, I agree with the shadow minister, there is that shortfall. But as of today, Qantas are delivering greater capacity into Alice Springs than they were this time last year. The shadow minister was saying that I was being misleading in the press release today in terms of saying that Qantas have put additional capacity into Central Australia. Well, if Yulara is not in Central Australia, I’d like to know where it is. It’s not in Tasmania. It’s not in Antarctica. It was - the last time I looked - smack bang in the centre of Australia. In terms of the tourism industry for Central Australia, Yulara is pretty important and as a result of the Qantas announcement last week, an additional 274 seats a week into Yulara.
So I would expect that Qantas will continue to look to improving that capacity into Alice Springs and, as I said before, I believe that the business case is there. The local Qantas management believes that the business case is there and I’m confident of seeing that additional capacity moved to Alice Springs when it’s required mid-year.
Again, doom and gloom, carping, negative criticism rather than saying: ‘Well yes, we acknowledge it’s tough in the airline industry at the moment. Qantas have come to the party.’ There might not be the discount fares available that were available 12 months ago, but those discount fares are not available to the same extent they were anywhere else in Australia at the moment. But at least we’re making the attempt and Qantas is making the attempt at servicing the market place. If we actually look at what’s been happening, and if we move to the international industry, well, again, yes, it is tragic that we have lost so much inbound capacity into Darwin, but Darwin is not the only place in the world that has lost inbound capacity; there has been a massive rationalisation of the international aviation industry since the 11 September terrorist attacks, not only confined to Darwin.
We saw SwissAir nearly go under in total and had to be bailed out by their government and only last week, I think, we had British Airways announce a further 5800 job losses. Back in September last year, they announced 7200 job losses. That is 23% of the workforce since September. We’ve seen Garuda - again, only two weeks ago now, I think - cutting back flights and services from London and Frankfurt, two of our premium source markets. Of course, that is affecting us, but this is what is happening in the international aviation industry.
Until confidence returns, until the Americans start travelling, until the Japanese economy comes back into positive growth - and only yesterday, I think, the German economy was moving into the second quarter of negative growth, moving into recession on top of 11 September - I believe we will continue to see contraction in the international aviation market.
What we are doing is working with those operators - and I would have thought that the party of private enterprise opposite would understand this - working with the international airlines in terms of building the business case, and that’s what we are doing. We’re getting the numbers, the projected forecasts, the historical forecasts out of those key international market places, the demand that’s coming through now, putting that forward in to negotiations with the international airlines, working with them on a route development strategy to develop those sustainable routes. I’m not going to stand here and say who we are negotiating with - that’s commercial-in-confidence - because we’re working with a number of international players.
I am disappointed with the announcement today from Ansett because the previous Ansett partners on the international routes were really looking forward and believed that there was a business case for Darwin there. But in light of that third carrier, there are opportunities, I think, for Virgin Blue to team up with the international aviation partners. I know that they’re talking to people at the moment, but I’m going to flag who they’re talking to. That is a commercial interest for them.
So, to put it simply for members opposite, the international and the local aviation market place at the moment is high cost and high risk. It is an industry where new players are seeking to enter and established players are leaving and alternatively reducing services and focussing on cost reductions and maximising the use of those assets.
What we are doing is working with these airlines to work up the business case, and if and when an ask is put on the table of the Northern Territory government in terms of assistance, then it will be considered, but I can honestly say here today that no such ask has been put on the table in terms of a proposition for the Northern Territory government from either an international airline operator or a domestic airline operator at present. So the government is doing everything it can apart from, as I said, purchasing our own airline and flying the planes ourselves, in terms of building that capacity into the Northern Territory and certainly Qantas have delivered to date. We would love the additional competition, but we have Alan Fels from the ACCC on the news again tonight predicting that again, given the 80% market share or greater than that, that domestic prices are likely to go up, and I’m sure that the ACCC will keep an eye on that, but hardly something that the Northern Territory government can influence to any great extent. I would like to know given the spend, spend, spend philosophy of the previous government, how big an offering you believe should be put onto the table.
So, point three of our amended motion congratulates the Tourist Commission on its efforts to respond to the events of 11 September. Again, disparaging comments made by the shadow minister in terms of the NTTC’s efforts there. I can say, quite categorically - and I would like the member for Araluen to present any evidence of the fact - that there have been no cuts to the marketing budget, either at the global level or for the Regional Tourism Associations. The advice I have is that, in the budget last year, the RTA’s received $1.87m guaranteed. This year, it’s $2m guaranteed. So no cuts there; and a direct requirement from me that those savings had to be found back of house. Of course, we didn’t want to impose savings but the alternative was to continue down the spend, spend, spend path. The one certain thing that investors look for in terms of investing in any economy is the fiscal base of the government and its requirements medium - to long-term to raise taxes and charges.
Under your profligate ways, any analysis of your Northern Territory government’s previous fiscal position would scare off potential investors because there is only one way to repay debt, and that is to raise taxes or to cut services and jobs. That is something that members opposite have not outlined since 18 August - how they were going to address that $120m unfunded black hole, if Territorians had had the misfortune to re-elect those members opposite. So, in regards to the Tourist Commission’s budget, there have been no cuts to the marketing and promotion budget. Again, the disparaging remarks about the initiative from the Tourist Commission, who have got some very, very bright people working in there who are absolute experts in terms of marketing, I couldn’t even begin to counter some of their advice. Their advice was to hold fire post-11 September. There was no point spending big buckets of money advertising the Northern Territory as a destination in the immediate aftermath post-11 September, over the Christmas intervening period with the uncertainties in terms of what was happening with the Coalition response to terrorism.
The time is right now to actually put that investment in, to bolster up the shoulder season leading into the peak season, to create that demand to get the season off to a really great start. And $500 000 over four weeks, I correct the record in terms of my comments this morning - $500 000 in four weeks. For the members opposite who understand the cost of advertising - and if they have been involved in political campaigns, they know how much TV advertising and print advertising costs - that buys you a hell of a lot of advertising. We certainly expect to see a return on that investment. It’s been strategically placed to bolster the shoulder period. The criticism from the shadow in terms of that decision as to when to make that commitment really does her credibility and understanding no good.
In terms of the drive market, again another particular focus effort. We are starting to see a return on that investment already. As a local operator said in Tennant Creek recently, in terms of accommodation, it’s as good as if better than ever, and the only way it could get better would be if Qantas fell over as well.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I would ask that the member’s time be extended in the light of the contest about the rules that took five minutes.
Leave granted.
Mr HENDERSON: Five minutes, I think, Madam Speaker.
Getting back to the comments about the industry hasn’t seen me, well, my goodness, I have done a heck of a lot of travel and I have spoken to a lot of people. I think I have met with CATIA on at least four occasions; Katherine last week when a number of tourism operators walked in off the street; Gove the week before - they didn’t have much to say about the previous government’s efforts in terms of promoting Arnhem Land as a destination; they were quite disparaging about your efforts there, and certainly many, many industry associations here in the Top End. So I take the member for Araluen’s comments with a grain of salt. I am out there talking to people, and people do understand the state of the industry at the moment.
The great thing about being Minister for Tourism is the optimism that’s there in the tourist industry. They know we are going through a tough time at the moment, that everything that can be done is being done realistically, and they are positioning themselves to move forward. The confidence in the medium- to long-term is there. They are realistic that the short-term is going to be difficult, but absolutely committed to the fact that we have a great product here in the Northern Territory and a great industry that is going to capitalise on that.
In terms of the shadow minister talking about this great piece of work which was the Tourism Masterplan – well, what a great piece of work. One of the first things, in terms of the incoming ministerial brief, the first question I asked the commission was: ‘Where’s the implementation plan given that these were drawn up two years ago? Where’s the budget? Where’s the funding plan to implement these initiatives?’ The answer was: ‘There is none’. They had been sat on the shelf for two years - another exercise from the previous government in getting out there on the ground leading people to expectations, producing the glossy documents, and then putting them on the shelf and ignoring them for two years. There was no implementation strategy, no budget strategy to fund the implementation of that masterplan or the regional plans.
If the shadow minister had any idea and had been reading the ads in the NT News - we are sacking thousands of public servants; there seems to be plenty of ads in Saturday’s paper for public servants - there was one in there a couple of weeks ago for a senior person at a senior level to put an implementation strategy together. We will implement those master plans and they will be funded and they will be prioritised, unlike members opposite who created a glossy document, put it on a shelf, very much like dithering with the Territory, what was the thing called? Foundations for Our Future, that’s right! Just like those documents, would have sat on the shelf forever.
This government is absolutely committed to an implementation strategy on those plans. I have spoken to industry. We don’t have to rewrite them, we don’t have to go out and consult. Those plans were put together by industry, not by government. Don’t let the member for Katherine stand up here and say they were all his good work because they were put together by industry. They are very pleased, I can tell members opposite, that there is a commitment from this government that we will implement those.
Moving back to Question Time this morning, in regards to the AFTA conference. This is a good one and, again, it would be good for members to do a bit more research before they lead with their chins. The Northern Territory Tourist Commission hasn’t been present at an AFTA conference for three years. The Tourist Commission has made the decision that you get better bang for your buck elsewhere. So, in terms of: ‘Oh,, we’re going to set up the minister here’ - bit of a long shot here. What we have done is put $500 000 into the electronic media, into the print media, rather than sending people to a conference that the previous government had given up on three years ago. Certainly, that information has gone back to the Regional Tourist Association in Katherine there that the previous minister and the local member had given up on AFTA three years ago.
The last point was noting the impressive forward bookings for the Alice Springs Convention Centre. Again, talking to the Convention Centre and to CATIA as well as Qantas - Qantas is absolutely committed that when those bookings come through, they will make those seats available. There is a great deal of excitement in Alice Springs. I would have to say that the Alice Springs tourism industry if anything - yes, it is going through a bit of a slow time at the moment, but it is actually going through growing pains. It’s going through growing pains in terms of lack of accommodation, lack of staff for the industry, training for the industry, the cost of accommodation and they are pretty buoyant. It was a good initiative from the previous government, I am going to acknowledge that. But to come in here and say it’s doom and gloom for the Alice Springs tourism industry – well, I don’t know what planet you are one, because when I speak to the people down, there they are not all about doom and gloom.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The minister’s time has expired.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about the tourism industry. I have had a lot to do with over the last few years. I will start with the minister’s comments about the AFTA roadshow, the travel show. It’s taken him over a week to find out what the AFTA Travel Show was. He was asked in Katherine last Monday, yesterday week, about this and his eyes glazed over …
Mr Henderson: Why didn’t you fund it for three years?
Mr REED: … and he had clearly no idea about what the AFTA Travel Show was at all. And the point of it not being attended over the last few years is beside the point. The issue is this: he was at a tourism industry function and an industry member asked the minister what the circumstances were in relation to the AFTA Travel Show and why the Territory wasn’t represented and the commission wasn’t there. Nothing to do with me. I today was the messenger on behalf of industry because in answering, first of all the minister didn’t know what the AFTA Travel Show was, his eyes glazed over, and worst of all he undertook and gave a public commitment - and if he can’t stand by his own commitments that he makes publicly and is going to ignore industry, he is going to get nowhere with industry - he made a public commitment to get back to that industry member with the advice as to what AFTA was, that he understood it and why the commission wasn’t there.
It is his commitment that he made to industry. Doesn’t worry me, but it is simply a demonstration of the fact that this minister really does not care about the industry and he is prepared to ignore the industry members when they ask a question and when he walks out the door from the meeting, he forgets the substance of the meeting and the commitments that he makes at it. That is the crux of that issue.
Mr Henderson interjecting.
Mr REED: The other point that I would make in relation to the AFTA Travel Show is - notwithstanding that if he listened, he might learn a bit of something - if he looked at the AFTA Travel Show this year in the context of what is happening this year, there has been a dramatic reduction in international visitors to the Northern Territory; every effort has to be made in terms of attracting every possible visitor to the Northern Territory from southern Australia to offset the drop in international numbers.
Mr Henderson: $0.5m!
Mr REED: And the honourable member says: ‘$0.5m’, and he earlier commented that that’s a hell of lot of advertising. In the southern press it is very little advertising in terms of television, even the print media and the advertising cost, half a million dollars gets you very little advertising. It is better than nothing, but it is not a hell of a lot of money in terms of advertising and anyone in the industry will tell the minister that if he cares to ask them.
Let’s look at the AFTA Travel Show and the reports from Territory industry members who attended it that the big winners out of AFTA Travel Show in Adelaide - and Adelaide is a big market for the Northern Territory, the drive market. The big winners out of it this year have been New Zealand and Tasmania because they had good attendance there. They promoted heavily and they did that in the face of the increased competition that the travel market is currently experiencing because of things like 11 September. Look then at what the Tourist Commission, through the reduced funding that has resulted from the cut backs from this government, they have cut back…
Mr Henderson: From your black hole.
Mr REED: Well, we will get to that in a minute They have cut back the promotion in the US and Japan, and it was interesting to hear some of the comments of industry members in Katherine last week. The minister at a Chamber of Commerce luncheon last Monday said: ‘We have increased tourism promotion,’ and then immediately stepped to: ‘We have cut it back in US and Japan’. So, one minute he states that they have increased tourism promotion and by the way, we have reduced it in Japan and the US.
The argument that the minister now puts in relation to the reasons for cutting back in the US, and that is because people have stopped travelling, when the going gets tough the tough should get on the move and take advantage of a situation. Internationally, Australia is recognised as the safest country in the world and it is recognised as that in the US. So there is in fact an opportunity for the Tourist Commission, if they have the resources provided to them by this government, to perhaps market more strongly at the moment. Rather than withdrawing from the US, take advantage of the fact that the US market recognises Australia as a safe destination, also recognises from the Tourism Commission’s point of view and this government’s point of view that Americans aren’t going to stop going on holidays; they have for a while but they are going to start to looking back to the market place. And from that point of view, you might be better off instead of withdrawing from the market in terms of promoting Australia to become more active rather than less active.
This government has taken the easy way out and reduced the marketing activity in the US and that, I expect, is going to have a down side in relation to where we go. What, of course, the minister carefully avoided tonight also in talking about Virgin Airlines - and he avoided a couple of points in relation to Virgin Airlines - one was that the $2m that it is going to cost to attract Virgin Airlines to the Northern Territory and I think that is $2m well spent, but it is not funded. It has to come out of the resources of the Tourist Commission. They have to find it from within and that then is equal to a $2m cut. The government went out and made the commitment: ‘Aren’t we great folks, we’re going to give $2m to Virgin Blue to get them to establish a service to the Northern Territory,’ but what they haven’t told the industry, what they haven’t said, and what they have not revealed quite purposefully is the fact that $2m comes from the hide of the Tourist Commission and that is effectively a cut. That is why there is in fact a $2.241m cut to the tourism budget, because they took $241 000 away in the mini-budget.
So let’s be totally honest - if that’s what you espouse yourselves to be: an open, honest and accountable government - and demonstrate to the tourism industry that in fact that is a non-funded initiative, the $2m for Virgin Airlines.
The other point that the honourable minister carefully avoided this evening and, indeed, in Question Time today was: what are they going to do, in providing the financial support to Virgin Blue, if Virgin Blue continue to cancel flights and buy tickets on a Qantas flight for those passengers who were previously booked on Virgin Blue? Are they going to tolerate that when the tax payer is subsidising Virgin Blue services on a daily basis to the Northern Territory? The tourism industry will want to know that as well as Territorians generally. It’s not a criticism of the package that the government has put together for Virgin Blue.
Can I just revisit the issue of what the CLP did when we were in government and put the facts on the table again in relation to our position with Virgin Blue. The reason we did not sign up with Virgin Blue was that they were still over the top in terms of the amount of money they wanted. Our message to them was: we have certain limits ourselves; you are beyond them. Indeed, what happened in the end was that they came down to about the arena that we were talking about when the government changed. That is why I support what you did with Virgin Blue. It was in the ball park of what we were looking at, and from that point of view I think it was a good deal.
The minister very carefully avoided another issue and that was anything about Australian Airlines and that does worry me. It is the new Qantas subsidiary to be commencing services later this year. It offers the potential to re-establish better international services in to Darwin and the industry doesn’t care too much that airline services internationally are being withdrawn from other cities. What they care about is City Darwin and that argument that the minister puts forward doesn’t wash with them. It is interesting that, by virtue of the fact that he avoided any mention of Australian, I think he has clearly indicated that he has not yet been to talk to them. Had he, of course, we would have heard about it. That he hasn’t been to talk to Australian Airlines and put the Territory’s case in relation to attempting to get services established by them when they commence is a derogation of his duties in terms of servicing the tourism industry.
It is not so much what this minister says, it is what he doesn’t say, and we had a demonstration of that today in Question Time when he clearly avoided the question in terms of answering it, and the industry will be made aware of that - in fact already have been - and we will likely also advise them in relation to Australian that he has taken no action, shown no initiative in making sure that that be the case as well.
Another area where he has been slack - and the big sufferers in this are the Tourist Commission themselves which is a very hardworking and dedicated organisation and, of course, the tourism industry itself. To have a minister in control of an industry as important as the tourism industry - it employs something like one in ten Territorians; it is the biggest employing industry in the Northern Territory - who can sit back for four months and see, unguided, the Tourist Commission proceeding with no permanent head at a time when we are leading into the tourism season, he was advised in November that the then Managing Director would be resigning. It was a month before he put an ad in the paper to fill that position. That is a scandalous circumstance. You can only assume that it was part of their penny pinching and the corralling of dollars to be able to have a big spend up in the last two years of their term. And that gets me…
Mr Henderson: No. People were acting on higher duties. No savings, Mike.
Mr REED: Well, they may act on higher duties, that’s fine, but the fact is you have to have a permanent Managing Director so that that person can steer the ship and ensure that both the organisation and the industry are going in the direction that we’d like to see them go in.
Mr Henderson: Yep, be here very soon.
Mr REED: Well, very soon isn’t soon enough. You’ve been slack and it is a great shame that the industry has had to suffer because of the inaction of the minister.
In terms of tourist association funding, it is a great concern to the tourist associations across the Territory that this matter is still unresolved.
Mr Henderson: It is not unresolved.
Mr REED: Well, it is unresolved because the tourist associations have not received official advice as to what their funding will be. Now, if you want to resolve it, get a letter drafted and sign it tomorrow and send it to the tourist associations confirming precisely what their funding will be. That will resolve it, and that will enable the tourist associations to settle down, to target quite squarely the forthcoming tourist season, and to be able to provide the services to their members in industry that we would expect them to do. But they will not and cannot be expected to make commitments unless they get formal advice as to what the funding is, and they are all currently waiting to see whether or not the advice from the former Managing Director of the Tourist Commission that their budgets would be cut, is correct or not, and it can be overcome by a simple letter advising them precisely what the circumstances are.
I also make this point - I’ve made it many times and I will continue to do it while the minister tells the incorrect story - the black hole was originally $107m. It then grew to $120m. Good figures, they came to mind, but, of course, it is not escaping the attention of Territorians that the amount that this government is raising in the name of the black hole is $160m from the cuts to government agencies, through the $90 that everyone is being stung each time they register the car and other associated costs that have been put up in relation to the registration and operation of vehicles. It all adds up to $160m and people are now aware of the fact that it is just an excuse to corral money, to be able to put it aside, have a tight couple of years, people will forget about it when we go to the polls because they’ll be so happy with the last two years of increased expenditure and the introduction of the Labor party’s policies that they will forgive the Labor party and re-elect the government. Now, if that is your modus operandi, I haven’t got a problem with it. But be honest enough to tell Territorians what you are on about. They can see through this black hole business. They are entirely sick of it and they are expecting you to start governing and making decisions that government should make on their behalf. So don’t - when you are raising $160m - say that you have got a $120m problem and try to expect that Territorians will believe what you have to say.
The tourism industry in the Northern Territory is a wonderful industry. It is made up of a very diverse group of individuals in their own tourist operations who might only be one person shows up to, of course, the large investors and the enterprises that they run. From the point of view of that diversity, the fact that the industry can come together in the Northern Territory like it does nowhere else in Australia, to be so cohesive and to work together under the umbrella of the hard working staff in the Tourist Commission and, of course, the regional tourist organisations who similarly work very hard …
Mr Henderson: Which you have denigrated here today in terms of their marketing strategy, the appointment of the CEO.
Mr REED: I’ll pick up that interjection. I don’t denigrate the Tourist Commission or the $500 000 they are spending on their marketing campaign because the reason they’ve only got $500 000 to spend is that you took $2.241m off them! If an agency has $2.241m taken off them and they are still expected to generate additional marketing activity of $500 000, they would - and I know their budget - be having extreme difficulty corralling those dollars to be able to achieve those expectations of the government. It ill behoves the minister to blame us, to blame other people, or to suggest that I’m blaming the Tourist Commission.
The fault lies with the minister. The buck stops with you, and if you don’t understand, after months of being the minister, what an AFTA Travel Show is, whether or not your organisation for which you are responsible is participating in it or not, that is an answer that you should have been able to give on the floor of that meeting last Monday.
Mr Henderson: Which you hadn’t attended for three years! You did not know you hadn’t been there for three years.
Mr REED: For a minister for Tourism, who says that he is so aware of the tourism industry’s issues and the promotional activity that the government …
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: I would ask, Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr REED: So, for a minister to be so proud of the promotional activity that he says is being undertaken and, at a tourism industry meeting, for him not to be able to first of all say: ‘Oh, yes, the AFTA Travel Show. Now, this is the situation with it …’ that is, demonstrate that he understood what it was, which he was incapable of doing, and then to be able to say: ‘No, the commission is not participating in it this year for these reasons …’ demonstrates that he has got no idea what is happening in relation to promotional activity for the tourism industry as we lead up to this tourist season. It demonstrates also the appalling ignorance that he is prepared to apply to the industry in making a public commitment to get an answer to an investor and a participant in the tourism industry: ‘I will investigate that and get an answer back to you’.
Over a week later, at Question Time today, he still didn’t know what the AFTA Travel Show was, and he still didn’t know whether the Tourism Commission participated in it or not. He came in here tonight with the temerity to try and plaster over that and say: ‘Oh, the AFTA Travel Show. We haven’t been in it for three years.’ I knew that. I knew that because I have been to AFTA Travel Shows and I’m more familiar with the industry than he is and I would not lie to an industry member like this minister did and that news will get around like a raging fire to the whole of the industry.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I rise to support the amendment by the Minister for Tourism. May I just say that, having listened to the comments of the shadow minister for tourism, I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition change her shadow portfolio title to shadow minister for tourism in Central Australia because that’s all we ever actually get to hear from the shadow: what’s happening in Central Australia. Whinge and whine about Central Australia. I’m really pleased to say that our Tourism Minister has gone to great lengths to deal with tourism in the context of the whole Territory. He’s travelled around the Territory, met with groups, spoken to people, listened to them.
But, you know, go ahead and keep focussing on Central Australia which we’ve heard has increased capacity into Yulara. But, no, that’s not going to satisfy the shadow. The shadow wants us to own our own airline and pilot it ourselves, paying absolutely no attention to market reality, to what’s occurred post-11 September in the aviation industry, not even recognising or finding it in herself to commend the efforts of this government in terms of the deals we’ve stuck with Virgin Blue, the deals that have delivered a crucial second carrier to the Territory at a time when we lost a major carrier. In terms of the issue of Virgin Blue cancelling some flights, it may come as a surprise to you, but airlines cancel flights when they have technical problems with airplanes. That’s a requirement of CASA. That is a requirement of CASA, okay? So Virgin Blue have cancelled some flights due to technical problems with the airplanes.
Mr Dunham: They’ve got a shoddy fleet. Now here’s a new one.
Ms LAWRIE: No, they don’t have a shoddy fleet.
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: They meet all CASA requirements in terms of safety and security.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Members, don’t have discussions across the floor!
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, the whingeing, whining opposition just doesn’t get it, that our tourism minister is heeding the advice of the tourist commission. They advised him post-11 September: don’t waste a lot of money; hold your fire. Hold your fire and market in the shoulder season leading into the peak season, and that is exactly - the House has heard today on a number of occasions from the tourism minister that is exactly what the tourist commission is doing. That is wise use of the Territory taxpayer’s dollar. Taxpayers have been looking for that for a long time, hence voting in a Labor government.
It’s really good to hear that the member for Katherine has come out of hiding, that he’s attending meetings again, because people have been saying: ‘Where is he? We haven’t seen him. Is he all right? What’s happened to him? Is there going to be a by-election?’ We’ve been saying: ‘We haven’t seen him’. So it’s really gratifying to hear that the member for Katherine has come out of hiding. It’s terrific. I’m not too surprised that he attended a meeting that discussed the AFTA Travel Show and never once bothered to admit that for three years, his government didn’t send a representative to the show. That’s the duplicity that people are used to from the member for Katherine. Didn’t want to send anyone, didn’t want to say anything about not sending anyone. Forthcoming with information yet again, but many of us who’ve been in the Territory for a long time are used to that from the member for Katherine.
Again, the opposition raises: ‘What about the US? What about Tokyo in terms of marketing and promotion?’ Clearly, we have a smarter minister. We have a smarter government. What the Territory is doing in terms of marketing is working in partnership with the Australian Tourism Commission who are targeting their efforts into the United States market on behalf of the states and territories in Australia. We are benefiting from a combined campaign that is highlighting the Australian tourism market. That is a very smart way of ensuring that our taxpayer dollars aren’t being thrown against competing large dollars from the Australian Tourism Commission. We’re part of an Australian campaign that will help us deliver the crucial tourist visitors we need to the Territory. Now, in terms of Tokyo - glad you mentioned it.
It was the CLP government that closed the Tokyo tourism office. Oh, we’re shocked. They talk about: ‘Why aren’t you targeting Tokyo?’, but they’ve failed to mention that they closed the Tokyo office. I suggest that the shadow minister do some reading up on just what her party did and failed to do when they had the opportunity. Instead, we’re going about it in a very smart, efficient, strategic fashion. I know they’re words that you’re not used to over there. Get a grip; you’ll get used to it.
I find it curious to hear complaints from the other side of the Chamber about the drive market when the tourism minister has advised the Chamber of a $500 000 strategy that is going to attract the drive market here, but I have to say, as most Territorians would know, we have the worst roads in Australia. We’ve got the worst roads in Australia after successive years of seeing Commonwealth road funding come in to the budget and then dissipate somewhere.
Mr Burke: You’d be the only Territorian that thinks that. You’d be the only one I reckon that thinks that, and plus if we did a poll around Australia, I reckon you’d be one of the few that thought that, too.
Ms LAWRIE: Well, you know, try driving. Try driving. Try going across to the Western Australia border now. You’ll find the roads are closed. We have a real issue with the roads and that issue our government will tackle. We will bring Territory roads up to standards that are expected and enjoyed and seen elsewhere in Australia, and I say that having visited every state and territory in Australia, having driven around.
Mr Dunham: In a car or a plane?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, in a car. Yes, in a car. I know you’re used to flying first class but, member for Drysdale, I drive. I enjoy driving. So I’ve driven in every state and territory in Australia and I can assure you that I’m impressed at the quality of roads and I’ve been saddened - saddened - by the lack of attention successive CLP governments have shown to our roads, particularly our wonderful outback. In this Year of the Outback, it would be wonderful to be able to go out there and enjoy it, but for those of us who don’t have a four-wheel drive, that’s a difficult task.
Now, it was really interesting to hear the former Minister for Tourism in the Chamber tonight giving advice to our tourism minister which is completely contrary to the expert specialist advice he has been getting from the tourist commission. It’s quite incredible. I’ve got to say I’m delighted to confirm that on behalf of the minister, the tourism minister has been actively negotiating with Australian Airlines and is very hopeful of getting a Singapore to Darwin connection. Now, unlike the previous government, we don’t do our negotiations through the front page of the NT News. We’ve learnt that that actually causes greater problems; it cuts across commercial sensitivity. So instead, what we do is undertake commercially sensitive negotiations in private and then we deliver.
Mr Dunham: Like you did with Virgin Blue.
Ms LAWRIE: I’m glad the member for Drysdale has mentioned Virgin Blue because Virgin Blue is exactly an example of how we do deliver, how we go in, we do the work, we get the negotiations nailed down, and then we deliver.
Mr Burke: Is that how you got the railway, is it? East Arm port? Is that how you did it?
Ms LAWRIE: You’ve taken decades. You have taken decades to get anywhere near there; if there’d been a Labor government in the Territory all this time we would have been on that train for years. It’s interesting in terms of the railway. A CLP government knocked back massive funding from the Hawke Labor government. 60:40 deal. Now, if the CLP government of the time had accepted that fantastic deal - as it turns out in hindsight - by a Labor federal government, we would have been on the train already, rest assured. Don’t you pretend that you’ve done the right thing in terms of the railway for Territorians. You knocked back a lucrative deal years ago and some of us have been around long enough to remember that.
The other curious aspect of tourism that seems to escape the shadow tourism spokesperson is that people like things to see when they get to that destination. I have to say that one of the things that my visitors to Darwin have really enjoyed in the past was the Hotel Darwin. What can they see now? What will they see now on that CBD site? A dirt carpark!
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: I have to say the member for Daly sat on his hands and watched an historic tourist attraction demolished, razed. He’s gone!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Government members, give the member a chance.
Ms LAWRIE: We can’t get over the fact that the shadow tourism spokesperson is completely forgetting the community outrage in having seen historic sites in the Territory - and not just in Darwin - demolished under previous CLP governments.
It would have been really nice if they had left something for our visitors to enjoy which reflected the Territory of years gone by, but they had to knock it down. I really liked the excuses the CLP came out with at the time. The building had cement cancer. I’ve got to say: I spent years working in a building with cement cancer. It was owned by the government of Nauru. It’s called Nauru House, in Melbourne. They put up scaffolding and they fixed it. Hey, bingo! Cement cancer was not the excuse for knocking down a building but, hey, it suited the CLP at the time to allow an historic building, a building that meant a lot to Territorians, that really was greatly enjoyed by tourists, by visitors. Cement cancer was the excuse, though. Went though to the keeper, bulldozers in at midnight, it’s gone. I don’t want to show my visitors to Darwin that vacant dirt block of land; it’s pathetic. Perhaps I should and say: ‘This is the legacy of the CLP. Aren’t we glad we’ve got a Labor government?’.
What we are doing is we’re putting in a water theme park in our northern suburbs at Lake Leanyer so that our tourists in Darwin have yet another place to visit and enjoy, to then head back to their original homes and say: ‘Darwin’s a great place. I went to Crocodylus Park and saw some crocodiles. Just down from there, the kids and I, we had a lovely swim at a water theme park. It was fantastic fun. Every tropical city needs one of those. And on to the Casuarina retail shopping complex’, boosting the retail dollars into the economy. We have a nice little plan of Crocodylus Park, the water theme park and down to the shopping centre all in a strip. So we are about encouraging tourism because we encourage development - but sensible development, development that fits with needs. We know we have a lot of needs out there, because we’ve had far too many years of CLP government.
In closing, I would like to commend the Minister for Tourism for his amendment here. It makes a lot of sense. The amendment is congratulating our government for securing a deal with Virgin Airlines, guaranteeing an additional 1000 seats per week into the Northern Territory.
It’s congratulating Qantas. We don’t talk down the private enterprise players out there who are working with our government. We acknowledge their magnificent efforts in rebuilding airline capacity into the Northern Territory. We are congratulating the Northern Territory Tourist Commission on its efforts to respond to the events of 11 September and the collapse of Ansett and, particularly, its campaign to refocus marketing on the domestic and drive markets.
Madam Speaker, we are noting the continuing work for the Northern Territory Aviation Committee in working with the Virgin Blue to build the business case for increased capacity into Alice Springs. We are noting the impressive forward bookings for the Alice Springs Convention Centre and the opportunities for growth for the tourism industry in Central Australia.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I can’t help but to join this debate. This piece of paper that the member for Karama just read out …
Ms Carney: The Karama Drama.
Dr LIM: Yes, the Karama Drama. What a lot of rubbish! It says nothing here. It is a government that does nothing and this paper demonstrates very clearly it’s from a government that does nothing.
It congratulates, it congratulates one, it congratulates two, it congratulates three. It notes four and it notes five. Anybody can do that. What concrete actions have they done? Absolutely nothing! At a time when the Territory needs all the stimulus that we can possibly get for tourism, where we should have been building on how the CLP government had capitalised on the Sydney Olympics, they have left the Territory in a big hole. That is the tragedy of it all. Central Australia has missed out so much in the last six months.
When the country was all arguing and fighting for more flights, trying to convince Virgin Blue to come into every state and territory, this government did absolutely nothing. Had it not been for the federal government and the lobbying that our federal members did on our behalf even before the federal election, our federal candidates had been lobbying very hard with the Deputy Prime Minister to ensure that the money is provided by the federal government to Virgin Blue to come into the Territory. Thank God, it came to Darwin. But I wish, from a Central Australian point of view, that Virgin Blue came to Alice Springs also. Alice Springs has missed out completely from all these flights since the 11 September event and the Ansett collapse. Alice Springs has missed out tremendously on the number of flights that have come into the town.
You know, if you travel as much as I have, that to get out of Alice Springs, even to Darwin, is quite difficult. Many a day you have to be waitlisted to get up here to do a job. If it is difficult enough for business people to travel, what is it like for tourists who try to get the cheapest air fares possible at a time when it will also suit them in the distant future. It makes it very hard for tourism to be promoted easily in Central Australia because people can’t get in.
We have heard that over the next 12 months or so, many significant events are going to take place in Alice Springs. We have the Central Australian Masters Games. That normally brings in 4000 to 5000 competitors and all their entourage. We have the Lasseter’s Casino Convention Centre and we’ve been told that the Convention Centre has been over-subscribed over the next 12 months. So, we need seats on planes to get people into the town to capitalise on the services we can deliver, and to allow our economy to continue to grow.
The Year of the Outback which was recently launched by the Acting Prime Minister in Alice Springs, that again is going to bring a lot of people into town. These are major events that the business community of Alice Springs - and everybody else in Alice Springs - want to enjoy, to capitalise on from the economic point of view. Without seats on planes, that cannot happen. This government can’t do that.
Mr Ah Kit: Backsides on planes. You’ve got seats. The planes fly with seats. You’re talking about backsides.
Dr LIM: Well, let’s not talk about your backside. Let’s not talk about your backside, eh? I’ll be generous and give you two seats, that will probably be enough.
It was around December last year we were complaining about the lack of action by this government and the minister has the audacity to come up with this piece of paper that proves beyond any doubt to me that he has done absolutely nothing. Platitudes, congratulations, congratulations, congratulations and we will note the things that we are going to do. I have spoken to tourism operators. They have expressed their concerns. CATIA has expressed its concerns. Its representative of the tourism industry in town in Alice Springs, Greg Catchlove has been quoted in the newspapers, and he said that to me himself, that the 1000 seat shortfall into Alice Springs is going to cost our community significantly. In the papers just recently they are talking about a $6m tourism loss because of fewer airline seats coming into Alice Springs. Sure, there are some increased seats into Yulara, but that does not translate into all of those people travelling to Yulara coming in to Alice Springs.
I quote from this newspaper article. It says:
Central Australia tourism stands to lose up to $6m in this year’s peak season which starts in July.
The warning comes from the Central Australian Tourism Industry Association and is based on a
1000 seat per week deficit on planes.
If the minister does not take note of a warning from a significant industry group, then who else does he consult with? His own crystal ball? I have talked to tourism operators operating motels, operating caravan parks. They say that their business is doing well in the self-drive market. But Alice Springs being so far away from any major centre in Australia needs the facility of flights. Without it, many international tourists can’t reach Alice Springs. It is easy enough to get a plane and get to Alice Springs in two to three or four hours. To drive a car, if you tow a caravan, it is going to take you days. At best you might do a car trip in a day, but with a caravan behind you, you cannot do that.
So it is important for this government to recognise that Central Australia has been hurting and hurting badly. They have, in the last six months, not done much in Central Australia. There are other issues and other matters in Central Australia that this government has not taken much notice of. I said very early in the piece that had there been a Berrimah Line previously, today it is a Berrimah Wall, cemented and reinforced very strongly by this government, this very centralist government, and it is very typical of a Labor government…
Dr Burns: With its social agenda.
Dr LIM: With its social agenda - or socialist agenda would be more the right word to use. It is a very centralist government.
Madam Speaker, you know as well as I do living in Alice Springs that seating capacity for our region is getting very critical. The minister must do something about it. He must ensure that he goes down there, speaks to the industry, ensures that not only Qantas but another competitor enters the Alice Springs market. Otherwise what happens then is the prices within - because Qantas has a monopoly, there will be a reduction in the number of discount seats available and hence, the average traveller will have to pay more. That then discourages travelling, discourages people coming in to Central Australia. Likewise, people living in Alice Springs who would like to get out of the town every so often for a holiday find that they cannot do that either.
I support the shadow minister’s comments about how she has tried to convince the minister to - I was going to say pull his finger out – but, you know, get working but unfortunately he has been rather deaf about the whole thing. To listen to the member for Karama and how she carries on about what the CLP government has done in the past, this government has had six months and it has done nothing in that six months. I think it is a tragedy that they have had a great opportunity. The 11 September event and Ansett crash were as if suddenly everything was clear and we could start over again from a zero base. It is a pity that this government did not capitalise on that and competed aggressively with everybody else.
Another matter about the tourism in Central Australia that I have heard - I have no facts to back it up, but it is gossip among the tourism operators - is that there was a threat that the tourism centre in Alice Springs may be closed by the government in the not so distant future. Now, I say again that I don’t have any facts to back that up but that is the rumour that I have heard. What I would like to hear from the minister is a guarantee that the tourism centre does not close. We fought desperately during the CLP government years to ensure that the tourism centre stays in Alice Springs and it stayed there since the year dot, as far as I can remember. If that closes, that will be the strongest nail in the coffin for tourism in Alice Springs. I would like to hear from the minister his guarantee that the tourism centre will not close its doors at any time in the future. If he does that, then at least I will be assured and I can assure tourism operators that their future will be guaranteed.
Madam Speaker, I support the motion by my colleague, the member for Araluen, and I look forward to supporting the motion.
Madam SPEAKER: We are putting the amendments. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
Amendments agreed to.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, referring to the amended motion, all five paragraphs of it, I will deal with them reasonably briefly. The first part of the amended motion is a self-congratulatory motion for the government re-securing its deal with Virgin Airlines. I simply repeat that it was the federal government that injected $7m into getting Virgin Blue up and running before Christmas and to now. As I understand comments made by the minister in this House and elsewhere, the $2m allocated for Virgin Blue does not in fact take effect or does not kick in until March. So the very proposition contained in paragraph one is flawed. The fact of the matter is that Virgin Blue would not even been here now had it not been for the federal government.
In terms of the second part of the motion relating to Qantas, the opposition acknowledges the work of Qantas. Without Qantas all of us here in the Northern Territory would have been impossible positions. However, the motion refers to a recent announcement of additional services. Well, it is a little bit misleading. Recent - it was very recent; it was only days ago and, again, parts of the Northern Territory are only accessing one airline. That remains a disgrace. So, whilst the opposition joins in congratulating and, indeed, thanking Qantas, the rest of paragraph two is just nonsense.
Paragraph three, in terms of the Northern Territory Tourist Commission, the people at the Northern Territory Tourist Commission do a great job. I have met with some of them. I know others on a personal level. The fact of the matter is, though, that any organisation needs leadership and I feel very sorry for the people at the Northern Territory Tourist Commission because if there is one thing they don’t have, it’s leadership. I know that certainly they are concerned about that unfortunate fact.
Paragraph four notes the continuing work of the NT Aviation Committee. Well, it is a hollow statement. The government has been talking about the work being done and various committees being formed. They have been talking about lots of things from just after they’d got into government, since October, I think it was, when the minister at that time talked about what Labor was doing, how hard it was working. Well, the results just aren’t there. So, again, paragraph four has difficulties which are almost so obvious as not to mention them.
In respect of paragraph five, the forward bookings for the Alice Springs Convention Centre and the opportunities for growth of the tourist industry in Central Australia, I simply say that, yes, the Convention Centre is very well booked up; it was a marvellous CLP initiative. The difficulty that this government needs to deal with, needs to get its head around - certainly the minister does – is: how are they going to get there? Some of them will drive on very excellent Northern Territory roads, others will fly, but they will be compelled to fly with only one airline. Whilst people always enjoy flying with Qantas, the fact of the matter is there is one airline nevertheless. This is an issue that the government needs to not just work on, but it needs to deliver some results.
So if ministers are going to be at the Alice Springs Convention Centre in the next couple of months cutting ribbons and opening curtains for plaques, be well armed because people in Central Australia are also wondering - indeed all Territorians are wondering how people are going to get there.
As to other matters generally, I note that the minister in his reply meandered, filibustered, procrastinated - although that is something he does on a fairly frequent basis. He went back to why it was, that there was a change in the ministry after nine weeks, something about reshaping the public service - gutting the public service might be a better way of putting it. It is extraordinary, isn’t it, that a government takes nine weeks to do something in the public service but actually forgets about all of its other responsibilities. So be it. If that is the best explanation the minister can provide to people in the tourism industry, well they’ll just need to draw their own conclusions as to the previous minister’s abilities. I know that they are certainly forming their own conclusions on this minister’s abilities.
The minister said that the government must act responsibly. Well we in the opposition, on behalf of the tourism industry, simply want the government to act. We say that would be a good start and if the government could get on to it, we would be very grateful. He dredged up things, even what Labor promised prior to the election. It is all nonsense. Don’t dwell on the past; get into the future, anticipate the future, you must go forward and you must take Territorians with you because at present there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that you are leaving them all far behind. I need not go again to the federal government’s wonderful efforts in securing Virgin Blue and the political spin adopted by this party, the Labor government trying to take credit for something. Well, no one believes you. You have said too many times inside this House and elsewhere that the $2m allocated for Virgin Blue won’t kick in until March so, for what it is worth, no one actually takes you seriously.
I think the minister said something about Central Australia has greater capacity now than it did at the same time last year. I’m not really sure where to start on that one, only to suggest that the minister get in touch with one of the RTAs - and by RTAs I hope he knows what I am talking about; that is a Regional Tourism Association. There are four of them in the Northern Territory. The Executive Officer of one, Mr Craig Catchlove - you should give him a call, minister, because he will tell you that the Central Australian tourism industry stands to lose up to $6m this year once the peak tourist season starts in July. I do invite the minister to contact him. Mr Catchlove is quoted as saying:
That’s the bottom line, and I do wish the minister would get his head around his portfolio and his responsibilities thereto.
The minister also referred, somewhat curiously in my view, to a number of cuts or non-cuts made to the Tourist Commission’s budget. It seemed, as I understood him, that he was in absolute denial about the cuts. Let me give you a summary of those cuts to refresh the minister’s memory. The budget papers clearly show that there was a cut of $241 000. When one takes into account the $2m for Virgin Blue - and noting that the $2m is not allocated for anywhere else in the budget paper - that means that in real terms the Tourist Commission is cut by $2.41m.
Furthermore, in the budget paper - and we were able to read them well - this government cut $191 000 off the market focus budget of the Tourism Commission. It is there in black and white and perhaps the minister should read it.
Furthermore, the Treasurer cut $67 000 from the commission’s Destination Image Market budget. Well, how very extraordinary. After Ansett, after 11 September, cut, cut, cut, It’s a barber shop over there, make no mistake. Click go the shears, boys, click, click, click. And to make matters worse, there is another cut of $59 000 to Territory Discoveries. Now, the minister probably doesn’t know this. I suspect he hasn’t spoken to anyone about it, but Territory Discoveries develops tourism products for sale to consumers in the domestic markets. So it is extraordinary, is it not, that this government, the only one as I understand it, the only Labor government in the country, that after 11 September, after 14 September, the shears start clicking.
Over and above those matters, the minister made some reference, I thought in fairly derogatory terms, to the Northern Territory Tourist Commission’s masterplan. He questioned whether or not it was implemented. He asked the question, I think, why wasn’t it implemented and suggested that there was some problem the former government had with implementing the masterplan. Put simply, the fact is that tourism is the second largest revenue earner for the Northern Territory. Was the masterplan implemented? Of course, it was implemented.
Let me give the minister a few figures. In 1998-99 statistics quoted by the Northern Territory Tourist Commission in its annual report, as I understand it - I’ve just got a summary here; I don’t in fact, have the actual report. This summary tells me that visitor expenditure in those years grew by 8% to, at that stage, $792. So the masterplan, the roadmap for tourism in the Northern Territory, growth, growth, growth. International visitors not only spent more nights in the Territory, but generated more money in expenditure. In that year it grew up to 16%. In that financial year as well, 273 000 self-drive visitors came to the Northern Territory. That was in 1999, 10% more than 1998. It still continues to grow. Backpackers increased by 53%. Growth was experienced in visitor numbers to the Top End, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Central Australia. Was the masterplan implemented? Of course, it was implemented.
The strategies in that masterplan - clearly you haven’t read it - have been implemented. It has underpinned the former government’s approach to tourism, and one need only look at the marvellous results for the Territory from the tourism industry before this government came to power to clearly know that the masterplan was implemented.
On to the member for Karama. The member for Karama suggested that, as shadow minister for tourism, I was placing a bit too much emphasis on Central Australia. Well let me say this: as the member for Araluen, as a member from the deep south, I will never apologise for putting too much effort into Central Australia. That’s my job. However, there is a twist. It so happens that the statistics clearly reveal that in the last few years, visitors, both international and domestic, to Central Australia outstripped those who came to Darwin. Furthermore, this year - in case the government hasn’t realised it, and I suspect it hasn’t - is the Year of the Outback. Now, it occurs to me and a few other people in the tourism industry and a few other people who are not in the tourism industry that as it is the Year of the Outback a few people might be wanting to come to Alice Springs. In fact, we would hope that a lot of people come to Alice Springs and we would further hope that they get on those excellent Territory roads and continue to drive all the way to the Top End. However, the fact is that as this is the Year of the Outback, it is certainly the case that this government needs to put energy and resources in to ensuring that we as Territorians do our very best for the Year of the Outback, particularly given that tourist numbers are down. It is imperative, is it not, that we pull out all stops to get as many people to our wonderful Northern Territory, in particular to the outback of Australia, as we possibly can.
There is one further thing and that is the Convention Centre, that marvellous CLP initiative which no doubt one of the ministers will open in the next month or so. Again, the fact of the matter is that it has about 10 000 bookings as I understand it for the next year or so. Now, the member for Karama is obviously not – well, not very smart I could say, but perhaps not well versed on tourism matters. There is no reason why she should know that there are 10 000 people booked to come to Alice Springs to experience conferences at the marvellous Convention Centre, but the fact of the matter is that since they’re coming, we think it would be really good if a second airline was to come in to Alice Springs.
What none of the speakers for the government touched upon or sought to explain in any way, shape or form was why it was that when the deal was finally done with Virgin Blue that they forgot about the southern part of the Territory. Now, apart from some of us being a bit insulted and inconvenienced about that, there are broader issues and given the Year of the Outback, the Convention Centre and so on, people must get to Alice Springs and Yulara. There is only one airline. Think about it, minister and your colleagues. I don’t know about you, but $1600 or $1800 for a return airfare for me is a lot of money. It is a lot of money for both Territorians and potential visitors from interstate.
So I think that is all, really, I can say on the member of Karama, but I accept obviously that she doesn’t know much about tourism. I wonder how many tourism operators she has spoken to. When she has spoken to some tourism representatives or, alternatively, when she does develop an understanding of the tourism industry, I will begin to take her seriously, but certainly not until then.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, the amended motion is bunkum. The fact of this matter is that Territorians understand well the lethargy, incompetence and inability demonstrated by this government so far. This motion tonight will be lost, but Territorians will continue to ask what is this government doing. They are smarter than the minister thinks. They do not accept that working and workshopping and just having a chat is going to get results. They want results. For my part, I will certainly encourage the tourism associations and members of the industry to, if possible, get through to the minister’s office, although I know that it notoriously difficult. Obviously, I will also encourage them to write to the minister but as the member for Nhulunbuy said on ABC radio not so long ago, he conceded the delay. He conceded that six weeks was not acceptable - nine weeks, I think it was, for a response to a letter. Nevertheless, the member for Nhulunbuy assured Territorians that he would do his best to ensure that his colleagues could answer correspondence inside four weeks.
So for my part, I will encourage people to put pressure on the minister. The minister could do well to take notes and I really hope he has, Madam Speaker. I hope he has taken some notes. He may have picked up a couple of things. At the end of the day, we all have a common interest. We accept that there are some matters beyond our control: 11 September, the collapse of Ansett. No one could have predicted those events, but what we want is a proactive, dynamic, innovative response and I am very, very sad to say that we do not get that response from this atrocious government.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker I move –
That this Assembly -
fishing strategy for the Northern Territory and that such a strategy will:
resources for infrastructure, research and development;
public education and access;
by-catch policies;
indigenous participation;
marketing; and
So I’ve started off with the preface and then will take it from there.
The motion that I’ve brought on today has been, as in the first component of the motion, brought on because there is great concern in the community, particularly amongst recreational anglers…
Mr Henderson: They looked pretty happy on Saturday.
Mr BALDWIN: Well, I’ll get to Saturday. Saturday or Sunday?
Mr Henderson: Sunday, whatever day.
Mr BALDWIN: Sunday, yes, the AGM. I’ll get to Sunday as well.
That is the reason for bringing this on because there is great concern in the community and that’s why the (a) paragraph in this motion has been put there. I want this Assembly to note that great concern out there, and it’s concern not only by the community, it’s concern by those dedicated anglers out there that mean so much to the Northern Territory’s way of life. There is a lot of concern from AFANT and other peak bodies including the Seafood Industry Council, and there is certainly concern from the tourism sector which relies very heavily on some of the fishing aspects of the Northern Territory for the sale of its products.
I believe sincerely that some of the concern, particularly in the tourism sector, is actually is starting to get tourists to change their minds. For tourists who come here, particularly to the McArthur River, for their winter holiday –our Dry Season and their winter holidays down there - the uncertainty of what’s going on in the McArthur is causing them to look elsewhere. Certainly, with changes going on in other states, they are probably looking at going elsewhere as well.
I mentioned there is uncertainty in the commercial industry as well. If you just look at what’s happened, there was an announcement some many, many months ago leading up to the election, about the closure of McArthur River. The announcement was made, the commercials couldn’t come back in while that restriction was there. Then on 1 February, when the fishing season starts for the commercial licensees, there was a decision leading up to that date - I think it might have been just about one that date while you were in Bali – that: ‘We’re going to delay making a decision for a few weeks’, and I’ll get to that. So, for six weeks we are going to delay making a decision. The commercials were allowed back in as from 1 February. It took them a few days after that to come back in.
What’s the message to them? One minute they are being told: ‘No, you can’t have McArthur River on your agenda for the fishing season’. Then leading up to the commercial fishing season, 1 February, there was going to be a delay - there is a delay - in making any definite announcement; then you are allowed back in. Then: ‘We are going to make a decision on or before …’ - and I am quoting the minister here from the AFANT meeting last Sunday – ‘… on or before the 15th, and we might decide to toss you out again. But we might not. We are not sure’. The message that you are sending, minister, is a very confused message. It’s a confused message to all of the stakeholders, particularly in the McArthur River issue, but not only the McArthur River issue, all of the other issues that surround the Barramundi fishery itself. That’s why the motion goes a lot further a bit later on in its components.
I express the concerns on behalf of all of those sectors of our community. A lot of those people have come to me personally and expressed their concern, their disappointment at the delays. I have written press releases about the concerns and about the delays. I have written to the minister pointing out those concerns. This issue actually came up last Sunday at the AFANT meeting when the minister was asked to address the meeting. He stood up and gave a pretty good speech. It was pretty good; I thought he was pretty good on his feet. But, basically, he talked a lot to the members about: ‘Can’t do anything at this point in time because we are still doing a lot of talking’. One of the things he also said was - and I think this shows where he’s not in touch with the whole industry – that the comment - and don’t take me verbatim - but it went something like: ‘I am very surprised that the McArthur River is such an issue compared to the Adelaide River’. That’s an unusual statement for a minister to make. After all of the media publicity, in front of 200 AFANT members, he was surprised that the McArthur River caused so much interest compared to the Adelaide River.
How far out of touch are you? I know you put the media release out about the delay while you were in Bali, but boy, oh, boy, just get out and about a bit. Have a look at what’s written in the paper by all of the various individuals, all of the groups. I was glad, though, that a member got up and straightened the minister out and said: ‘Minister, the McArthur is important to us, the members of AFANT, because we represent the fishing interests - recreational fishing interests - of Territorians all over the Territory, and it is important because of the tourism factor that’s involved’. At least one of the members had the good grace to put the minister on the track.
The minister was asked also about the delay and why there wasn’t a decision made, and why it needed to be delayed for another six weeks. The answer was along the lines of: ‘That locals didn’t have time to contribute. They had less opportunity to do so and hence, the need for the delay to go back and consult …’ These are your words and I’m quoting them from memory so don’t try and hold me to them. That was the effect of the answer you gave.
Mr Kiely: Don’t say them if you’re not sure.
Mr BALDWIN: I’m sure enough to quote them in this House, picking up on the interjection, Mr Deputy Speaker - sure enough to quote them in this House. I’m sure there are 200 members and two of my colleagues who were at the meeting, who can back this up: ‘Locals didn’t have enough opportunity to contribute and therefore, we have to have more time to talk to them’. Hence, from that there is a meeting on 1 March.
Mr Henderson: Yes.
Mr BALDWIN: True. I find this pretty strange. After all of the time allowed, with the discussion paper going out, with all of the submissions that came in - 141 or thereabouts. Included in those submissions, I am sure, were submissions from locals as well as from …
Mr Henderson: Not many.
Mr BALDWIN: Oh, there were some from locals, we have had that confirmed. So, the locals did put in submissions. But I am sure, too, that there was submissions from all of those peak bodies that have a concern about this issue and about fishing in general. I know, for sure, that the Seafood Industry Council put in a submissions. I know for sure that AFANT put in a submission. I am not so sure that the NLC put in a submission. I assume they did on behalf of one of the licensees down there, Mabunji. All of those submissions would have put their respective positions very clearly and articulately, I would have thought, like the AFANT one. I have a copy of it here, and it’s a very succinct document.
If the minister says that he needed to delay this to go and consult with the locals, why then would you invite back to that meeting all of those groups that have put in these very comprehensive submissions and already stated their cases? They’ve stated it in the submissions, they have stated it in correspondence to the minister, they have stated it in the press. Over the last three weeks I have read numerous articles. They have stated it on the radio. I have heard spokespeople from AFANT, from the Seafood Industry Council, from one of the licensees operating in that area himself on the radio. They all stated their position very clearly and they have stated it clearly face to face with the minister. They have stated it in public meetings, like AFANT, at the AGM.
Now, they have been asked to go back again on 1 March to – what? - repeat themselves? Repeat their positions, put forward their position again? It is very confusing. What - are they going to get into an argy-bargy between all of the proponents and the fors and the againsts? The licensee will be there – I know what his position is. Well, I think it is pretty clear what his position is from everything that’s been said in these last six or eight months, from the representations made on his behalf by the Seafood Industry Council. I know the position of AFANT; I have read their submission.
I can’t see the sense in, on one hand saying the locals haven’t had enough opportunity when everyone had ideal opportunity, and then bring all these parties back together for another ‘public meeting’ to put forward their case all over again. I think people are getting a bit sick of talking and talking and talking. That’s why this motion talks about the concerns out there in the community about the delays. The minister also said at the AGM of AFANT the other day that he would like to take the politics out of this whole fishing debate. Well, I don’t know whether someone on that side should tell him, but at the end of the day, what this is all about is making a political decision. That is what politicians do. That is what ministers in government do. They make political decisions. They make political decisions, and that’s what …
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: Well, I could stand here all night and rattle off all of the decisions that I made, some very big ones.
Mr Kiely: Please do.
Mr BALDWIN: Sale of the TAB for the gaming minister, industry funding for the racing industry, picking up on the interjection. All sorts of things.
Mr Stirling: Don’t mention the Work Health Act.
Mr BALDWIN: That is typical of the member for Nhulunbuy, interjecting when somebody has a succinct argument. They don’t like it, and that’s why I prefaced it right up front that this will be changed. I am happy with that because people are going to get to read this debate.
So, yes, minister, it is all about making political decisions. It is all about being political. It is about having the spine to get out there and make a decision.
Look, you are not going to make everybody happy with whatever decision you make; it doesn’t matter. On the one hand, there is going to be either the commercials that aren’t happy or the recs that aren’t happy, but you have to make a decision. You cannot just keep delaying. You can’t keep putting off that big decision because sooner or later, you have to make it. So that’s what this is all about. It’s all about getting on with it. Don’t delay any further. Get on with it, and make the decision to close the McArthur River to the commercials.
The last two announcements you made, they were political decisions to some extent. The first one to delay - that was a political decision, not a really hard one because it delays the big one. The next announcement that you made was just plain stupid. That announcement that the commercial operator could go back into the McArthur River from 1 February was just plain and utterly stupid. And when asked at the AFANT AGM, your reply about why you allowed this to happen, the commercials back in prior to making the final decision regarding …
Mr Henderson: He had a legal right.
Mr BALDWIN: Ah, so you repeat it.
Mr Henderson?: What did you do to close the river? You did nothing. Enacted no legislation, no regulations.
Mr BALDWIN: Okay, I’ll pick up on that because that was the answer I was going to relay on behalf of the people who were at the meeting, that he had to do this because the commercial licensee had a legal right to be there and to fish that river, is that right?
Mr Henderson: Until we make a decision, yes.
Mr BALDWIN: That’s right?
Mr Henderson: Yes.
Mr BALDWIN: What if you kept the restriction in place? Would he have a legal right to be there?
Mr Henderson: They resolved the issue with dugongs. There was a management plan in place.
Mr BALDWIN: This is the point. Not only did you have the option of leaving the restriction in place in the McArthur River, you could leave the restriction in place until you made a decision. So he could have left the restriction in place and tell them on or before the 15th of next month, but that would not alter the legal rights of that fisherman. Barramundi fishing licences are for territorial waters, all around the Territory, is that not correct?
Mr Henderson: Absolutely.
Mr BALDWIN: So if you left the restriction in place, that particular licensee who operates in the McArthur River could operate anywhere else other than restricted waters in the Northern Territory, is that correct?
Mr Henderson: What was the reason for the restriction?
Mr BALDWIN: Is that correct?
Mr Henderson: Absolutely, but what was the reason for the restriction?
Mr BALDWIN: The minister confirms that had the restriction been left in place on the McArthur River, the licensee who wanted to start on 1 February could have fished anywhere else in territorial waters other than where there was a restriction. Now, that is not usurping his legal rights to fish, and that is the way it could work. Instead, he let them back in. The terrible thing about all of this, apart from the uncertainty that it has created amongst the commercial industry and amongst the recreational industry, is that he has created another problem.
What now if we have the issue of huge by-catch waste or big dugong kills because the commercials have gone back in there early? It will be on the minister’s head. I mean, that is one of the problems you’ve created for yourself. I know that you were loath to let them back in there until they got together their Code of Practice, if that’s the right word for it. They had to develop a Code of Practice about how to deal with these issues, and I know the Seafood Industry Council worked on doing that, and that’s commendable, but that won’t necessarily stop the issues. And it was a Code of Practice that I’m sure the minister will confirm was done in a fairly rushed way with the assistance of the department, and I applaud their great help in this matter in resolving at least that issue, in helping the Seafood Industry Council develop this Code of Practice. It was very rushed, I am told by those who were involved in it, not particularly those from the department, but other people who were involved in it. That’s a shame because there was no need to rush it if the restriction had been left in place for another six weeks.
That is why I raise this here today and I do call on the government to close the McArthur River. It can be whenever the minister decides, but there is growing concern about the delays. I might just pick up on one other point that I heard at the AFANT AGM. The minister was talking about infrastructure that the government’s going to look at putting in place in the coming year and years.
Mr Henderson: Not look at; we are.
Mr BALDWIN: Great, commendable, I am all for it.
And he said, ‘Yes, I know about infrastructure. I’ve got the Buff in my electorate …’ and I thought to myself …
Mr Dunham: What’s ‘the Buff’?
Mr BALDWIN: Well, that’s what I thought. I have lived here for 45 years, and I’ve never heard of ‘the Buff’ but I assumed …
Mr Dunham: Buff Club.
Mr Henderson: Buffalo Creek.
Mr BALDWIN: Ah! That’s what I assumed, that it was Buffalo Creek. I have never heard it called ‘the Buff’. I’ve heard it called ‘Buff Creek’, but normally it’s called Buffalo Creek.
It occurred to me that perhaps something had moved - while I’ve been living in Katherine for the last eight or nine years - up in this region where I used to knock around. So I had a look at the electorate map and for the minister’s interest, and I am sure he has one of these in his office. Just to let you know, and just to show how really out of touch you are, Buffalo Creek is in the member for Drysdale’s electorate, not in Wanguri. So get it right, get it right. If you are going to stand up in public and give these throwaway lines, at least tell the truth and get a grip on at least your own electorate.
Just on those points regarding the McArthur River, I draw the minister’s, and members in the House, attention to the submission by the Amateur Fishing Association of the Northern Territory on the discussion paper. Without going through every word of it, have a look at the summary. It is only a page-and-a-half roughly, and it goes through very succinctly - he’s not a bad writer, I guess, John Harrison, he’s very good at writing these things. I’ll lose too much of my time if I read it all. It goes through the long term benefits and all the rest of it and how, over the years, the catch effort hasn’t changed in the commercial sector, and ends with one sentence.
Mr Henderson: According to AFANT.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, according to AFANT, and according to 4500 members of AFANT.
Mr Henderson: They have only got 2000.
Mr BALDWIN: Count the affiliates. 2500 of their own and their affiliates. See? Another thing you know. I’m sure that you will confirm that, seeing that you’re on the executive.
So, that’s that. Now, part (c) of the motion is all about closing the Adelaide River and Bynoe Harbour to commercial fishermen which was a promise made by Labor leading up to the election. I won’t dwell on this fact, because it is all about river closures and we’ve just been through the McArthur in particular, but it comes down to a political decision. That’s all. You don’t have to wait until the end of the term, you don’t have to wait. You can come out with an announcement tomorrow.
Mr Henderson: So why didn’t you close it? That easy? Why didn’t you close it? You had 26 years to close the Adelaide River.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, yes. Now I’m talking about you. You can come out tomorrow.
Madam Speaker, they could come out tomorrow with a press release and say: ‘McArthur’s closing, Adelaide River’s closing, Bynoe’s closing’. But, I am even more interested - I would like to see those rivers closed to commercial fishermen, but I think they should be given an opportunity to sit around the table and put their case - and that can be done very quickly - and agree on a number of principles, and that’s why I’m calling for a 10 year strategy. And I noted at the AFANT AGM that the minister’s now starting to - not too loudly, but - talk about a 10 year strategy.
Ten year strategy and in our submission, so all of the members know, to the McArthur River closure proposal, we talked, I talked, we talked about the McArthur River, but we went a lot further, and in this submission we laid out what could be done on a 10-year strategy. I have talked to some of the Seafood Industry Council members, and I’ve talked to AFANT, and I have talked to individual anglers about that sort of a strategy, and they are very keen to sit down and develop that. There are a number of things you can address in there. River closures, we have talked about. You know you’re going to do this. You know you’re going to do this and that’s why that is great. So I want to see you put on the record tonight, for the people who are going to read this, that you want to develop a 10-year strategy because you should be. You should be talking about the reduction of commercial Barramundi licences, and that’s something that could be done very easily over a 10-year period.
Twenty years ago we had 108 licences and today we have 26 licences, but they are the 21.4 equivalent of a 1000 metres net. So we are at 21.4 or 26 - let’s take 26, its easier. You could reduce those by half over the next 10 years. You can sit down tomorrow with the commercials and start working that out. Now, in that time that we have gone from 108 to 26, the commercial effort has remained at about 1000 tonnes. It hasn’t dwindled. There are people out there, in the commercial sector, who say that that effort could be maintained. There are plenty of statistics around, and I won’t have time to go into all those statistics, but statistics that have been generated by good management over the last 26 years by a department that has been on the ball, and a fishery that’s been very healthily maintained because we had a system in place for river closures, and has now paid off.
We can move a lot further because what we should be doing is moving to a point where the Northern Territory, particularly the Top End of the Northern Territory unfortunately, is the most pre-eminent recreational fishing spot in the world, and we can do that by moving on these things now. What a great thing it would be to be able to announce this at the World Fishing Conference that is being held here in Darwin in May. What an excellent idea to tell the world that this is where you come to fish for sports fishing. One of the best fighting fish in the world, the Barramundi. And it can be done.
I’ll just put down a few of the ideas. These aren’t all the ideas. I don’t want to own this thing, but I want to see some action on it. Everybody else that I’ve talked to in this industry wants to see some action on it now, too, and they are waiting to see what move will be made on the McArthur, because that’s the catalyst of what happens now for the rest of this industry. It will be on this minister’s head if he makes the wrong one.
Madam Speaker, I’ll pull up there because I know it is going to be amended, and I’ll get two more opportunities.
Mr HENDERSON (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, the shadow minister is very perceptive about the amendment. I’d like to say in terms of foreshadowing the amendment that I will pick up on all of the issues that the shadow minister has raised and he will obviously have a chance to respond to those.
Madam Speaker, I wish to move an amendment to the motion, and in doing that by omitting all words …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, can I just interrupt you here. It seems to me that we have a motion on the floor at the moment. It would be a good opportunity to have full debate of that motion before you actually moved your amendment. I am going to talk further about this, but so that we can have full debate on the motion, I suggest you move your amendment later. Does that makes sense to you?
Mr HENDERSON: Either way. We still get to the same response. So I’m happy to move the amendment at the end of my comments. I suppose the thrust of the member’s comments were really in regard to the McArthur River issue and the delays to the Fishing Management Strategy which we will pick up.
The issue in terms of the shadow minister’s comments in this debate have been solely focussed on one section of our fishing community, one stakeholder group and that’s the recreational fishing community. A very important group. A very important group indeed in terms of the lifestyle issues, the tourism related issues, but they are not the only stakeholders in this industry. The commercial industry is a significant and important Territory exporter. The previous government had one strategy for recreational fishing and a completely separate strategy for commercial fishing, and it didn’t work.
We saw constant conflict and very polarised positions in terms of the allocation of this resource and the management of this resource, and this was reaffirmed by the President of AFANT in his comments at the AGM on Sunday. He said that he wanted to take the conflict out of this debate. And, as I commented at the time, I, as the new minister want to get some maturity back into this debate as opposed to the previous CLP government who again played winners and losers, backing one stakeholder group to the total exclusion of another stakeholder group, and this government, and myself as a minister, is not going to play that game.
We are going to have a much more consultative approach, a mature approach, decisions not made in isolation without consultation. If the opposition doesn’t like it, well, they’ll just have to get used to it. When in opposition, we consistently called for a much more considered approach to fisheries management. The development of an overall long term management plan for the fisheries resources in the Northern Territory is a priority for government and my department. The plan will be based on properly researched scientific data on the sustainability of our fishery. The plan will cover all key stakeholders, including recreational and commercial fishermen, fishing tour operators, traditional owners and pastoralists. In addition, fisheries resource allocation decisions will be taken with regional development in mind. A cornerstone of this government is the economic development of the entire Northern Territory which does include our regional economies. Throughout the Territory, rivers are often prime resources for local communities. Helping the local community make the most of their resource will be a key factor in this McArthur River decision, any further decisions, and will be a key part of the long term management plan.
Now this, despite the failure of the opposition to ever come up with such a plan. It’s absolutely amazing that after 26 years in government, the current opposition spokesman on fisheries can waltz in here with this submission in terms of: ‘We have a great vision for developing this Barramundi management plan for the Northern Territory’. They had 26 years and all of a sudden, this plan wishes a closure of all of the rivers and reallocation of resources and the money to buy back another two dozen commercial licences. This wasn’t a plan that was put to the Territory electorate prior to 18 August; this is something that has emerged since 18 August. It must be the most miraculous development of a post-election policy. If they think that they are on such a winner with this plan - it was an absolute gold mine in terms of the support that it would have in the community in terms of the return on investment through the ballot box - why on earth wasn’t this plan put before the community prior to the Territory election? Why on earth wasn’t it?
It seems to me that in terms of a political strategy, we are so certain that we have the plan to take the allocation of our fisheries resource into the future in the Northern Territory and this is what government has to do and the member standing up and imploring me to swallow this management plan. If it was such rolled gold, why didn’t you trot it out? Why didn’t you trot out this strategy? Why did you not trot out this strategy prior to the election?
They have suggested that the strategy be developed in close consultation. Again, these are wonderful new concepts that the opposition is picking up since it’s come to move to the other side of the Chamber: consultation. There was certainly that they ever did in consultation in terms of making decisions on resource allocation issues for fisheries in government. Perhaps in opposition they have learnt the importance of that word.
Mr Dunham: Rubbish!
Mr HENDERSON: Certainly, it was never demonstrated in government with AFANT or the Seafood Industry Council and all interested parties. How rich is this?
Mr Dunham: Rubbish!
Mr HENDERSON: I’ll come to this. I’ll come to this. The member for Drysdale is sitting back rubbish, rubbish. Well, let’s go no further than the current CLP Senator Nigel Scullion, past President of the Seafood Industry Council. To get an appreciation - let’s get some quotes here; you won’t like this - of how little consultation was performed by the previous government in this area. The current CLP Senator Nigel Scullion. On 21 August on ABC radio when discussing the previous government’s decision to phase out commercial Barramundi fishing, he said, and I quote:
… it was an act of I guess a very desperate government.
The current CLP Senator for the Northern Territory: ‘a very desperate government’. The fact that you could make such an important policy position, an important policy statement from government that you are going to phase out the entire commercial Barramundi industry without even talking to the peak body, without even consulting the peak body. All of a sudden from opposition, you have learnt this word ‘consultation’ and your very own senator said it was an act of a desperate government knowing it was in trouble politically.
Mr Baldwin: No, no. So what are you going to do? Let’s get on to what you’re going to do.
Mr HENDERSON: In the same interview, he was asked by the reporter - no, you don’t like this: In the same interview, he was asked by the reporter: ‘You must have been amazed at the fact that there was simply no consultation’.
Mr Baldwin: Good on him. That’s great. He’s got his own opinions. That’s good.
Mr HENDERSON: Nigel Scullion? There’s the quote.
Mr Baldwin: Yes.
Mr HENDERSON: What did he say?
Mr Baldwin: No, that’s good. Whatever he said, whatever he said.
Mr HENDERSON: Absolutely stunned. Absolutely stunned was the current CLP Senator. So, for the opposition to come in here now and say: ‘We have got this great strategy and what you need to do is sit down and bring the parties together and consult’. Well, really, you are just picking up on the policy that we took to the election which convinced people it really was time to throw out this absolutely moribund and arrogant government that made very sensitive policy decisions without consulting with anybody, let alone members of their own party who are now sitting on the red leather in Canberra.
Madam Speaker, from the motion the opposition has put up, it’s clear they still don’t get it. On the one hand, they call for a 10-year barramundi strategy. So this is a strategy; they want a 10-year strategy. But they also call for the immediate closure – so, you know, a strategy is something that you have to develop, take people along with you, try and get consensus. So are you saying we need to consult, we need to develop a strategy, but in the same breath they say: ‘Tomorrow you could issue a press release and close the Adelaide River and Bynoe Harbour to commercial fishing’. Have they learnt nothing?
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: They are real weasel words on the other side. We come in here, we are going to consult, we love everybody, but in the same breath put out a press release tomorrow and say you are going to close the Adelaide River and Bynoe Harbour. Well, we are not going to immediately close them. We are not going to immediately close them, and we will consult whether the opposition likes it or not. But I think if you really were to trawl through the reason for the election defeat, it was that moribund, arrogant government, we know best we are going to do what’s in the interests, we are going to divide and rule the community. Well, I think the community have got past that now. And this government understands how important these waterways are to the recreational fishing community in Darwin and the Top End and we will certainly be making a decision on these issues within our first term. But, we will consult with the community and put in place a strategy to achieve an optimization of the allocation of resources that is going to develop our regional economies and ensure the survival of the commercial fishing industry as opposed to the previous government’s policy which was to absolutely totally phase out the commercial fishing industry in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the very favourable response that the government has received from recreational fishermen in response to our commitment to provide an additional $1.5m for new fishing infrastructure, the best deal that the recreational fishing community has ever had from government in terms of an upfront commitment over an entire term. This infrastructure will include new and improved boat ramps and increased lighting and security.
Mr Baldwin: Security at the Buff, or what?
Mr HENDERSON: Well, you say I said ‘the Buff’. You know, you can put words into people’s mouths but, you know, I’ve been around here for 20 years and I wouldn’t have said that.
I enjoyed addressing the AFANT AGM. I think that that was a constituency that the CLP thought that they’d got nicely stitched up; we’ve got nice and cosy with this constituency over the years and certainly believe that throwing a few bones to AFANT just prior to the election would secure this mass of 4000 votes across the northern suburbs in particular which would ensure …
Mr Dunham: Get it right. Is it 4000 or 2000?
Mr HENDERSON: Well, it was 4000, you know, with the affiliates. But the previous CLP government really did believe that they had this entire recreational fishing community stitched up in those back pockets and those votes were secure. It was a great opportunity to talk to AFANT, and they were very pleased with the new government’s commitment to $1.5m to improve infrastructure and a total commitment from this government to work with AFANT in terms of identifying priorities for the allocation of this infrastructure effort that we are going to be putting in place.
I suppose the other significant issue that came out, and McArthur River was discussed, and I gave the reasons for why I had extended the period of consultation - you could say delayed, but we extended the period of consultation. The other major issue that did come out, and I don’t know whether the member for Daly was listening, but there was significant concern amongst the recreational fishing community about the perceived lack and probably the real lack - we could always do more with more - in terms of fisheries enforcement, in terms of actually policing our regulations in regards to the fisheries resource. I have committed that we will get together with AFANT, we will assess our current enforcement program and look to developing better strategies to ensure that both recreational and commercial fishermen actually do abide by the regulations that were in place. I am surprised that the shadow minister did not pick this up because I think it was the primary concern that came out from that meeting.
I would like to provide the house with some history on the McArthur River closure issue. Ten years ago the previous government removed the closure to commercial fishing from the mouth of the river and moved the commercial line to 10 km up the river. They didn’t consult with anybody, of course, let alone the local community. It was just announced that we were going to do this.
In May of last year, the CLP government announced, again without any consultation - this new word that they’ve learnt from opposition; you know, an election defeat does wonderful things in sharpening up the political instinct - the closure of the McArthur River to commercial Barramundi fishing. There was an outcry from the community over this complete lack of stakeholder consultation. The airwaves ran hot, I recall. I sat back and thought: ‘Gee, what sort of political strategy is this in the lead-up to the election, to have all of this bad media?’ Regardless of the issue, but a government that again would make a significant policy decision without consultation. After 26 years, any government would be perceived as being tired and arrogant and out of touch. And here they were, reinforcing this. Regardless of what the issue was, the perception in the community, was: ‘Well, here goes the CLP again, another decision without any consultation’.
One of the primary reasons the government was thrown out of office was their arrogance and refusal to consult. The decision-making process they undertook in making the McArthur River decision was perhaps one of the best illustrations of this. My department - and the member for Daly waxed lyrical about the wonderful people we’ve got in the department, and we do. We have very specialist people with great knowledge in this area and they constantly amaze me with the amount of knowledge that they have - the scientific, the biological knowledge, the resource allocation issues, how our fishery compares with other fisheries around Australia and around the world. Great expertise in this area, absolutely first class, as the shadow minister enunciated. But, did they consult with these experts before they made this decision, essentially a resource allocation issue decision? What would it do in terms of the effort, in terms of the catch for the commercial as opposed to the recreational fishers, cost benefit analysis in terms of the potential to the tourism industry? Did they consult with the experts? No!
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: The first that the department heard about this policy decision on the run by desperate government in trouble, looking to shore up 4000 votes in the northern suburbs, was when it was announced on the radio. Absolutely gobsmacked were the departmental officers. They couldn’t believe that such a decision had been made. So again …
Dr Burns: What about Mr Scullion? What did he say about it?
Mr HENDERSON: Well, we’ve been through the Senator’s comments. But again, I suppose a defeat has sharpened their political antennae and we’ve learned this word ‘consultation’.
The government recognises and greatly values and appreciates the expertise in the department. They have done an excellent job in coordinating the consultation process we’re currently undertaking. I congratulate them for their efforts, expertise and guidance, to the minister. I take their advice on board and very seriously.
There were 141 submissions received from a variety of people and organisations, a number that supersedes all previous levels in such response to a discussion paper. It just goes to show the amount of community interest …
Mr Baldwin: How many were in favour of closure? What percentage? 80%? 90%?
Mr HENDERSON: It is in the realms of 80%, but it does go to show that the community wanted to be consulted; they were concerned. The 20% that don’t support the closure, 20% of our community who have bothered to respond have put forward a large number of options for government to consider in terms of balancing this resource allocation issue.
Additional initiatives, apart from a black and white closure that have been suggested, include river closure rotation systems, alternative closure lines, by-catch guidelines, a potential look at net sizes, and mechanisms to avoid interaction with wildlife such as dugong and turtle. A range of options for government to consider as opposed to a black and white issue. Even the opposition, in its submission - and it was good to see the opposition take an interest in this issue and decide that consultation was now a word. I will table the opposition’s submission. I don’t suppose that they are going to have any problem with that. They state, in the concluding paragraph, that:
If early agreement to these concepts …
which is this 10-year management plan and strategy that they failed to implement when they were in government, or even announce in the lead-up to the election:
If early agreement to these concepts could be reached between all stakeholders with implementation beginning in late 2002…
not in February, in late 2002:
Okay? So, here we are running the public line that we should close this river immediately, how awful it has been that we have …
Mr Baldwin: No! Remember I wrote to you?
Mr HENDERSON: Yes. Have you got my response yet?
Mr Baldwin: No.
Mr HENDERSON: I think I signed off on it last night. I’ll get it down to you.
Mr Baldwin: Yes, well, you’re slow on writing letters, remember? Now, hang on. Read the letter that I wrote to you.
Mr HENDERSON: No, no. I have read it.
Madam Speaker, this is black and white, and I table this submission from Territorians. We have the opposition coming in here today saying it is absolutely reprehensible, and the sky’s going to fall in and people are up in arms everywhere demanding where we stand because we dared to extend their consultation period for six weeks. Dared to extend it for six weeks, to consider further the 141 submissions that were received and seek further consultation with traditional owners and the local community. Yet, their very own submission says that we could have a phased closure …
Mr Baldwin: Staged, staged.
Mr HENDERSON: … system in place, that would take over a year – a staged closure process. Really, what they put in and say in their submission, they totally refute by the public comment. Again, being politically too cute, too smart by half, their submission’s there for everybody who wants to read it.
The government appreciates the time and effort that all respondents undertook in providing their advice to government. We felt it was incumbent upon us to properly consider this advice. You don’t go to the effort of asking people to put in detailed submissions, only to have a predetermined decision, which the opposition accused members on this side of the House today - accused us of having predetermined positions in terms of the Public Accounts Committee. But no, no, again, we have this word ‘consultation’ that we’re now committed to. But, you know, you can have a consultation process but it doesn’t matter, because we’ve prejudged the outcome. Certainly, our consultation processes aren’t like that.
Given the record number of submissions and the variety of suggestions, we decided to extend the consultation period for a period of six weeks so that we could do justice to the time and effort of the respondents. Considering the advice of 141 submissions and organisations takes longer than considering the advice of none which is where the previous government was at. The opposition still doesn’t understand this, although they are starting to mouth this word ‘consultation’ from opposition.
Today, I’m pleased to say, one of the groups that was missing from the original submission process - and I suppose cultural issues and traditional owners not having the time or the understanding of the importance of putting in written submissions. So what we did today - myself and the member for Barkly, a very good local member, and really the local member for Barkly has said: ‘Minister, we really do need to consider the views of the traditional owners’, people that the opposition never cared two hoots about in terms of consulting Aboriginal people about any policy decision they made once they were in government.
Today at lunch time, I had the absolute privilege of meeting with probably 15 to 20 senior traditional owners from the Borroloola region who came to Parliament House on my invitation to actually put their views to government. I stand here and acknowledge those people as traditional owners in that region, and absolutely am committed to taking their views on board and to developing partnerships with the Borroloola community, the traditional owners, in terms of regional economic management plans that we’re going to put in place in that region. They were overwhelmed and so appreciative of the opportunity to actually sit down and talk to the minister and have their views put and considered, and to know that those views are going to be respected, are going to be considered in the ultimate decision. Those views were missing from the formal written submission process.
On 1 March, we are again going to consult with the Borroloola community. The final decision on this issue, as well as being a resource allocation decision, will be based on the wishes and the aspirations of the regional community in terms of how they see the economic future of that community being developed.
Although in the lead-up to the previous election the then government announced the closure of the river, they never actually bothered to do anything about it. Now they had a period - I forget how long the period was, what was it? It was about, I don’t know, six or eight weeks, it was about two months out, I think, from the election date. Again, they went out and announced: ‘We’re going to close it’. Didn’t move any regulatory motion, did absolutely nothing. They never took any of the necessary administrative and regulatory steps to close the river.
Mr Baldwin: The licensee had to go out because the fishing season closed.
Mr HENDERSON: No, no. Now, let’s get back to this. Here’s the fatal flaw in the member for Daly’s arguments. In terms of the restrictions that were placed on the operator who managed to get dugongs caught up in his nets, the restrictions were not placed on the river; the restrictions were placed on the operator. He was not allowed to utilise his commercial Barramundi licence until such time as those self-management plans were put in place in terms of dealing with interaction with dugongs and working with the Seafood Industry Council to put those processes in place and to get the crew on his boats through a training program. So there was no closure put on the river. It was put on the operator.
As the member for Daly quite rightly stated, any other of the 25 or 26 remaining commercial fishermen in the Northern Territory could have seen an opportunity then: we have this pristine resource; Mr Wildcard’s been given a yellow card for a time, and we’re going to come in there and take our share of the catch. Well, nobody did that, but for the member for Daly to run the line that we have closed the river and all of a sudden now because we’ve extended this period of consultation for six weeks that somehow we’ve reversed a decision that you took in government is a blatant furphy. There was never any administrative action or regulatory steps taken to close the McArthur River to commercial fishing. One operator was yellow-carded for catching dugongs and basically fishing in an inappropriate manner.
So in terms of the decision that we took, Wildcard and the Seafood Industry Council have abided by the code of conduct and there was no capacity for me to make a unilateral decision without the formal decision making process. I think the member for Daly should stop being so disingenuous and actually acknowledge that, again, his government was all talk. The McArthur River decision and the lead-up to the election was the act of a desperate government enunciated by their very own senator in the lead-up to an election when you knew you were in trouble and you were fishing for 4000 votes in the northern suburbs, and it didn’t work.
This is an issue about resource allocation and it’s an issue of regional development, as I’ve said before. There are several very important stakeholders and the river is important to the recreational fishing community in the Territory and commercial fishers alike. However, the most important stakeholders are the traditional owners and they have been overlooked in this debate until today.
The fish stocks in the McArthur River are high. The decision is about how the Territory and particularly the local residents can make the most of their valuable resource, and this is the crux of the matter. We are a government about regional development, about utilising the resources in the Northern Territory - our natural resources, our mineral resources, our people - to the best economic return to the people of the Northern Territory. And with those guiding principles in light, we will be making the decision on the McArthur River, and I give this parliament an absolute guarantee that that decision will be made prior to 15 March or on 15 March and there will be no further delays.
In responding to the member for Daly’s motion, I think I have addressed all of his concerns. I wish to move the following amendment.
Mr Dunham: No, Adelaide River and Bynoe.
Mr HENDERSON: No, you were falling asleep there.
Mr Baldwin: No, when are you going to close them?
Mr HENDERSON: That the motion be amended by omitting all words after ‘that’ and inserting in their place:
this parliament acknowledges the Martin Labor government’s strong commitment to recreational
fishing in the Northern Territory and
(1) congratulates the government for committing to a development of a long term
management plan for the fisheries resources in the Northern Territory based
on properly researched scientific data on the sustainability of our fish stocks
and in full consultation with all stakeholders, including recreational and
commercial fishermen, fishing tour operators, traditional owners and pastoralists;
(2) congratulates the Martin Labor government for its commitment of an additional
$1.5m over three years for new fishing infrastructure such as boat ramps and
approved lighting and security;
Mr Baldwin: It’s called self-flagellation, I think, isn’t it?
Mr HENDERSON: You never promised that in the lead-up to the election.
(3) congratulates the government on its decision to properly consult all affected persons
on the potential closure of the McArthur River and notes the government’s commitment
to finalise a decision on the future of the McArthur River by 15 March; and
(4) notes with concern the total failure of the former CLP government to consult at all on the
closure of the McArthur River, and notes that despite the announcement by the member for
Katherine of the decision to close the McArthur River in the absence of then Minister for
Fisheries and without even discussing the issue with the fisheries department, the CLP failed
to take any of the necessary administrative and regulatory steps to close the McArthur River.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, the member for Daly has touched upon many of the details which I was going to take the Chamber to in the course of this address, but there are a couple of matters which I think need to be emphasised, and if I can just briefly take honourable members to these two points. The term AFANT is, of course, the Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the Northern Territory, a great organisation, a grass-roots organisation made up of people living across the Northern Territory and there are a number of affiliate organisations. Under the guidance of the Executive Officer John Harrison - and, indeed, the member for Wanguri is correct, there are about 2000 technically formal members, but there are a large number of affiliate members and family members and the like which make up the large number of amateur fishermen which come under this umbrella.
Really, to make any realistic observations about the conduct of a government, you have to look at what they’ve done as opposed to the words they utter. If you look at what the Labor government has done both in the lead up to and since the election, then really the facts will speak for themselves. The Labor government showed really very little interest in amateur fishermen or their welfare or the idea of maintaining their lifestyle until about a year or so prior to today when one of their paid staffers, a young fellow called Travis Dowling, turned up and joined AFANT and got voted onto the executive.
A member: Are you on the executive?
Mr MALEY: He went to a number of meetings and for a moment it looked like the Labor party …
Mr Ah Kit: Shouldn’t he be declaring his interest?
Mr Baldwin: The minister was at the meeting!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MALEY: I can declare an interest. I am also on that committee.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, both sides! The member for Goyder is trying to speak.
Mr MALEY: That’s a fact, of course, of which the member for Wanguri is aware, and I am surprised to hear from the member for Sanderson that he hasn’t heard of that since I know that the name of the executive appear in all the newsletters which we send out, and if he is been a member and is a keen interested member, he would have read that.
In any event, I can assure the Chamber that what occurred is that a paid staffer of the Martin Labor opposition joined the committee, which is to be commended, showing an interest.
Members interjecting.
Mr MALEY: And then what occurred is that about six months after the election, only recently, there was a letter sent to AFANT saying that he has resigned and gone interstate. So there was this positive conduct, we have got some real interest in AFANT that suddenly came to an abrupt end shortly after the election.
In the lead up to the election, there was a great deal of talk about fishing issues - and this is trying to give an objective critique of what occurred. In the lead up to the election - and I am indeed, as a result of being an officeholder and a keen amateur fisherman, we take as much care as we can and listen to the issues that affect fishermen through AFANT and the like, do our best to put the views of amateur fishermen. In any event, in the lead up to the election, much was made of the interests of fishermen and the effort that the political parties were making to maintain the Territory lifestyle, and all the other type of motherhood comments, and one of the things which occurred is that there was a - and I will be very careful in describing this document - there was an undated, it seems, pamphlet and it was certainly distributed in the rural area, and I will read it out before I table it. It says:
And it’s got a picture of a fellow called Bob Hare, candidate for Nelson, and another fellow, Alan Smith, a candidate for Goyder. I will read it out:
Mr Dunham: What about the Buff? Do they go to the Buff?
Mr MALEY: Or they go to the Buff, yes.
And then there is a big headline:
And it’s got the part of Clare’s team building a better Territory stuff. I seek leave to table that, though I wouldn’t mind a photocopy of it back when you get a chance.
Leave granted.
Mr MALEY: So, we’ve got this document which is floating about prior to the election. It’s created a reasonable expectation amongst rural people and amateur fishermen across the Northern Territory. The election comes or goes and the amateur fisherman, along with the all other people who live in the Northern Territory, generally speaking, endorse the Labor government and they put their trust in a new government.
Dr Toyne: Excellent decision.
Mr MALEY: I respect the decision that the people of the Northern Territory made, and on 18 August they dutifully exercised their rights and certainly put their trust in the hands of the Labor government.
Now, there was a bit of a silence, it seems, for a period in time in relation to this very important promise that was made, and there was an article which appeared in the Litchfield Times.
Can I just go back a step. There is one other thing that was said by the Labor party prior to the election. It was under the headline - it appeared in the Litchfield Times on 6 June 2001 - ‘Commercial fishing ban pressure’. I’ll read a portion of it and, with leave, I can table the document, Madam Speaker.
Leave granted.
Mr MALEY: Madam Speaker, I quote:
And then it goes on to - there are a whole heap of quotes here:
And there are a couple of direct quotes here from Dr Toyne, and assuming that they are accurate, I am relying on what’s contained in this newspaper. It says:
And he goes on to say:
So, really, the thrust of it is that there certainly looks to be a fairly solid intent, or a commitment it seems, raising the expectation amongst potential voters that the government …
Dr Toyne: Perhaps you’d better put it in context. I said provided that the evidence justified the closure. And I said that on a dozen occasions.
Members interjecting.
Mr MALEY: That document - I can read the whole lot out, but I’ll just paraphrase it for the sake of time.
Members interjecting
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MALEY: So the election occurred and there has been this deathly silence. We have heard a few excuses and the odd death rattle of: ‘We’ll stick to our commitments, we’ll undertake and carry out every promise that we made’, and that rekindled some of the fading hope that amateur fishermen were experiencing since the election. And then the next public statement I heard was from the new, still wet behind the ears, non-fishing minister, the member for Wanguri, at the AFANT Annual General Meeting on 24 February 2002. There was a speech made and there was confirmation that a decision would be made in respect of the McArthur River sometime in March, I think the 13th or the 16th, anyway sometime in March, and that was generally appreciated in terms of there was a finite time a decision would be made. There is certainly a view that the decision should have been made, and what’s the problem with making it sooner rather than later? But, okay, you put something on the table, here’s the agenda, here is the time line, the decision is going to be made by this date.
Dr Burns: An agenda, or minutes?
Mr MALEY: Yes, that’s right. Yes.
Certainly, amateur fishermen have been made aware of the commitments re the Adelaide River. The next thing we hear is that we are not going to deal with - and I’m paraphrasing what he said; he can certainly correct me and no doubt he will - we are not going to deal with it river by river; we want an overall approach.
An overall plan, but you have got to remember this template he is talking about is in light of the fact he has already – well, his party - have already made a fairly serious commitment to closing the Adelaide River which they should be commended for if they have, in fact, done it.
So, really, that is the situation we find ourselves in. They are the objective facts. That is what has occurred.
Dr Toyne: They’re half of them – the half you choose to use.
Mr MALEY: There is really an opportunity here - and I am trying to be constructive.
Dr Toyne: No, you’re trying to be selective. That’s what you’re trying to be.
Mr MALEY: I can be a lot more destructive, don’t worry.
Mr Kiely: Disingenuous, perhaps.
Mr Baldwin: Ingenuous.
Mr MALEY: No, no, no. I won’t lower myself. Give me strength, I enjoy this. It keeps me going.
The government could restore the faith and the trust which people gave them if they stand up and now start making some of the decisions they talked about prior to the election. So I am really calling upon the government to stop dilly dallying and start making the decisions, the decisions they said they were going to make prior to the election.
Now, it looks like a fairly basic decision: we either close the river or we leave it open, and there it is: ‘Labor supports the removal of commercial fishing from the Adelaide River’. Well, that’s great, that’s to be commended. Okay, now close the river.
Now, in closing there is one other thing. The member for Wanguri touched upon this and, really, I am offended by what he said. Anyone who has lived here longer than five minutes, which is certainly not the member for Wanguri and most of the Labor party, but for the people who have lived here for any period of time, they would realise that there actually were elections and people voted and when people voted, they got the government of their choice. So, it is an insult to Northern Territory people, and an insult to any families who have been here longer than four years, of course, to insult the government which they chose to represent them.
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Mr MALEY: I’m quite happy to, and I’ve said …
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Mr MALEY: Madam Speaker, the point I am wishing to make is that …
Madam SPEAKER: I am trying to hear the point that the member for Goyder is making. Come on, settle down. It would be nice if we could get on with the debates and get them over and done with.
Mr MALEY: Indeed, Madam Speaker.
The point I am making is that it is an insult to the people of the Northern Territory to criticise the choice of government they made over the past 27 years just like the respect which I have for the government of the day that people on the 18 August last year made a decision. They, on 18 August, demonstrated they had some faith and trust in the new government. My real concern is that that trust has been abused and that trust has been broken, the trust which the people gave them. I suspect in a little over 36 months time, it will be judgment day for the new government.
So, in all the circumstances, the motion and the amended motion as they appear, I support unconditionally the motion from the member for Daly. But the amendments, albeit poorly drafted and with the typos, it contains, of course, some commitment which I think amateur fishermen across the Territory would appreciate and that is the commitment for $1.5m over three years.
The problem is not what’s in the document; it’s what’s missing. The fact that we have already had commitments by the Labor Party to close the Adelaide River and I understand - not that I could find the documents - to close Bynoe Harbour as well. There is absolutely no reference to these important election promises in this document. It would be an ideal opportunity for the member for Wanguri to demonstrate that he actually has a bit of steel and a bit of commitment and can restore some of the faith which has been lost. I must say it was amusing to hear him refer to Buffalo Creek as ‘the Buff’ as tourists do, I suppose. It was also amusing to find out that it’s not even in his electorate and here he is saying: ‘My electorate, I’m one of the boys’ in his, you know, in his toffy way. So, you know, it’s a disgrace. I support the …
Mr Kiely: I bet you he’s never wrestled a pig in the bush.
Mr MALEY: He hasn’t been bush.
Madam Speaker, I am urging the honourable members of this House to support the motion in its unamended context and as moved by the member for Daly.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in respect of the amendments as proposed by the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries. Before I actually commence in detail, it is my understanding that the member for Goyder is on the executive of AFANT, and I congratulate you for that because it is indeed a wonderful organisation. It is something that I support and I understand that the membership is around about 2000 or thereabouts?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The member for Barkly has the floor. He has a soft voice and we would like to hear him, so I suggest interjections and conversations across the floor cease. Give the member for Barkly a chance.
Mr McADAM: As I was about to say, Madam Speaker, with membership of about 2000 people, a very credible organisation that over a period of time has slowly worked towards the interest of a large number of Territorians. But having said that, just let me say to the member for Goyder that the people who actually reside in the McArthur River area number around 2500 to 3000 people. And, just to let you know where I am coming from, I want you to know that I am representing those 2500 to 3000 people.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr McADAM: To begin with, let me make it very clear that I’m puzzled by the ad hoc, arrogant decisions by the CLP to unilaterally close the McArthur River to commercial Barramundi fishing in May of last year. A very simple answer is required, and I do hope that the shadow minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries will take the opportunity to respond or if, indeed, the member for Katherine should appear, I’d invite him to respond as well because it was the Deputy Chief Minister, the member for Katherine, who made a decision without consultation with any stakeholders in Borroloola or its surrounds to close the river.
Mr Ah Kit: It was another CLP initiative.
Mr McADAM: Well, absolutely. It was, too.
Members interjecting.
Mr McADAM: The point I am trying to make is that I think it is very important for the people of Borroloola and the Barkly to understand why you chose to take that decision at that time. I think you would find it very difficult to come up with a plausible explanation because it was clearly for political purposes. If it wasn’t, it was at best a very clumsy, inept, she’ll-be-right-mate decision. I would have thought that a little common decency would have prevailed, perhaps a little consultation. It wouldn’t have taken much to consult with the fisheries department who, after all, are the experts and had access to all the scientific data as well as the expertise in respect of fisheries management and fish resource allocation.
Madam Speaker, you will recognise that the department of Fisheries has built a very enviable reputation over time and is staffed by some very dedicated professionals. But, no, they were advised by the media in respect of the closure. You didn’t have the decency to talk to them. All of a sudden, one day in May, the Deputy Chief Minister got up and said: ‘Oh yes, there is an election coming up on 18 August. What will I do? Aha! I might make a decision. Yep! Let’s close the McArthur River’. It was as scientific and stupid as that.
Members interjecting.
Mr McADAM: It is for this reason that this government has chosen to undertake a very comprehensive consultation process. As the minister indicated, some 140-odd submissions have been received which is indicative of the unprecedented interest expressed by various people, organisations and industry bodies. Many of the submissions were constructive and canvassed a range of suggestions from the preservation of the dugong to the control of boat speed limits, allocation of dedicated fishing zones, and the protection of sites of importance to the local indigenous people notwithstanding, of course, the pros and cons in respect of the actual closure itself.
Allow me to go back a little in time to late 2000 when the member for Stuart and I attended a full day meeting in Borroloola. Participants included traditional owners, Mabunji Aboriginal Corporation, the Walalibi Fishing Committee, the Northern Land Council, AFANT, commercial fishers and numerous members of the community. The purpose of this meeting was to look at a regional framework agreement in the context of the fishing industry. A range of issues were explored including additional recreational fishing camps, tourism opportunities, the need to involve the business and the indigenous sector in joint partnership and/or ventures, thus enhancing economic opportunities for the Gulf.
The closure of the McArthur River was debated robustly, and the views at that time were wide and varied. However, no clear decision emerged. But the then opposition shadow minister made it very clear that a consultation process would occur before any decision would be made to close the McArthur River for whatever reason, and I applaud the member for Stuart for his foresight. At that time, as it is now, it was a right and proper thing to do. It remains the right and proper thing to do as we in government continue the consultation process which will give rise to a decision in the not too distant future in the interests of all stakeholders in the Territory. Hear that? All stakeholders.
As further evidence of our commitment to resolve this matter, as the minister indicated earlier, we met during the lunch break with a number of traditional owners from the Gulf, and on Friday I’ll be attending a public forum in Borroloola on behalf of the minister, again to seek the views of local people. As indicated by the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries, we will not be stampeded by the opposition into making hasty decisions in respect of the closure of other rivers, but will embark on a transparent process of developing a strategy on which future fishery resource allocations will be based.
The fisheries industry is important in the Gulf, as it is in other parts of the Territory, and it is critical to get the decision right particularly in the interests of small business, the indigenous community and the industry itself. I believe that we can achieve that mix. To this extent, I am heartened by the preparedness of the community at King Ash Bay and the traditional owners to discuss options of mutual interest. Just be aware, this would never, ever have occurred under the CLP because that was a bastion of the politics of division, and you blokes loved every minute of it. You promoted it and you blew yourselves up.
Mr Dunham: Rubbish!
Mr McADAM: Don’t you talk!
Mr Dunham: Rubbish, mate. We didn’t run the One Nation crap, you did.
Mr McADAM: Don’t you talk!
Mr Dunham: Wedge politics, and you can live with it. You can live with it; it’s your heritage. He got in on it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr McADAM: We know about you and your mates at King Ash Bay; we know all about them …
Mr Dunham: Wrong, wrong. Wedge politics.
Mr McADAM: Yes, we know all about them, and we’ll find out.
Mr Dunham: Wedge politics.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Drysdale!
Mr McADAM: The Mabunji Aboriginal organisation presently have a Barramundi fishing licence which they lease out, as does Steve Johnson on Vanderlin Island. We’re also going to take into consideration their views, and so must the views of the Seafood Industry Council and AFANT and, of course, the two commercial barramundi fishers Roy Wright and Bruce Davies who respectively lease licences from Steve Johnson and Mabunji. Again, as indicated by the minister, we will not please everyone in respect of the government’s decision but, as the minister indicated, clearly the decision will be based on regional imperatives, and it’s important that this government provides a solid foundation upon which all parties can build a secure economic opportunity. I mean this, Tim …
Mr Baldwin: Member for Daly, let’s get it right!
Mr McADAM: I beg your pardon, the member for Daly. I say this to the member for Daly: join in this process as espoused by the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries. You and I both represent an electorate similar in many ways. Let’s be constructive in the interests of all sectors of the fishing industry and in the interests of the long-term future of the community in the Territory.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, a lot has been said about consulting everyone, and that’s great, that’s really good. The minister for fisheries said that we on this side are solely focussed on one sector, that’s the recreational fishing sector. That’s not true, I’ll say that straight up front. We’re interested, too, in the commercial Barramundi fishing sector as well. But let’s just put it in context
The commercial Barramundi fishery - and I haven’t got all the latest figures - was estimated at approximately $4.5m in 1999 - $4.5m for the commercial Barramundi - and the value of the Northern Territory of recreational fishing estimated at $50m in 2000. So, that’s $4.5m against $50m. The direct benefits from the recreational sector is growing at approximately 7% per year and is expected to have a value to the Northern Territory in excess of $60m in 2005 based on the anticipated annual growth rates, and they are Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries Annual Report figures 1999-2000. So, that’s the context of what we’re talking about: the worth.
You talk about regional imperatives and what it means to the economy of the Northern Territory. Well, that speaks volumes about what it means to regional economies as well as the overall economy of the Northern Territory - volumes in places like Borroloola, for the member for Barkly to pick up on. Very significant income to local businesses is derived from the recreational fishing industry. Also from the commercial as well, but $4.5m against $50m-odd.
In the McArthur alone, I think the catch there is approximately 27 tonnes of barra in the McArthur River - this is by one operator who’s operating a number of licences including, I believe, Mabunji’s licence as well as his own. That’s Bruce Davies; he has a big ship that operates 24 hours a day. Most operators going back over the last 20 years were daylight hour operators in smaller vessels, but this one operates very efficiently with a big mother ship. The by-catch that we’re talking about is somewhere in the vicinity - this is by-catch of fish alone - of 13 tonne of by-catch. Who knows what the unknown by-catch discard rate is? In that total region down there, 49 tonnes of barra is caught with 19 tonne of by-catch. You have to weigh up all of those figures. There’s some waste, there’s some income from the commercial, and there’s significant income from the recreational fishing sector. We’ve put it into context in that way.
The AFANT submission has some very interesting bits of information, and I just want to read a few bits:
… a number of conversations with several groups of people who’ve been coming to the area for varying times, some for 10 years or more. All, without exception, were gravely concerned over the steep decline of the fishing stocks in the McArthur River and, in their view, attributable to the commercial netting of the river system. Most of these people indicated strongly that they would be looking for alternate (sic) locations, as the McArthur River has lots its appeal. See the attached letter in this document for one example.
That should be weighed up as a factor for the regional economy as well, Madam Speaker, and I believe you have a close association with this particular river. One of the members of your family likes to visit this area. And if those people don’t keep coming to that area, imagine the decline in the local economy. It would be very, very significant.
The minister said that I just waltzed in here tonight with a plan, a plan that I want blueprinted. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. I didn’t waltz in here tonight with a plan. I wrote a submission to the discussion paper on the proposal to close the McArthur River to commercial fishing, and that submission was in by 30 December, the closing date for submissions. In that submission, I called for the development of a strategy. I don’t have the wherewithal to make the plan. I don’t think you have the wherewithal to make the plan.
The whole point of the motion is what everyone else is calling for and that I heard the minister talk about very quietly at the AGM - a 10-year strategy, or 20-year or whatever you want to come up with. Do what you like. But that’s the point. I haven’t just dreamed up a plan. This is calling for a strategy to be developed with all of the stakeholders, and that is what the issue is. I am a bit confused here tonight with regards to the Adelaide River and Bynoe Harbour. I think the minister in what he has had to say about Bynoe and Adelaide River is that they might not close them to commercial fishing and I am not going to try and get him to confirm it.
On the one hand we have got the previous shadow minister who says in the paper that he is calling on the immediate closure of the Adelaide River. Who did you consult, former shadow minister, on that regard? You talk about us not consulting - and I will come back to that because there is a whole wealth of information over the last 20 years regarding the closure of rivers, well documented by the department, well documented in fish studies, well documented by tag and release programs in all of the rivers that have been closed - but on the point of consultation, who did the former shadow minister for fisheries consult when he called for an immediate closure of the Adelaide River? The department? I don’t think so. AFANT? Probably, but that would be about it.
So for the minister to get up tonight and say that I can’t call for the immediate closure is a little bit ironic in regard to their previous record in this matter. I am still confused and I am sure a lot of people out there are confused about what’s going …
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: We’ve got all night. I’m happy. The minister hasn’t confirmed tonight that they will close - well even the McArthur, but certainly the Adelaide River and Bynoe to commercial fishing and that’s a shame. I wonder myself whether the minister has ever been fishing.
Mr Henderson: Yes.
Mr BALDWIN: Where? In England for trout?
Mr Henderson: No.
Mr BALDWIN: No, you never went for trout fishing? Anyway, that’s beside the point. But if he would like to go fishing I’m sure he is going to get an invite to the Barra Classic this year and the Barra Nationals. They told me the other night that there will be …
Mr Henderson: Yes. Had one. I’ll be there.
A member interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: No, he doesn’t like fishing, I am told.
Mr Henderson: No, no, no. Not true.
Mr BALDWIN: Can I encourage the minister, Madam Speaker, to take up that invitation that he will get to go to the Barra Classics more than likely, and the Barra Nationals, and come down to the Daly River - great spot - and try his hand at a little fishing and talk to the people about what it’s all about.
The minister also reminded me of the enforcement issues that were raised at the AFANT meeting. I’m glad he did because I would have thought that the minister would have talked about the role of police in enforcement on fisheries matters but he never did. It seems to be missing from everything that he talks about when it comes to enforcement. The police, I have to say, and I will put it on the record, do a fantastic job in that regard all over the Northern Territory. All over the Northern Territory, whether it’s the Daly River police station or the police at Port Keats. They are outfitted in those areas with boats and do a great job as far as fishery enforcement goes, and I welcome any further enforcement measures that the government wants to look at.
The McArthur River is a catalyst for this whole issue of what to do with the Barramundi fishery. I just believe it’s timely, that the minister gets on and makes a decision that will mark a point to move forward and sit down and work out an overall encompassing strategy for the whole fishery. The minister has talked at length about the 141 submissions that came in. I didn’t quite pick up what he said about those submissions that were in the affirmative for closure of the McArthur River. I think he said 80%-odd of those submissions supported closure of the McArthur which, when they make their decision, will really reinforce that the right decision that was made by the CLP in the first place.
I think this delay is all about trying to distance themselves from a decision we made that will turn out to be the right decision based on all the historic knowledge going back over 20 years, and it’s all there in all the documents. He can put his hands on them tomorrow. Just put a little bit of distance so that they can come out and say: ‘We’re going to close the McArthur River. What a great decision. We have just gone through this process’. But I think the submissions that they have will vindicate the decisions that we did take last year.
You have to understand the amount of information that is around about what has happened since the closure of the Roper and the Daly and the others, the Mary, to commercial fishing and what has happened since that time. There are reams and reams and reams of information, technical information on it. But I will just pick up one paragraph here in the AFANT submission when they talk about this particular side of it. First off, I will just quote this:
The Northern Territory has been more than 10 years in front of other states in providing for recreational fishing by selective closures of rivers/harbours to commercial fishing. We must maintain and strengthen that advantage.
Mr Dunham: Good plan. 26 years, eh? Pretty good!
Mr BALDWIN: Good plan. So it goes on:
Since the closure of these rivers, Madam Speaker, has increased.
This is a very clear and definitive point. It is obvious that once the gill nets are removed from the river
systems, the Barramundi and the other species are allowed to build in numbers and increase the stocks
of fish. Once this has occurred, the fish naturally move throughout the river both upstream and outside
the system to seek food or to engage in their natural breeding cycles
There is a lot of information, a lot of technical information that has shown that the policy of river closure is a good policy and the effect on the commercials has been negligible. In fact, the commercial effort has increased over that time. The catch for recreational anglers who contribute far and away more money, and that doesn’t mean that they should be solely looked after, but far and away more money into the Territory economy - and not just into Darwin; a lot of these folk live in Darwin, they live in Alice Springs, they live in Katherine but they put their money into places like Daly River, Borroloola and all over the Top End of the Territory, Timber Creek - I shouldn’t forget Timber Creek - into those small regional towns where we are looking for extra effort.
So the information is there. As I said before, I think this is just a delaying tactic to get a little bit of distance between those 80% of the 141 submissions that want closure, to try and distance it from the CLP. They were doing the right thing, but we can’t follow them, so we’ll distance ourselves, delay this and then we’ll put the closure on. I hope that’s what you do because I’ll come out with a media release, if it is a full closure or a staged closure - and I should just touch on that staged closure that I wrote to the minister about. In my submission, what I said was if you could sit down and agree on the principles to a strategy, then there may be some room for a staged closure.
First and foremost, the CLP wants closure of McArthur River, no doubt about that in the submission, no doubt whatsoever, to the proposed closure lines in the discussion paper which were our closure lines as announced prior to the election. No problem with that. But if you could sit down and work out the principles of this strategy by the end of this year, say, and that is where the end of the year comes in, then there may be room for a phased closure or a staged closure of the McArthur River to allow the commercial element in that area to make some adaptations to their operations and as a good will gesture that they’d agree to do other things that were some of the principles of a greater strategy like reducing their Barramundi licences, like defining no-go areas around the Top End, and all of those things that I have mentioned, both in the submission and in the motion.
That is where the staged closure comes in. When I heard the minister, on the radio on 4 February, talk about how even the CLP wants a staged closure, I thought I’d better write to him and put it in clear writing for him - because I know how busy you can get as a minister, sometimes you don’t have time to read everyone’s submission fully - so I included a copy of the submission for him and clearly articulated what I meant by staged closure and when you would implement it if you could get agreement by all stakeholders. If you couldn’t, I said very definitively, close the McArthur River now to the closure lines proposed by the CLP and that have been proposed - the very same lines - in the discussion paper. So I will never walk away from that, and I made it very clear to the minister so that he doesn’t misrepresent it.
Whilst this amended motion is all about self congratulations, or self-flagellation or whatever you call it for the Labor party, we are not going to support these. We know that we haven’t got the numbers to …
Mr Henderson: Not going to support the $1.5m? All right. I’ll let them know.
Mr BALDWIN: Well, we can’t break up the motion, and just for those that are going to read this, there are a number of paragraphs that are all about self-congratulations to the Labor party, blah, blah, blah, and notes with concern the failure of CLP …
Mr Dunham: We could change it and then you’d get a chance to speak again.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, I suppose I could move an amendment but then we haven’t got the numbers, so that is why I prefaced my debate with the fact that this sort of amendment was going to come in.
But at the end of the day, the principles still remain. It doesn’t matter what you change here tonight, it doesn’t matter what occurs in terms of this motion, the principles still remain. The minister has to make a decision, and he is going to upset some people. You can’t have win, win, win, win all the time. He’ll have to make that decision, and I hope for the sake of all of the stakeholders, whether it is the Mabunji, the traditional owners, the commercials, the recreational, that the minister makes the decision to close the river fully to commercial fishing. And then he should make another announcement, as the previous shadow minister for fisheries asked for: the closure of the Adelaide River and then Bynoe as well.
At that point, I bet you, all of the stakeholders would want to sit down and really, really quickly work out the strategy for the next 10 years, and what a great thing that would be. That’s the intent of this motion, to focus on that so that the Northern Territory enhances its position as the pre-eminent place in the world to come to catch a game fish called the Barramundi. We should always have that as our major focus, and all of the material is there to support the way of doing that because it has been done by the CLP government over the last 20 years.
Madam Speaker, that’s what I hope is the outcome of tonight, and I look forward with great interest to the decision on or before the 15th as the minister said. I will leave it at that.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is the amendment be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 14 Noes 9
Mrs Aagaard Mr Baldwin
Mr Ah Kit Mr Burke
Mr Bonson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Ms Carter
Mr Henderson Mr Dunham
Mr Kiely Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Dr Lim
Ms Martin Mr Maley
Mr McAdam Mr Reed
Ms Scrymgour
Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Mr Wood
Amendment agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the amended motion be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 14 Noes 9
Mrs Aagaard Mr Baldwin
Mr Ah Kit Mr Burke
Mr Bonson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Ms Carter
Mr Henderson Mr Dunham
Mr Kiely Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Dr Lim
Ms Martin Mr Maley
Mr McAdam Mr Reed
Ms Scrymgour
Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Mr Wood
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Can I just say to the government members that was a great example of how you are not supporting your motions by default. It was a rather weak answer to the question when it was your motion. Now, technically, it should have been resolved in the affirmative because you do have the numbers, but when voices are so obviously stronger against you, that the only way you can resolve it is to go to a Division. I know I have mentioned this to you before, but when it is your motion –and I shouldn’t be telling you how to do it - you have to speak up. You saw exactly what happened then and it was a pretty low response to your minister’s amended motion.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I move –
(1) outline in a concise, fully-costed and transparent manner the various health and
community services initiatives promised by the government;
(2) in the absence of fulsome reporting on these matters during this debate, provide
detailed position papers and briefings by departmental officers to the Public Accounts
Committee for investigation this financial year;
(3) give the Public Accounts Committee a reference to report to parliament on the fiscal
integrity and transparency of the government promises by August 2002; and
(4) brief the Assembly on her efforts in this important portfolio to date, as the necessity to do
this now is urgent, given plummeting levels of confidence in the minister’s capacity to
undertake the level of effort required.
Madam Speaker, I say at the outset that I suspect that this will be amended, and that suspicion seems founded on an unsigned amendment that is been circulated that is backwards looking.
I would ask that the minister take this motion on board with both hands because in effect it is something she should be happy to shout from the rooftops. The motion is not talking about anything we’ve done; the motion is talking about the things that have been promised by the government in the mini-budget. So I would have hoped that the minister would have seen these as very important issues; I would have hoped that the minister had a full knowledge of them given that they had appeared in election manifestos, they have been fully costed, we’ve been told, by Access Economics. They’ve now appeared in an independent Treasury document which is at arm’s length from government. So she has at least three source documents to go to, and in the event that this discussion is able to outline some of those various government initiatives and it gives her an opportunity to strut her stuff, to parade for the benefit of the members the wonderful things that are being done in her portfolio area. If it does that, the motion cascades.
So what I’ve said at paragraph (2) is that if we have a debate here and the minister is able to satisfy all of us in this House that the initiatives that the Labor Party have taken to the electorate and they appear in the budget documents are good and costed and transparent, there will be no need for the subsequent paragraphs.
I would caution also the seeming common practice of talking about what’s behind us in the 26 years because this motion is actually forward looking. This motion says that we would like to look at the initiatives as they go forward and I think this is something that has been demanded of us by our constituents. Our constituents, I’m sure, would be asking all of us to be looking forward, particularly in the health and community services sector and particularly if you did believe some of the garbage that is trotted about how terrible things have been over the last 26 years. This is indeed the time to put your stamp on it.
I would like to canvass several important areas and I know that some of my colleagues may like to canvass others. Particularly, I’d like to talk to the issue of the promise for a birthing suite and an oncology unit and a hospice. I put those three together because if you go to the budget documents, you’ll see that they all have a similar link. I go to Budget Paper No 3 of the mini-budget 2001-02. Starting at page 39, we have a promise for an increase to hospital nurses by 75 over the next two years. That increase starts this year with 10 nurses, then 30, 50 and 75. This is something that has been looked at with great interest by nurses, and I’m sure it’s something that in the course of this debate there will be significant data to give the nurses to either put some of their alarm to rest or, if the minister is unable to divulge in adequate detail what’s happening, I’m sure it is something she is going to have to get work on. That is another ulterior motive, I have to tell you.
So at page 39 we have a promise of 75 nurses. The very next page talks about an oncology and radiotherapy unit at RDH, a pretty good initiative. There are some risks associated with it, particularly in terms of attracting staff and some of those issues. But the capital cost only is included and if you realise that this is a significant building, a building that is going to have quite significant utility services connected to it and also quite significant staff, you read there that additional nursing staff will be met from the 75 additional nursing staff that have been promised.
So first we promise hospital staff, then we have an oncology unit that bids on some of the 75 and then, if we go across a couple more pages, we find at page 45 another two promises: the construction of a hospice at RDH. The hospice will also be staffed from the increase in nurses included out of the 75. The next item is the construction of a birthing centre that will also be staffed from the nurses out of the 75.
I’ve done some quick and dirty maths, and I think that the minister may be able to provide better figures, but the figures I have aren’t too bad and certainly they are sourced. In terms of the oncology facility, I suspect that the ongoing costs will be in the vicinity of $1.27m per annum. The hospice …
Mr Stirling: Well, we’d really trust your figures, wouldn’t we?
Mr DUNHAM: I’m happy for you to provide alternative figures.
Mr Stirling: Who would trust your figures? Discredited!
Mr DUNHAM: Picking up the interjection, the figures may well have a plus or minus factor on them that the minister can clarify for us. But I’d be very surprised …
Mr Stirling: Who cares what figures you put down here? No one would believe them. You might.
Mr DUNHAM: Who cares? We do care, because there is a recurrent factor in here of zero. The reason we care is that, if you want to run this facility, it’s not just a matter of machines and edifices, you actually need recurrent costs. We care because the people who use it will be people suffering …
Mr Stirling: You simply lied in the last budget.
Mr DUNHAM: You’ll have to withdraw that, I’m afraid.
Mr STIRLING: I withdraw that.
Mr DUNHAM: The other reason we care is the people who use this facility are suffering from cancer, and we think it’s important that they have a very clear opinion of a government promise that affects people with this terrible condition. That’s why we care. I was very happy for the interjection.
We think $1.27m is about the recurrent. The hospice, we think $1.5m, and that’s based on the fact that in ACT, I understand a 17-bed facility is about $2.5m. A facility here, you’re probably looking at about half that size but with oncosts, I’d say about $1.5m. The birthing centre - and don’t forget these aren’t in the hospital because the people in the palliative care groups, the people in the birthing centre groups and the midwifery groups do not want a hospital-based service. So, while the government promises to have it on the campus - and there is a very good, sound reason for that - these are not hospital services. In fact, if the hospital is a hospice service, I’m sure that there would be many people out there in the palliative care associations who would have some concerns about that. The three services we’re talking about are coming out of the promise for 75 hospital nurses, and are three services that sit outside the hospital.
The birthing centre, obviously, I would assume would be 24-hours, and obviously it would have qualified midwives and obviously it would have more than one or two of them. The figures here are hard to estimate and I suspect it would cost probably as much as the hospice in terms of its staffing and maybe more. So, I’ve conservatively estimated about another $1.5m. So, we get to $4.27m that is already taken out of the nursing promise.
We also find there has been a sleight of hand in the sense that there has been a figure plucked from the air to say: ‘We think that in the next four years, nurses and medically qualified people will be so happy to live here that we’ll reduce the necessity to recruit them, and we’ll reduce that turnover so much that we’ll be able to find a million bucks worth of savings. In the fourth year, we’ll have a $1m recurrent in not having to recruit those people’. What they are saying is: 75 nurses in the hospital; there’s three services outside the hospital; plus we’re factoring out another $1m that we won’t need because we think that people will be so happy here that we won’t have the same levels of turnover. That’s over $5m.
In year four, we’re talking $5m worth of recurrent coming out of the promise for 75 nurses. The promise for 75 nurses is budgeted for; it’s in the paper at - in the fourth year - $11m per annum. Half of that has disappeared, so the nurses in the hospital who have heard a promise of 75 additional nursing staff in the hospital have been diddled out of half of them. Half of those nurses will not be able to be funded or, alternatively, the three very important services I mentioned, will not be able to run because there’s no recurrent for them.
I would see that this is a very significant issue because the clientele of these services is, as I said, people suffering from cancer, people who are terminally ill, and expectant mothers. I would think that this is a very serious matter for the government to address. None of these clientele should have their emotions toyed with. I believe that if the government is very serious about these problems, and if they’re very serious about solving them with the initiatives that are in these papers here, they should do the sums and they should portray to the people what the circumstances are.
That’s those three, and I would be very keen to hear from the minister her costings and her data about it because the lack of any recurrent defies belief. I would submit that there is absolutely nothing in the health and community services sector that can be done merely by machines and buildings without human services because the big cost, the big intervention, is human services. We’d like to see where they came from. We would like to see where the $5.2m-plus being pinched out of the hospital nurses will go.
We would also like to talk about - and I’m posing these not as solutions, but as questions because none of this data is ours. This data sits with the government. It is not historical data; it sits as promises. The information I’ve been able to garner has come from some other documents that are on the public record and I’m sure they’d be well and truly available to the minister.
Extensions to dialysis treatment - we heard in this current sittings of the Assembly that $400 000 has been provided for Tennant Creek and certainly, that appears to be brought forward because in the budget papers it was for next year. Unfortunately, the papers that I’ve seen - and the minister did talk about the necessity for some reports on this matter. There are some significant reports that are available but specifically address options for development of renal dialysis services in the Barkly. There was some good work done by the Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal and Tropical Health on the prevention and treatment options for renal disease in the Northern Territory with particular reference to the Barkly. I think there are source documents that would give us some indicators there.
Those source documents talk about the necessity for a Commonwealth grant of $555 000 and, in the absence of that grant, those services would be $835 000. That amount grows annually, so it appears that we have half the money in this year’s budget or, alternatively, the Commonwealth government has generously given us significant amount of money to make the service available to us.
I’m not arguing against the service necessarily, but I think that, again, as with the three cohorts of clientele in the other three services, there has been a significant amount of emotion attached to this particular argument. The argument has been such that it has been a censure motion in this House where some outlandish language was used, as one can do in a censure motion, that talked about blood on the hands and people dying while they were waiting for treatment and that sort of stuff. It is now an issue for the government to resolve, and it is an issue for the government to resolve in the sense that often the prognosis for people with end stage renal failure is not good, and they don’t have a long time to survive once they have that particular problem, and they have very few treatment options.
So if the government, having gone to the media, having run this on the TV and locally with people, gone to some small communities were some of these people originate from, cannot describe to us how they are going to facilitate this service within that amount of quantum funding available, they have to do some very hard work to either get the additional money and tell us where that comes from, be very transparent about the origins of the money, and describe the service, including to those people who will use it.
The other one we’d like some more data on is the youth night patrol. The youth night patrol has been costed at $310 000 though I don’t know why, because it appears that the government haven’t been able to describe the service. Certainly, the Minister for Justice appeared incapable of describing the parameters of the service. We do know that it will be 24-hours, articulating with the school-based service. Twenty-four hour services are notoriously expensive, and the reason for that is that, for some reason, people like to be paid more if they work in the middle of the night than if they work in the day. There are such things, with the good work done often by the union movement, people get a thing called penalties. We’re talking about the potential for a fairly expensive service here. We also don’t know how they are going to coerce, cajole, attract these young people into the vehicles to transport them to the shelter or home, whatever this thing is.
Given that there are people in vehicles, as a street intervention, given that somehow there is a legislative or social, or other means of cajoling people into the backs of these vehicles - and I hope they won’t be like night patrol vehicles, but let’s assume that is the name they’ve given them, they’ll be something similar - and that they are not boiled lollies or whatever and that they get these young people to these facilities which are perhaps shelters - I don’t know - I would imagine that they’d have to be very careful about the custodial arrangements that attend on those facilities. It is often the case that a young person who would be roaming the streets late at night, might have some other problems, not just the necessity for a bed. I would suggest that they would have to be very careful about some of the issues attending on those young people’s psychological state, for instance, and they would have to be very mindful, being a government institution, of some of the issues relating to youth suicide.
I would hope that having brought people to this place - we don’t know if it is against their will or not - I assume there would be some monitoring methodology that would be available so that people could monitor the state of these young people and so that you could make sure that some other emergency interventions were readily available in the case that there was a calamity on your hands. We need to know more about this, but in the first place, I would suspect that $310 000 for a 24-hour service that is mobile on the streets of Darwin and Palmerston is petty cash. That is my suggestion, and I would like the minister when she talks to this particular thing, particularly now that it has been announced, to describe the service. I would like to know the target group, I’d like to know their ages, I’d like to know just how this street intercept is going to work in terms of transporting those young people to a different place. I would like to know whether there is to be a legislative base to this, and I’d like to know whether the estimates for the $310 000 are reasonable and if they are, what they are based on.
We would like to also look at the initiatives to tackle illicit drugs, and it should be said at the outset that the opposition would support initiatives of this type.
Mr Stirling: What? Didn’t want to know about it for the years you were health minister! You denied it. Pretended it wasn’t happening. You hypocrite. Absolute hypocrite.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I will say that the word ‘hypocrite’ was objected to by a previous member of this parliament, the previous member for Karama actually, and it was found by Mr Speaker McCarthy at the time to be acceptable, and it got such common use that it was later withdrawn as a word for acceptable use in this parliament.
It is now gaining high level currency again. So if the word ‘hypocrite’ is acceptable, I don’t mind because it is a word I don’t mind using either, particularly in connection with those opposite because the hypocrisy that is shown in terms of the difficulty they have had accepting a service which I would have not only readily accepted, had I been the health minister, but which was in pretty good nick, and now we see it as being the source of a great series of excuses for why things can’t be done, why things have to be curtailed, and cut. I think that those are matters that should be put on the public record and they should be put on the public record in a way that is scientific, that is empirical and that has the basis for, dare I say it, some fiscal integrity and transparency. All of these issues we are talking about here are well and truly on the public record. They exist in figures and descriptions, in budget papers. They exist in press releases. They exist in …
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: You are a very noisy person, aren’t you? You are a very noisy person, and I tell you something: there is a theory that your noise was something you could turn off and on because we used to see it a lot. We now feel that this is possibly something you can no longer control and we are worried about you. The member for Nhulunbuy has obviously been consuming too much bauxite or something because his predecessor, just before he left this parliament, had a similar problem, an irrational rage, a screaming, a ranting, a vein would pop out of the side of his neck. We think that if you are able to control that rage, you should exhibit some of that control. If you are not able to control it, you should probably leave the House for a short time and have a rest.
What we are trying to say here is that these are initiatives that the government was proud enough of to take to the people for an election. They are issues that the government is proud enough of to have included in budget papers, so we know they exist. They are not decisions that have to be made, like we talked about river closures and whatever; these are post factum issues. They are issues that exist in these papers. We are saying to government: we are giving you an opportunity to shout from the rooftops just how good these initiatives are and with many of them, you will be surprised how we will come on board. I mean, it would be a very rare person today who wouldn’t want better service for cancer sufferers. It’s a rare person who wouldn’t want better services for the terminally ill or for expectant mothers.
So this is not something where you should be cowering and trying to gag the debate and have amendments that go back to the past. This is something where you should be setting your direction, and you should be saying to us: Look at this wonderful thing that we are doing for the terminally ill. You would be aware, and certainly a very short perusal of recent Hansards will show that my colleague the member for Port Darwin is heavily involved in this stuff. So we are not doing this as some sort of a tricky thing to say that we don’t support these initiatives. We are merely asking you to do what it is you say in your rhetoric. That is, be open, be consultative, be transparent, and to show - stakeholders, there’s another one - what it is you’re doing. We would see ourselves as stakeholders and we would see ourselves also as supporters with many of these things, so please don’t try and portray this as the opposition trying to embarrass the government because these are your promises. These are your numbers. We didn’t write any of these numbers in here. These numbers have come from the heads and the pens and the calculus of people on your side of politics.
So, returning to illicit drugs. The initiatives to tackle illicit drugs in all probability will be supported by this side of the House with very few exceptions. But we think it is important to look at them, we think it is important to debate them in a wider environment, we think it is important that differences of opinion - and there will be differences of opinion - should be explored because I can tell you that if all 13 of you sitting over there have the same opinion on drugs, you are probably telling porky pies, because this is a human behaviour, it is an illicit behaviour …
Mr Stirling: Which you refused to acknowledge. Didn’t exist!
Mr DUNHAM: That’s an interjection I’ll pick up. ‘You refused to acknowledge.’ This was debated in this House on many occasions, and independent analyses of this government’s efforts in drugs were done by groups outside the Northern Territory, and they rank this jurisdiction as the best in Australia. I’m quite happy to have the debate about history, I’m quite happy to parade our record, and it goes to the point I’m trying to make here. The point I’m trying to make is there will be different views on how effective your strategies are. We want to know about your strategies. We want to know about it. We are vitally keen to talk about it. There is a very strong expectation that a methadone maintenance program will be introduced. They were introduced in other places in Australia, the world won’t come to an end and people will receive methadone maintenance as, I would say, a very poor attempt to treat their addiction.
But the issue for the Labor Party is not to say, you know, we believe in methadone maintenance, you don’t, you’re wrong, we’re right. I think the issue is to explore it from an outcomes point of view. I think the issue for us is to say: ‘Well, let’s describe some end points and not journey points’. Because if all you are doing is describing the meandering path you are taking to get somewhere, it could well be we are actually going to the same place. I would suspect that on some occasions we are on the freeway and you are on the back lanes, but it could well be we both have the same end point in mind. It could well be we debate around this place, but our end points are exactly the same. Then I think some of the issues about how you get there are moot and they are moot to the extent - is it an economic imperative? Is it something that causes some collateral damage in other areas? Is there something that could be more efficiently done? That’s where the debate goes.
I am appealing to this minister to take the debate in that direction, to talk about she has a committee in place. Good idea. My own belief is that some of the issues have been decided and it’s possible that this committee is a charade parading as a consultative device, and it’s parading as consultative device to give some credibility to a decision that’s already been made. Now, if you stood up in this place tonight and you said: ‘Look, we are going to introduce a methadone maintenance program’, we would say: ‘Okay, it’s your call. You’re the government. Do it’. I think there would be an opportunity to debate the pros and cons of it, but it’s not something that we can forestall or abort or in any way make a position for government that has the legislative and resource capacity to do it. If you are going to do it, do it. And that goes to another theme that’s here, and that is the business of getting on with business.
I was reading a motoring magazine the other day, not something I do commonly, but I was reading it and I saw a product advertised to start recalcitrant cars and it was called ‘Start, you bastard’. I have been looking at Independent Motor Mart, which is next to me, and other places because I was hoping to buy a couple of them for the health minister. The problem we have here is inertia. The problem we have here is a ...
Mr Henderson: In your opinion.
Mr DUNHAM: Well, in the opinion of many. In terms of this House, for instance, we could start by signing off on the things we agree with. And there are lots of them. Lots and lots of things. Pretty much Territory Health Services, Health and Community Services, whatever the department is, is doing a lot of the things it used to do. I would suspect that a lot of the advice I got as a minister will be an exact replica of the advice that the current minister is getting. So there are many things we can sign off and say: ‘Well, okay, we agree with that’. We could politicise it, and that’s what the previous opposition health spokesman did. He often came in here with calamities of a particular client. He held up the circumstances of this client and said: ‘This person has disease X or problem Y and it’s the government’s fault’. I would prefer not to take that route because I think that, really, it’s quite a predatory action on the feelings and emotions of people out there. Most of them I think he treated like a dirty tissue anyway and threw their issues aside. But it is also a very offensive way of doing business, to parade the health circumstances of people in such a way.
So we are trying to set a stage here. The stage is if you’ve got all these good initiatives in here, please start boasting about them. Please tell us about them. Please do this fiscal integrity transparency thing with them and tell us what’s going on. We would also like you to start work – like, now - because there has been such a hiatus period that we think you’ve got to get on with the task. We also think that the amendment you’ve put of looking backwards, we could debate that, and I am quite happy to debate that. But I think it’s really in the interests of the government and the people we’re here to serve to look forward and to look at the initiatives that are on the table for the current health minister and for her to describe them fulsomely to us. I have left out Aboriginal health status and disabilities, but I think they are also issues that have to be brought into this argument, and I am hopeful that I will get another opportunity to talk about them tonight.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the motion be amended by omitting all words after ‘That’ and inserting in their stead:
this Assembly expresses its outrage at the CLP government’s deplorable neglect of health and
community services over its 26 years in power and applauds the present government’s
commitment to improving health and community services across the Territory through sound
and fair leadership.
Dr LIM: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. In the previous debate on the fisheries, Madam Speaker was in the Chair, and she in fact counselled the minister not to introduce the amendment until such time as the minister had spoken and at the end of her or his speech, the minister then moved the amendment. I suggest you follow suit.
Mr KIELY: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, might I also say that in the debate prior to that, it was the other way around. That it was really the choice of the Chair and it’s not the part of anyone on the floor to lecture the Chair on their responsibilities.
Mr DUNHAM: Could I speak to the point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker?
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was just about to say is there actually a point of order?
Mr DUNHAM: I think it could be resolved. I think the point that was made to Madam Speaker was that if we move immediately to this amendment, if the amendment is accepted, we are precluded from discussing the motion on the table. Given that this is General Business day, it would be good not to put those motions until the end of the debate. So for the minister to stand up and move the amendment is not a problem. The problem is whether she puts the amendment and precludes debate on the motion before the House from this side on General Business day.
Mr STIRLING: Can I just clear up this matter? It’s simply a mechanism to allow the minister to speak to an amendment. That does not preclude debate on the original motion. Both questions are on the floor. The original motion put forward by the shadow minister, the amendment put forward by the minister. If she chooses to put the amendment at the outset and speaks to the amendment, that is her prerogative.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me. I have something to say. There was clarification of this issue earlier in the evening when the Deputy Chair at that time sought clarification from the Clerk. Now, my understanding of that clarification coincides with what the Leader of Government Business and the Deputy Chief Minister has just stated. That is, members wishing to speak to either the amendment or motion may do so.
Mrs AAGAARD: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker.
I would like to talk tonight about the sad legacy that’s been left for us in the health portfolio, and also to look at the things which I have already started doing in this portfolio to turn this situation around. There have been a lot of questions tonight about funding, the budget and various other matters. The clear thing that we know is that when we came to office, the health budget was in a very, very serious situation indeed. I remind members that the shortfall was a massive $20m. To try and understand what $20m would mean, that represents approximately one-third of the funding available for the non-government sector or, to put it another way, the annual Katherine and Gove District Hospital budgets put together. This is a very significant amount.
We moved very fast to make sure that we could have a sustainable budget in the health portfolio. We had a mini-budget and all the details were already released in the mini-budget, so I feel there is absolutely no reason to go through those statements again. They are all in the mini-budget. I think one of the most serious things that we have been left with is an absolutely appalling legacy in indigenous health. Now I have to say that the former health minister did sign up on one very good thing, and that was on the primary health care zones. But what happened in the time before that? We have the most embarrassing and shameful situation in indigenous health. The outcomes for indigenous Territorians are unbelievable, and not only that, they are a national disgrace.
It is well known that indigenous life expectancy is not increasing at the same rate as non-indigenous life expectancy. In the period 1981 to 1995, life expectancy at birth was 75 years for non-Aboriginal males in the Northern Territory which is similar to that of Australian males overall, but it was only 58 years for Northern Territory Aboriginal males. In other words, an Aboriginal boy in the Territory could expect to live almost 18 years fewer than other Australian boys and while between the early 1980s and the early 1990s life expectancy increased by three years for Australians generally, for Northern Territory Aboriginal males, it only increased by 1.5 years.
For women, there haven’t even been these improvements. Between 1981 and 1995, females in the Northern Territory could expect to live 84 years, but not if they were Aboriginal. There was a 22 year gap. That’s a life expectancy of 62 years and, while life expectancy for non-Aboriginal Territorian women increased by two years between the early 1980s and early 1990s, there was barely any improvement for Aboriginal females. The health gains being enjoyed by other Australians are simply not being shared by Northern Territory Aboriginal people.
It is an absolutely appalling legacy that the CLP has left us.
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex, order! I ask the minister to resume her seat. Now, I point out to members in the House that when the shadow minister was speaking, there were limited interjections and when there was interjection, I called for order. I would ask members of the House to respect the minister’s speech. Continue, Minister for Health and Community Services.
Mrs AAGAARD: Since we’ve come to office, I’ve signed off on another seven primary health care zones. This will actually mean a very significant change in Aboriginal health over the next few years. Also, I made a point of going to visit the federal health minister soon after she was elected to government. I might add that I was the only health minister from any part of Australia that had actually visited her, and I’d have to say that we had a very cordial meeting. She has a strong commitment to indigenous affairs and I believe that the relationship which we started then will ensure that in fact indigenous matters in the Northern Territory in the health portfolio will in fact blossom over the next few years.
One of the most serious issues which I inherited from the previous government was something which I’ve already talked about in this House in these sittings, and that is the Alice Springs Hospital. I’d like to give a little bit of a history here. I became the minister on 27 August last year. I visited the Alice Springs Hospital the following week, which I am sure the members on the other side will be pleased to hear. In the week following that, I received a very urgent briefing from my department about the critical situation in the Alice Springs Hospital.
I immediately authorised a review of the Alice Springs Hospital, and the review was undertaken by Dr John Mulligan who is the Vice-President of the Australian Council on Health Care Standards. This report was delivered to me in October and we moved immediately to implement the things in the review. I’m very happy to say that there is a turnaround in the Alice Springs Hospital. There is a turnaround, and isn’t it wonderful that we’d won the election because otherwise goodness knows what the people of Alice Springs would be expecting now from their hospital.
Another situation we inherited: the private wing of the Alice Springs Hospital. Once again; this is a very sad situation. The issue with the private wing of the Alice Springs Hospital is that in the minds of the people who wish to put in a tender for this hospital wing, 15 beds was not a viable service for a private hospital. That’s the advice that I received from my department: 15 beds was not a viable service.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. Now on two occasions - I was happy to let her go last night- the minister has talked about a tender process. There was not a tender process, and I would like her to table those documents relating to the tender.
Mr Stirling: She doesn’t have to table anything.
Mr Dunham: She is not right, mate. It’s called a fib.
Dr Lim: And you know it’s not right.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Which point of order specifically are you referring to?
Mr DUNHAM: She has referred both last night and tonight to a tender process that involved some bidders, and I would like her to table the papers relating to that tender process.
Mr HENDERSON: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the member for Drysdale can’t ask for or demand any documents to be tabled in this House unless the member is quoting from them, so he’s in no position and there’s no standing order to compel the minister to table any document that she is not talking from.
Mr DUNHAM: Unless she is claiming there was a process that didn’t exist, which could be a fib.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. If you want to raise any issue of accuracy, you may do that in reply.
Mrs AAGAARD: Another area which has already been touched on tonight is that of illicit drugs. Sadly, the previous government did not really have a strategy for drugs. We moved quickly to establish a Ministerial Task Force on Illicit Drugs and I know that the member for Drysdale has made comments in regards to drugs in the Northern Territory. I’d like to invite him to make a submission at one of the public hearings of this task force. They’ll be meeting in Palmerston, they’ll be meeting in Darwin, they’re going to Alice Springs, they’re going to Nhulunbuy, Katherine, Tennant Creek, and I’d be very pleased if he made a submission.
Also, the member for Drysdale believes that we have already decided on what sort of actions are going to happen in relation to drugs in the Northern Territory. We have a task force which is a group of experts plus, I might add, Dr Valerie Asche who is a community member of this group, who are looking at these issues very seriously. They’ll be reporting to government with recommendations on the ways in which we should move ahead. We’ll look at those, and we will take up those things which we are able to at the time.
Linked with drugs is the sad situation in relation to the Northern Territory Tobacco Act. For the last three years, we’ve received the Dirty Ashtray Award. I sincerely hope we don’t receive it again this year. Next month, in March, we will be releasing a discussion paper which will outline options for changes to the Northern Territory Tobacco Act. Tobacco, as most people know, has very serious health consequences. It is linked to heart disease, stroke as well as cancer. In fact, one out of five Territorians die from direct smoking consequences. This is a very serious matter.
Another area which bothers us is the area of disability. On taking office, once again, this was an area which was completely in disarray. In relation to disability and the unmet need funding, this is something which we have looked at very carefully. We have already conducted public forums on the unmet needs of people with disabilities and, as the member for Karama pointed out last night, the feedback from the sector is that they believe there has been a much fairer distribution of unmet need funding in their latest allocation rounds, and the funds have gone to the key areas of need and priority. This is evidence that funding for this crucial sector follows our commitment to listen to and consult with those affected. This is the kind of accessibility that counts.
I guess one of the most difficult areas in this portfolio has been the non-government sector. The non-government sector appears to have been significantly neglected over the past few years. Quite a number of non-government sector people have come to me and have said: ‘We haven’t received any extra funding for seven years. We have got CPI increases in the last couple of years, but we haven’t had any significant increases for seven years’. This is a very, very difficult situation for a new government, particularly when we have funding constraints, so what we have set in place is a way of reviewing that whole system of the non-government sector and in another sittings, I will be reporting on that.
Accessibility seemed to have been something that bothered the members opposite last night. I’d like to say that I’ve actually met with several hundred, not just non-government sector people because they’re not the only people in the health sector. There are also peak bodies. I know that the previous government wasn’t very interested in peak bodies, but we’ve made a real effort to have a relationship with different organisations.
I have already established quarterly meetings with the Nurses Federation, with the AMA, with the Division of General Practice, the Dental Association, also various unions who are involved with the health sector. All of these people have said to me: ‘We’ve never had access to a health minister before’, and they keep coming back and bringing up issues, and we’re dealing with them.
There were some very sad comments made last night in relation to my department and the staff in my department. I would like to - on the record - state my absolute commitment both to my CEO, the management of my department, and also to the many hard-working people in my department. This is a very difficult portfolio and it is a very difficult department as well. The issues that we deal with are ones of life and death and I can only say that, as the minister for health, I am very happy that I have such a professional department to assist me in this portfolio.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, It is very late and I really don’t think that it is necessary for us to go on with this too much. I’d be happy to just sit down and get on with the rest of the evening.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, goodness me, what an exhausting time the Minister’s having. No, I can’t support this motion and I’m going to tell you why and by that I mean, of course, the amended motion.
Yesterday we heard the minister’s statement in response to various things and it lacked a lot of substance. The community here in the Northern Territory wants answers to health issues. Not all of this sort of waffle that we got tonight. For example, here are a couple of questions for the minister. What I’d like to know is: are non-registered staff still being used at Alice Springs Hospital? Yesterday she claimed that three weeks after she was appointed to the position of minister, she learnt there were problems at Alice Springs Hospital. Goodness me! It took three weeks to figure that one out, three weeks to learn that her second-largest hospital was in strife.
Now she is claiming that there’s been a big increase in staffing down in Alice Springs Hospital over recent times. Well, let’s know how many. How many extra nurses have you got in? Comparing that to, of course, how many vacancies do you still have down there? Once again, I ask: are non-registered staff still being used at Alice Springs Hospital?
That brings me to Royal Darwin Hospital. I’ve been told that Royal Darwin’s having trouble filling shifts every single day. In fact, they are having to use 60 agency shifts per day to fill the rosters.
Mrs Aagaard: Oh, so they fill the rosters?
Ms CARTER: Okay, they are filling the positions there on the boards, but that raises the issue of occupational health and safety. What I understand is happening is that those 60 shifts that are being filled by nurses every day at Royal Darwin Hospital are not nurses fresh from a restful day at home, or fresh from looking after the children during the morning and coming to work in the afternoon. Many of those shifts are being done as double shifts by public service nurses who, for example, might have worked an early shift in the morning. Then we’re having trouble recruiting and retaining staff at the hospital. We want to know what percentage of your agency staff has already worked the shift during that day in the hospital? It is dangerous to have nursing staff, or any staff, working hour after hour. There’s a question for you because we are not getting too many answers.
The promises of the Labor government have included that we will have 75 new nurses over the next four years. The shadow minister has capably explained away many of those positions. We have the details there: 10 this year, 30 next year, 35 the year after. We are six months into your term. What I’d like to know is: have the vacancies that are already there been filled? Have those extra five nurses that the last six months should have had on board, have they come in? Have you recruited them? The reason being, as I said yesterday, many nurses would have voted Labor based on that promise. I argue you’ve deceived them because I bet you those five nurses haven’t arrived - even one extra allocation in every hospital through the Northern Territory in the last six months. I guarantee you it hasn’t happened.
There’s an interesting little strategy that the Labor government has brought in during the last six months. It was a bit of a Christmas present for nurses. It’s a beauty, this one. For nurses who have been here two years, they get a study grant of $300. For nurses who have been here for five years, they get a study grant of $600. I can tell you from my friends who are nurses - and most of them have been here for more than five years – there was quite a giggle factor attached to that. Why is that? Sure, nurses appreciate study grants and they appreciate getting extra money in their pay packet, but they just can’t believe that this money was just handed out, that there’s no expectation that you actually do some study to get the grant. You don’t have to front up with your receipts for doing a course or your receipts for buying some text books. That money just turned up in the pay packet the week before Christmas. I can tell you my husband was delighted with the arrival of that money, and I can’t for the life of me understand why you didn’t attach that money to some requirement to actually have to do some studies.
Mr Henderson: Did he spend it on study? Did he?
Ms CARTER: No, he didn’t spend it on study. Of course, he didn’t.
Mr Stirling: He should give it back because he’s been dishonest by your own terms.
Ms CARTER: No, why would he?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Mr Stirling: About as honest as you are, you idiot!
Mr DUNHAM: I think ‘idiot’ is a little out of order, don’t you Madam Speaker, particularly when it’s coming from an idiot?
Madam SPEAKER: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear him. Order!
Ms CARTER: I am just pointing out to you, that if you’ve got an activity like this - this would have cost you in government hundreds of thousands of dollars, this little activity here. The nurses wouldn’t mind in the least. I can tell you from other friends that they wouldn’t have minded in the least if you’d attached it to some form of requirement to actually do something.
But many of them were shaking their heads because they know how tight money is and many of them have shaken their heads over this little effort of yours. Of course, the reality is that this is a recurrent activity. Every year from now on, this little thing is going to turn up in their pay packet and quite frankly, on behalf of nurses, thank you very much for it. I’m just astounded that you haven’t attached to it some requirement that some study be done. Indeed, as the member for Araluen says, its probably inexperience that’s caused it. So as a retention activity, I doubt very much whether it is going to have any sort of impact.
Let’s go on to the hospice. I’m very pleased that there’s been a working party, and I certainly was aware of that, anyway, that there was a working party set up to look at the hospice. The research that I’ve conducted over the last couple of years on this instance does get me into a little trouble …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Look, I’m not going to tolerate that sort of interruption at this time of night. Now just stop it or else you will all be thrown out. The member for Port Darwin should be heard in silence. And that applies to the member for Drysdale, as well as everyone else, because you have been very disruptive this evening. Now, all of you, on both sides of the House, stop it!
Ms CARTER: Madam Speaker, I am pleased that there’s been a working party set up to look at the hospice. I know when I raise this issue from time to time it upsets some people. My concern has always been with regard to the size of the proposed hospice. From the research that I have conducted I have been told that you must have a unit that has at least 15 beds. At the moment in Darwin, we don’t generate the need for a 15 bed hospice but that has been a decision that the Labor people have made. And good luck to you, and I am glad in that way that you have done it, but I do have serious concerns about the viability of such a unit. The minister for health has raised this issue of viability a couple of times during the last few days. One instance she raised the issue of the Palmerston Health Clinic and the 24 hour service. Because of the cost involved, not viable, can’t have it. At another time, the 15 bed private health wing in Alice Springs Hospital - 15 beds, not viable, can’t have it. So this raises with me a concern that a hospice that might have let say 10 to 12 beds is not going to be viable.
What do we do in that instance? Well, we might be a little bit creative. We might make it a 20 bed unit and at this point in time we might have six or seven palliative care patients in there. Who are the other patients that might be in that unit? I would argue that they might be nursing home patients. I have very serious concerns about co-locating a nursing home and hospice. Why do I have those concerns? Because of the research that I have done. I have visited many hospices in many countries, I am pleased to say, and I have had advice from absolute experts in this area: do not co-locate palliative care patients in a nursing home environment. Why is that? Because the nursing home patients will be in that place possibly for years. What do they see? People dying day after day. They see the ravages of an illness such as cancer and how disturbing will that be for them? That is one of the reasons why it has been put to me strongly: do not co-locate nursing home and hospice patients.
My other concern, of course, is what type of nursing home patient/client might you have in this place and, without putting a fine point on it, I know there are some very difficult, heavy nursing cases in Darwin with brain-damaged young people. Possibly they might be the sort of people that you are having trouble placing and they may be the sort of people that you are tempted to co-locate in a hospice, a place for the dying.
I put it to the minister to think very carefully if you are planning a joint facility in order to have a hospice, a building with a badge called hospice on it. Be very careful about the sort of patients and clients that you put in there because one of the problems, of course, is once that it starts to become a nursing home you find it is swamped by nursing home-type patients and the people who require palliative care can’t get a bed. The nursing staff who want to concentrate on palliative care, who want to provide that special kind of service, don’t want to provide nursing home care. It is a different sort of service and they would not be attracted to providing services like that in such a unit.
So be very careful with what you are going to do with your hospice, and certainly I hope you come out with a discussion paper so that the community can have some sort of input in to what you want to do there.
I will also mention the youth patrol. I understand the promise is for $320 000 a year for the youth night patrol. I have very serious concerns about how well this is going to work, but I agree with the minister for justice that you do have to try these things to see how they go and to offer a variety of services to the community. As I say, I do have concerns about it. My preference would be to see the sobering-up shelter expanded. At the moment what’s happening on particular nights of the week is that it doesn’t take very long, a few hours before it is fully booked up, and, of course, that means that clients that could have gone to the sobering-up shelter are going out to the lockup and that is not really good enough. My preference, as I say, would be to see that expanded.
Just as a quick note, and perhaps the minister can respond at some point, I noticed that over the Christmas period I called in to the Darwin Community Health Centre one morning and it was shut. I don’t know how long it was shut for during that period, but it is a concern that that community service had been closed down. In the same light, Breast Screen has also had a long period of time where it has been shut down. I did have one woman contact me with concerns over it and so it is an issue out there in the community. I believe it was shutdown for about three months and that is a real issue.
In conclusion, I don’t support this amended motion. I think that the minister is probably a nice person, she has been elected by her friends in caucus but ability is the key characteristic that is needed here, not popularity. The current minister has really failed to demonstrate ability. She says that she has consulted widely and is accessible to key agencies because she attends lots of public functions. Well, I’m sure many of us are aware, particularly in the non-government sector, the frustration that many of the key people have had in trying to meet with the minister and instead are told: ‘If you’ve got a problem, speak to one of my minders’.
We have also heard that since she has come in to the position, she has spoken several hundred people during that period. Well, a little bit of maths there works it out: if that’s 200 people in 26 weeks, she has seen about eight people a week. Quite frankly, in that sort of position you really need to be opening your diary up and allowing yourself to meet many more people; I would say at least 20 people a week. I think eight is nowhere near good enough.
There is also a little rumour around that the minister does like to get home at a reasonable hour and I guess we can all understand that. But is it all a little bit too hard? The minister does only have one portfolio. My recommendation at this point of time is that if she’s not finding it something that she can cope with, do the right thing and ask her friends to re-elect somebody else and certainly my recommendation would be either the member for Arafura or the member for Johnston.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to the amended motion. It is a very balanced motion in that not only does it deplore the neglect of health and community services over the 26 years in power, it also applauds our commitment to improving those outcomes on behalf of the Territory people. I would like to touch on both those themes with regard to remote health issues, particularly with some examples drawn from my background including my electorate in Central Australia.
I think you could say without any fear of contradiction that if you want to look around at where the neglect of our health system has been most damaging to Territorians, it would have to be in our bush communities. Where we debate the levels of secondary and tertiary health services in our urban centres, in many of the remote communities it is still a battle to get primary health care consolidated and effective for the population. What we have reaped from that is an increasing, tragic harvest of chronic disease and other disabilities that have flowed increasingly into our central health services overburdening everything from accident and emergency to the chronic disease wards to child care wards. Essentially, the situation, far from getting better over the last 20 years I’ve been out bush, has escalated into further and further dysfunction, particularly when you look at the situation with chronic disease, and very preventable diseases, the things that can be dealt with, the preventative health, primary health care level to the point where even simple things like keeping hydration rates up in adults in communities can make a huge difference on the possibility of the development of renal disease. Very, very simple things, and it would require only that we consolidate a basic service in these communities. Surely that is not too much to ask.
In the case of Labor, we are taking up this challenge. It is a considerable challenge, and it is going to be a very difficult challenge to meet. But the way we’re going to proceed - and we’re very open about this - it was built in to the full range of our policies prior to the election, we are going to work in very strong partnerships with people in the Northern Territory, very strong partnerships with people in our remote population centres. We have recognised that we need to mobilise and work with community groups to achieve any improvement in the current situation. This approach underpins all of our main policies in health, in education, employment creation, economic development, and in crime prevention. So you will see a very consistent approach from this government, in terms of the way we are going to set about it.
The most recent example that I’ve been involved in was the launch of our crime prevention policies and our Office of Crime Prevention. The hallmark of that is going to be a very wide system of community groups and community advisory structures that we can go to, to jointly generate ideas on how to tackle these problems. The same will apply to health; the same will apply to education, very much embodied in the Collins report, which we are, for the first time, going to give serious implementation to. The Collins report not only talks about health and education, but it talks about the need for both health and education to be put under very strong local control as well as the input from government.
If you are going to talk about employment in remote communities, you have to have very strong participation and mobilisation of the local community. These are more than just broad themes; they are practical principles which will steer government initiatives, community by community, neighbourhood by neighbourhood.
Let me take some examples based on health issues in the bush. When dealing with indigenous communities, the principles I’ve outlined dictate that the process should be driven and owned by the people themselves. This empowered community approach has been historically lacking in many of the dealings between government administrations and indigenous communities throughout our history. We understand that a regime imposed on a community, no matter how well meaning in intent, will not succeed without the empowerment of that community to make decisions and run programs, and hence own the outcomes. The notion that we know what is best for them is the thing of the past. This is not to suggest that we will be abandoning responsibility for providing clinics and other health services, but rather that we will be more focussed on working with communities in partnership to achieve better health outcomes.
On 28 September 2001, the NT government signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Commonwealth government aimed at accessing Commonwealth funding for increasing indigenous people’s access to primary health care services through their new Primary Health Care Access Program. Through this Memorandum of Understanding, the Territory stands to significantly benefit by the Commonwealth accepting responsibility for funding the shortfall associated with the inaccessibility of the Medicare system to NT indigenous people. By signing the MOU, the Territory is poised to receive significantly increased funding for comprehensive primary health care and improved joint planning processes. The Commonwealth has already approved $2.1m per annum in Primary Health Care Access Program funding for five Central Australian zones. The total amount of funding to be allocated to the NT health care system is likely to be in excess of $60m. The five Central Australian zones to benefit from this injection of funds are Anmatjere, Eastern Arrernte Alyawarra, Northern Barkly, Warlpiri and Luritja-Pintubi. This funding increase will have a dramatic impact on improving the health services and primary health care in these communities. In addition to the five Central Australian zones, two further zones are to be established this year for Borroloola and Darwin. Others will follow.
You have got to ask: what was the previous government doing, for years on end where this negotiation has been concluded within months of us getting into government? We are serious about getting resources out there, and we’re serious about putting those resources and the programs under more direct joint management arrangements with the groupings that I’ve outlined in this statement.
So, what’s out there in these zones? What are we building on? We have committed professionals, both Aboriginal and others, who have struggled for many years to improve health and wellbeing, hampered by a shameful lack of resources and a lack of sympathy and commitment by the previous government. I am sure that the new funding will greatly encourage these people to get in there and have another go at building these services into a consolidated form - in many cases for the first time.
We have a rich history of local successes, often ephemeral, but strong indicators of best practice and local innovation which can serve as a starting point for development of broader and more consistent programs. We have Aboriginal and professional leaders, people who are always ready to respond with energy and goodwill to the prospect of mutual initiatives with government. You have to admire their persistence and resilience given the number of times in the past where they have committed all to an initiative on behalf of their people, only to find the support wasn’t there as promised or was frittered away over time. They are there. They’ll have another go, and there will certainly be goodwill and consistent support on our part. If they want to go a mile, we’ll go a mile with them.
We have the crucial ability of communities to break through the constraints which often prevent broad and holistic approaches bridging education, health and employment to be formulated. It is only when you get to the community level that the barriers that often appear between agencies within a government can be broken down by the sheer imperative of having to work together to make any impact on the very serious problems and challenges that people in remote communities are facing. I am sure that the arrival of government espousing a clear commitment to local partnerships will engender an exciting renewal for remote and regional based people in the health and related areas.
I will cite, just very quickly, some examples of the sort of growing points that I’m talking about. The communities of Ali Curung, Lajamanu and Yuendumu have developed Aboriginal law and justice programs, Ali Curung being by far the most established. Lajamanu is substantially on the way to getting programs together, Yuendumu is just starting. What is so important in those initiatives is that, by starting at a much broader level within the community of reasserting the authority of the senior people in the families of that community, by reasserting the relationship of their authority with the authority of our courts, our police, our health professionals and our educators, they’ve been able to develop a very powerful climate in which to put individual initiatives that might be addressing violence against women, truancy and vandalism by children, substance abuse by adults, and, of course, interwoven with all of that, the impact that all of those activities are having on the health of the people in the community.
The establishment, for example, of safe houses for women in both Lajamanu and Ali Curung have led naturally to women’s health programs, to nutrition programs for infants. So one thing flows into the other and that’s what happens when you break open the barriers from one type of government program to another and involve a very strong commitment by the local community. They’re living examples of what could be done and will be done with this new funding and with this new approach in zones within our remote communities.
In the area of telemedicine, the earlier work which I was very pleased to be involved in with Tanami Network and the current bids by the ODN open up enormous possibilities for telemedicine to be put out bush, not as an imposed initiative originating from town, but as a partnership between community based organisations with Aboriginal directors and health professionals working in our health system.
One example I will highlight tonight is the very real possibility of having very powerful eye care programs originating from the urban centres like Alice Springs where, literally, a health worker or a nurse in a community armed with a digital camera and special lighting can take a digital image of a person’s eyes, transmit it immediately into town for archiving and examination by a specialist which then serves as a base for our periodic visits for surgery on conditions that can be operated on, and certainly, over time, providing a very good record of the progress of any disease in a particular person’s case. That’s a very easy innovation once we’ve got the digital technologies out there and it means the placement of an eye specialist in Alice Springs actually transmits to a service that goes throughout the region with very simple equipment and with very little cost involved in terms of the transmission of these images.
The last one I would like to call attention to is the nutrition programs at Laramba community. I certainly highlighted these some time ago in this House. That is again a situation where a very strong partnership between, in this case, the Laramba Community Council and specialists working in the nutrition area – everything from horticulturists going out to that community to help them produce their own fresh food through to the nutritionists giving the community advice on the best way to prepare and mix those food types for everyone from children to the old and the infirm. So there’s a community that’s realised that everything leads together; there are educational aspects to that program, there is the actual job creation of growing their own fresh produce and then the work that the health workers and nurses have been trained into those specialties to carry out the program.
Madam Speaker, I can say we are very excited about this program. It’s a new approach and it’s certainly an increased resource base that will impact on the key areas that we’ve got to do something about. We’ve got to turn around the generation of more cases of chronic disease that are flowing into our hospital system and eating up enormous resources within our health budget and within our health system. We are very committed to this and it’s very much in line with the approach we are taking in government to the programs we are initiating.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I rise to make a short contribution to this debate. I am aware of the late hour, so I will get through this quickly. I am starting to get an impression of how the health policy the minister for health is going to proceed. I have only had a chance to glance at it fairly quickly, but I have brought up the Labor Party’s health policy and platform, some six pages or five pages off the Internet to discover, as I go through the objectives - and I’ve yet to go through the rest of the paper in any detail - that the word ‘hospital’ in their whole health policy appears once. The word ‘nurse’ does not appear, neither does the word ‘doctor’.
Mr Henderson: We have a hospital policy. There’s about 20 pages of it. Wrong policy.
Mr ELFERINK: That’s interesting because this is the stuff that you put out to the public. Have you got another policy out there? This is very interesting because he says: ‘Oh, we’ve got about 20 pages of it’. Well, put it on the Internet. Or have you got another policy that you have tucked away in a draw and one for public consumption?
I listened also very carefully to the Attorney-General’s contribution. He mentioned the word ‘nurse’ twice, once for the purpose of taking photographs - which is no doubt important - of peoples eyes; the second time he used the word ‘nurse’ was in delivery of another primary care service, a nutritional program. Did he use the word ‘doctor’? No. I didn’t hear him use it. Did he use the word ‘hospital’? No. I didn’t hear him use it.
Considering that one of the problems we have, and certainly the minister for health herself alluded to this issue, is that the hospitals are currently one of the major problems in the Northern Territory, and the Alice Springs Hospital is certainly, no doubt. The tales that I hear, the stories that I hear of people lying on trolleys in A and E not for a few hours, but for days, waiting for beds to become available. When the superintendent of the hospital himself at a recent meeting made observations as to how the hospital was run, you would have thought that he would have made some effort to try and temper his language, but the term that he used was ‘continual crisis’. And when he was referring to the ICU, he used the term ‘unsafe’.
We heard from the minister for health that she has been to Alice Springs once. Shortly after she was made the minister, she visited Alice Springs and she said …
Dr Toyne: Nonsense. She’s been down there a half a dozen times.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, whatever. But the point is that she says: ‘I was made minister on such and such a date’ - 27 August if memory serves me. ‘I then decided that Alice Springs Hospital had a problem so I ordered a review which I got in October’. I find it a little bit surprising that if a hospital superintendent would go to a health minister and say: ‘We have a serious problem’, use the term ‘crisis’ and the health minister acknowledges the word ‘crisis’ and she then engages in a review which takes a month. Surely she can respond more effectively than that. But we find that she says: ‘Now we have set about creating Aagaard’s turnaround. We are going to turn around the Alice Springs Hospital’. Well, the Alice Springs Hospital is still 50 nurses short and there is no sign whatsoever that those 50 placements are going to be found. This problem is still going on. The problem continues to this day. They say: ‘Oh, it’s a product of the former CLP government’, but the fact is that their promises say that they’re going to fix up these issues and their promises are failing to fix up these issues. In fact, they’re getting worse. The situation in the hospital in Alice Springs today is worse than it was when they came to power.
The other issue which I wish to raise fairly quickly is the issue of the doctor at Hermannsburg, and I heard the Attorney-General saying: ‘We are going to be starting to put real effort into the bush. We are going to have primary health carers as one of our major issues’. I would like to hear from the government why on earth, then, with this focus on this primary approach -so people won’t end up in hospitals further down the track, I presume is the thought behind it - why on earth is the Northern Territory government cutting $25 000 of support away from the doctor’s position in Hermannsburg?
I’m not hearing anything, Madam Speaker. This sort of issue has to be addressed. I understand the direction that the members opposite and certainly the minister for health is trying to take her department. I have a great faith in the primary approach, but I really would like the minister for health to turn her attention to words like ‘hospitals’, ‘doctors’ and ‘nurses’ as well as all of the other aspects that she is talking about and, second, explain to the people of Hermannsburg why she is taking money away from their services that they enjoy in the bush.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I won’t take long. I am conscious of the time. I rise to speak tonight in support of the amended motion. I sit here listening to all the rhetoric going on about Aboriginal health. I have spent the last nine or 10 years at the coalface of Aboriginal health. Let’s talk about the health services; let’s talk about hospitals. The former health minister sitting over there, let’s talk about hospitals.
I was really surprised at the comments from the member for Port Darwin. Here is somebody who is sitting on the opposition benches who actually has some expertise in health, a female, who has never made it in to the health portfolio, and someone who has worked for a long time in the hospital, surely she could have been used a bit more.
In terms of the hospital system, and a lot of the arguments and debates that have been going on about hospitals, and we, who have all worked in the community control sector know that the current minister certainly has her job cut out for her in terms of the legacy that has been left by the CLP government. We look at the neglect that’s been out there …
Mr Dunham: Don’t think so.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Well, you and I can have this argument until the cows come home, but we won’t. You need to face the fact that when we talk about clinics that have been understaffed, there was a word: unsustainable. There have been a lot of clinics out in remote areas that have been unsustainable for a long time, where staffing levels have been unsafe for a long time. Did you do anything about it in the past? No. I, too, have talked to a number of nurses. I’ve actually worked with a number of nurses.
All the problems that you have purported to have suddenly come to the forefront on 18 August when our government came in, that these things have suddenly come out on the 18 August. I don’t think so. These are issues and problems that have been escalating for a long time.
Your hospital systems have been blowing out for a long time and now they’ve hit crisis point. They’ve been hitting crisis point for a long time. If you look at the hospitalisation rates of Aboriginal people in your hospital systems - why? Because you have got inadequate services out in your remote areas. There were never any proper primary health care services put out in the bush to try and decrease the hospitalisation rates of those people coming in. There’s never been effective chronic disease management, and because of that, those problems have been exacerbated; they’ve become worse.
I pick up on just a couple of comments that were made last night. The member for Port Darwin talks about gagging and the Public Sector Management Act. I know a number of very good public servants who were gagged for a long time and who actually hid, for a long time, their political affiliations because of fear of retribution. So, not only does this side of the House have it; we have it, too, where there has been retribution.
Dr LIM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We know that we cannot refer to a previous debate within the same session of parliament. That’s what she’s doing about yesterday’s debate.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I’m speaking to the amendment motion.
Madam SPEAKER: I don’t think there is any point of order. The member is referring to Hansard and that has been done many times in this House, as you know.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The issue of violence and nurses, that is something that, yes, we do have to address. The funny thing is, suddenly it becomes - and the current Minister for Health and Community Services mentioned it in an interview that she did - this problem didn’t just come on 18 August. This was a problem that was around for years, for a long time. You talk to nurses out there, and they will tell you that the issue of violence against nurses has been around for a long time.
Mr Dunham: It’s on the increase.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Increasing?
Mr Dunham: In the last six months
Ms SCRYMGOUR: In the last six months? Yes, Steve, okay. The member for Drysdale says it’s only in the last six months. Well, I beg to differ.
Mr Dunham: No, it’s on the increase. If you pick up the interjection, pick it up properly.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, quiet!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: She talks about safety audits as well. Safety audits - maybe there should have been an audit done of some of the clinics that have been in the past. There are some good ones in here, I should have kept the pages. The member for Greatorex: ‘Six nurses recently resigned due to overly heavy workloads and the inability of the hospital to recognise …’ - this is the Alice Springs Hospital - ‘… and rectify the problem’.
My recollection: I know back in 1994-95, there were numerous problems with Alice Springs Hospital and the ability of that hospital to actually try and retain - and there were some good nursing staff there. It was only through the work with Congress, the Aboriginal medical service down there, working with the hospital, that a lot of the nursing staff and doctors - the nurses didn’t resign. You are making it seem that the nurses resigned because of the Labor government, and that suddenly the heavy workload that this government put on them. This was our legacy that we inherited.
The other hypocrisy – a long wait for surgery query: ‘Alice Springs Hospital elective surgery waiting list for 13 months’. 13 months? Then you say: ‘Elective surgery in Alice Springs suffered so greatly in the last six months’. It just doesn’t add up. Someone is waiting 13 months, but you are saying that it suffered in the last six months. I think this problem has been around for a long time, and you people have just suddenly woken up to it.
Mr Dunham: You’re the ones whingeing about it. We’re asking you to tell us about your initiatives.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, we’re talking about the neglect and what we are having to work through.
Primary health care services: the clinics that have been understaffed; the instability of staff; where nurses and Aboriginal health workers have been left, in isolation from everyone else, to handle health services - perform the services of doctors. There are a lot of nurses who actually operate just as well as doctors out there. What reward do they get? There was very little reward for those people. They certainly had a government that didn’t think very highly of them.
Mr Dunham: Not true.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Your track record stands for itself.
Madam Speaker, I won’t say any more. I think I’ve gone through most of it. I await the member for Greatorex because I’m sure he’s going to go through a number of things. I support the amended motion.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, my colleague, the member for Drysdale, moved a motion which was seeking information from the Minister for Health and Community Services.
I don’t need to go through the four paragraphs again, but they were precisely to seek information from the government, what its intended initiatives will be; how she was going to get the funding; and to try and develop, in our minds, a picture of what the Labor government intends to do. She got up and moved a motion of no relevance to the motion that the member for Drysdale moved, then proceeded to read another prepared speech. I said yesterday that anybody can read a speech prepared by somebody else, just read it out. It’s a pity that this minister is not across her portfolio sufficiently such that she can deal with direct questions from one person to her.
There are significant problems. The minister talks about the Alice Springs Hospital turning around. How can the Alice Springs Hospital be turned around for the better when the Acting Medical Superintendent said to my colleagues, the members for Araluen and Macdonnell, and myself in the presence of the Acting Director of Nursing, the Acting General Manager of the hospital, and in the presence of a ministerial advisor from the Central Australian office of the Chief Minister, that the hospital is in crisis, that it has got worse. That it has got worse, those were his words.
Then, when I asked the question specifically - and I know that hospital very well; I’ve worked in Alice Springs as a medical practitioner since 1981. I have kept close contact with all the staff there and I do know the circumstances in that hospital - ‘Have you communicated your concerns to the minister?’, the Acting General Manager said: ‘No, that’s not my line of contact; I tell my department, my CEO’. That he did. He told us very plainly that he communicated his concerns to his CEO. I assume if the CEO knows, then the minister would know. But nothing has changed. ‘Have you had any response?’, I asked. The answer was: ‘No, we have had no response from Darwin’. Now, that is information that we received in a room with six people sitting there listening to it. So it’s no lie. It’s the truth. It’s comment made by very senior officers of the Alice Springs Hospital and yet this government continues to deny that there is a problem.
We spoke at another time about the private hospital, we’ve spoken about the emergency department and how badly run it is. The quote that the member for Arafura made just a short while ago about the six nurses, let me read it again for her erudition. It comes from his article called ‘Alice Springs Hospital in Crisis Mode’, and it appeared in the Centralian Advocate of 25 January 2002. It was a letter to the editor, and this person wrote:
Here comes the army to protect the minister for health. I mean, there are more bodyguards on that side of the Chamber when the health minister sits there than when the Chief Minister comes in. What a farce. What a farce.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Greatorex has been in this Chamber for long enough to know that he should not reflect on the presence or otherwise of a member in this House.
Madam SPEAKER: There is a point of order, member for Greatorex. There is a point of order; I have ruled there is a point of order.
Dr LIM: Yes, let me speak to it, if I may.
Madam SPEAKER: No, I have ruled. There is a point of order.
Dr LIM: I have not referred to anybody in the Chamber. I said when …
Dr Toyne: You’re dissenting.
Dr LIM: I have the right to …
Mr STIRLING: Throw him out, Madam Speaker. You’re dissenting from the Chair.
A point of order, Madam Speaker! There is a point of order, Madam Speaker. He’s dissenting from your decision.
Madam SPEAKER: I have ruled.
Dr LIM: I did not reflect on anybody’s absence or presence.
Madam SPEAKER: I’m afraid you did, and that is the way it came across. Just withdraw it.
Dr LIM: I withdraw it if I did, but I am certain I did not.
Madam SPEAKER: Unreservedly.
Dr LIM: What I said - I withdraw. I said that …
Madam SPEAKER: Just get on with your debate.
Dr LIM: No, I am just trying to - I’ve withdrawn the comment.
When the minister for health is in her chair, there are lots of other people in this room protecting her, but whenever - and she needs the protection of the bodyguards that the Chief Minister herself does not require; that’s how insecure the ministry and the Labor members feel about the health minister. That’s how insecure they feel about her, that they have to be here to run interference. That’s what they need to be here for, to run interference.
Madam SPEAKER: Can you get back to the debate now?
Dr LIM: I am at the debate. I’m just trying to reflect how incompetent this health minister is.
Mr Henderson: Fifteen minutes and counting.
Dr LIM: You can count as much as you like; I’m not particularly concerned. And the minister tells us that she attends lots of social functions where she can network, talk to people. Let’s see how well she can talk in the Kalymnian hall when the music is going, or at a function at the Islamic Society where the PA is blaring out. You walk around, you talk to people about sweet nothings. You don’t get complaints coming out. I’ve been there, you have not; you would not know what it’s like to be a minister walking into a room full of people with lots of loud noise. You don’t get a chance to deal with the issues. You need to be accessible in your office and going to visit them in their place of work. You’ve got to do that, and this minister definitely has not done that.
Tonight she says she had visited Alice Springs once, and yesterday during an interjection said she’d visited three times. Three times, she said. So I assume it is between one and three. It doesn’t matter, but I think three times is still woefully inadequate. Get down there, see what’s happening at the Alice Springs Hospital.
The member for Drysdale asked the minister several questions, and I think it’s worthwhile asking again. The health minister proposes to increase the number of hospital nurses by 75 over the next two years according to this mini-budget Paper No 3. I know for a fact – and, again, this information was gleaned from the Acting General Manager of the Alice Springs Hospital - that they are about 50 nurses short at the hospital at the moment.
Mr Henderson: Fifteen?
Dr LIM: Fifty. Five-zero. This health minister is going to find 75 more above the 50, the 75 of which are going to be scattered around in specialist areas that the member for Drysdale earlier delineated. So how is she going to do that? She hasn’t answered that. She has not addressed that issue, has she? She then says she will implement a professional development and training program with increased funding, and this is on page 42 of Paper No 3 again:
Mr Henderson: It was never there in the first place.
Dr LIM: Okay, so you are saying that the Acting General Manager of the hospital has lied to us at a briefing. He has lied to us. He has lied to three members of the CLP in Alice Springs, and lied in front of the Acting Medical Superintendent, lied in front of the Acting Director of Nursing, and lied in front of the ministerial advisor from the Chief Minister’s office in Alice Springs.
Those are the issues. Those people were prepared to stick their necks on the line, to tell us that there are problems in Alice Springs that this government is not prepared to listen to them.
Mr Kiely: What about the mosquitoes down in the swamp there back in the mid-1990s, Dr Lim?
Dr LIM: This little mosquito sitting behind me has been rattling around like an empty vessel, making a lot of noise about inconsequential issues, and, if I may say so, the member for Sanderson has demonstrated how deep his intellectual capacity is. It’s probably as deep as the puddle of piddle that the member for Millner creates when he goes to the toilet.
Now, the renal dialysis provision in Tennant Creek is another matter.
Mr Kiely: That’s the extent of your humour, isn’t it? Gutter humour, toilet humour, you sick little man.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell! I don’t think you should do that again!
A member: Sorry?
Madam SPEAKER: Was it you whistling?
Dr Burns: He was whistling Dixie.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, Madam Speaker. I’m sorry. I will never do it again.
Madam SPEAKER: Not in here.
Dr LIM: The member for Sanderson said ‘sick little man’. I don’t know who he was referring to, either, but it doesn’t really matter, I suppose. Some people do have a Napoleon complex but unfortunately they don’t have the intellectual capacity of Napoleon.
Dr Toyne: He’s just sick; you’re a sick little man.
Mr Dunham: Are these admissible interjections? Are we going to talk about people’s size?
Dr LIM: Should I call a point of order and ask the minister to withdraw?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Sorry, what was your point of order?
Dr LIM: Well, the minister called me a sick little man, and I think I’m a very fit man of 5’6” in stature.
Madam SPEAKER: Could we get on with the debate? There’s too much cross-Chamber slanging.
Dr LIM: Well, if the members opposite want to keep on throwing personal interjections at me, I believe I have the right to respond.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, you are entitled to, I am just saying, members on the government side, let’s get on with the debate. It’s late, I think we’d all like to have it finished.
Dr LIM: The member for Macdonnell raised an issue about Dr Chris Bain. Dr Chris Bain has been a rural or remote doctor for several years. She is based at Hermannsburg, while living in Palm Valley. She travels to Hermannsburg each day to conduct her medical clinic. Dr Bain is a private medical practitioner who goes in to remote areas, supported by the federal government on an annual $50 000 income subsidy. The Northern Territory government, under the CLP, has assisted her with a $25 000 grant each year, or up to $25 000 grant each year, to encourage her to stay there to provide medical care.
She approached me last year to lobby for continued funding which I was able to convince the former health minister to support. She approached me about two weeks ago when the member for Macdonnell and myself were both at Hermannsburg, and advised in very strong terms that her funding after the end of June this year has yet to be confirmed by the present government. I think it’s very important, in light of the words that were uttered by the member for Stuart, that we must make sure that our remote doctors, remote medical practitioners and health carers, get adequate funding to continue their very good work out there …
Ms Lawrie: She’s still out there.
Dr LIM: She is still out there, and she will want to stay out there, but she needs to have a commitment from a government to continue to receive the funding. Now, this minister is not prepared to do that. Time is running out and I’d like to see a commitment from this government this week, and no later than next week, that the $25 000 is committed for her. The minister is not prepared to interject to say yes, she will do it. I think it’s a real pity.
Another issue is about the harvesting of cord blood. Now that is something that has been tried for a while, and it is now a very successful program …
Mr Henderson: The harvesting of what?
Dr LIM: Cord, as in placenta. It has been tried and has been found to be very successful and is now being done in Sydney and Melbourne. What it needs is the government’s commitment to make sure that the program can start in the Northern Territory. Now, why is cord blood harvesting useful? It is the same sort of principle that you would use for bone marrow transplants. For bone marrow transplants, you need to have up to six, let me say, genetic type matching to be a successful donor. With cord blood, because it contains such primitive cells, you can use cord blood with only three genetic matches to make it successful.
We know that among Aboriginal people there is a very small gene pool, hence it’s very difficult to find bone marrow available to donate. Cord blood makes it a lot easier because you need fewer factors to match, and you can harvest that in Alice Springs and Darwin because of the number of births among Aboriginal people. Now this is something that will be very, very useful and helpful for Aboriginal children who suffer from diseases such as leukaemia. I ask the minister to consider this seriously, because many Aboriginal children are dying of leukaemia and associated diseases because they can’t find appropriate bone marrow donors. The cord blood would give them a higher chance of being treated because these diseases are very easily treated given the right type of cells to use.
Anyway, I digress a little bit …
Mr Henderson: Fascinating stuff.
Dr LIM: It is fascinating stuff because it is stuff that government can do with very little money. Cord blood harvesting costs you very little, and you can do this and you will save lots of Aboriginal lives with very little money. You should be able to do that and it’s something you should grasp with both hands …
Mr Vatskalis: Why haven’t you done it yet?
Dr LIM: I can’t do it because I’m not the health minister. So I’m saying to the health minister: do it, do it, it.
Madam Speaker, I will conclude my statement by saying that I think it’s a pity that the health minister decided to bring in an alternate motion that has got no bearing on what the member for Drysdale tried to raise.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, are you closing the debate?
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): I am actually speaking to the amendment, Madam Speaker.
I must commence my comments with a sense of …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, I am sorry, there was someone on the other side.
Mr DUNHAM: He did not get the jump, Madam Speaker, you recognised me.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, I did, but I wasn’t sure what you were going to do.
Dr Burns: You were on your feet before the other member finished.
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: It is when you are recognised.
Madam SPEAKER: What exactly are you doing? Are you speaking to the amendment?
Mr DUNHAM: Yes.
Madam SPEAKER: I will allow the member for Johnston to speak after you then, because you’re not closing debate.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, I commence my comments with a sense of dread because I think there is a bad foreboding about the state of the Territory’s health services under this current minister. We’ve seen the sorry example yesterday of the minister making a so called mini-statement, which she read, which was responded to by myself, and that response to my response was read. We’ve seen the same thing again today when she had the opportunity to talk about matters which she should have an intimate knowledge of, and matters which, no matter how you look at it, really shouldn’t be sheeted to anybody other than the authors of them, which is the current minister …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, the amendment is not about the minister. Stick to the amendment.
Mr DUNHAM: The amendment, Madam Speaker, is about the deplorable neglect over 26 years in power and all that sort of business …
Madam SPEAKER: That’s right and that’s what you’re speaking to.
Mr DUNHAM: What I’m saying to you, Madam Speaker, is that there is a theme here and the theme is we don’t look forward, we look back. I would have hoped that those opposite would have taken great pride in the initiatives that they took, not only to the election, but that are in the budget.
We have a minister who is a blancmange, who is only able to read pieces of paper that are put in front of her. She has no competence at all, she has betrayed not just nursing staff, she has betrayed cancer sufferers, she has betrayed the terminally ill, she has betrayed expectant mums …
Mr Henderson: Dear, oh, dear. In six months?
Mr DUNHAM: Yes, yes she has because tonight she had the opportunity to go to this mini-budget document and tell us the detail behind it. Her incapacity to do that without a written speech gives you the impression this whole portfolio area is running on auto pilot. In other words, unless there is somebody to put some words in the hands of this person, she is totally incapable of speaking.
Now, this is a big problem for us as a government. We know, many of us who are going to live here for a long time, that if this area is eroded to the extent that it could happen under the stewardship of this minister, we’re going to face some very, very difficult problems. I know members on the other side have a lack of confidence in her. I know that. They might be surprised to find that the verandah that’s out the front there overhangs the front of this parliament where I heard three of them speaking about her in very derogative terms, and I can name them. I think it just goes to the bleeding obvious which is the king’s got no clothes. You have a lame duck minister. She has to be replaced. Either that or she has to be trained real quick.
Six months is too long. This whole business of hiding in your office and pretending to see people, the whole business of not knowing what's in your own budget statement, the whole business of running out rhetoric about the difficulties of your portfolio and how hard it is, we know this stuff. What we are hoping is that she can assemble some capacity to have the competence to deal with her one portfolio. A very difficult portfolio, I grant you. She has very competent pack of staff in Health and Community Services.
What we are saying is we are appealing to the government, particularly the Chief Minister, to look at this issue. The debate tonight has given a great sense of dread to those of us on this side about the future for Health and Community Services which is in a parlous circumstance.
Mr Henderson: Your legacy.
Mr DUNHAM: The circumstances it is in has nothing to do with my legacy other than that some good things happened and some bad things happened, and I would argue any day on this motion that’s been put - and this is a sorry thing: to put a motion that we want to keep looking over our shoulder for someone to blame rather than looking at our own initiatives, looking at the wondrous things we’re going to parade before the people.
This is a budget of betrayal. An absolute budget of betrayal. We have a totally incompetent minister and the quaint little interjections earlier from the Millner about ‘weakest link’, we know who it is. The media know who it is. We know who it is. You know who it is. Let’s do something about it. The something is the Chief Minister says ‘goodbye’ right? Go through the script. That’s all she can do. Go through the script, get rid of this minister. She is an abysmal incompetent.
Her inability to engage Aboriginal people has plunged to new depths. Absolutely plunged to new debts. Her capacity to travel to the places she has to travel including the sprawling metropolis of Tennant Creek, which she couldn’t get to the other day, really gives a lie to the whole notion of statements where you say: ‘I will not be paying lip service to Aboriginal health’ and all that sort of stuff. This is a nonsense that is being perpetrated by the government. We want them to look to the future and they could start by looking at the stuff that is their business. They could look at the stuff that is totally of their own authorship and they could be telling the public, ourselves, and, as I said, some of the clientele of these services, what they intend because there are significant public meetings that have been held about all of these issues here. It is not a matter of putting three lines into a mini-budget statement, being totally incapable of even describing what it means and hiding behind the history that you inherited.
This has gone to our worst fears and I believe that if the motion was walked through and the minister was able to even make a semblance of an attempt to address point one of my motion, we would not have been talking about PAC referrals, and we would certainly not be talking about point four of my motion which goes to the spiralling levels of confidence.
Mr Stirling: Got one at the moment, I think.
Mr DUNHAM: Now, in your heart of hearts, you must know, member for Nhulunbuy, in your heart of hearts, you must know she has no capacity to do the job you have given her. Now give her something else. Give her sport and recreation, whatever. This is too important. This is too important. So all the little gratuitous comments we had about reshaping, redefining ourselves, looking at how we might go about doing business, I can give it to you, mate. Just do one thing for now: do the right thing. Put somebody there who can do a better job.
There was a lot of commentary about the lack the shadow portfolio attaching to my colleague from Port Darwin. She ate this person up. Killed her. Seven minutes she spoke for. Seven minutes, and most of that was a grab from last night. Totally revisited last night’s speech. Had a few little appendages on the end, never went anywhere near the motion on the Table, nowhere near it, and the contributions made by my colleagues just leave her paling into insignificance.
This is a serious matter for this House. This is an incredibly serious matter for this House. I believe that the minister should start now to focus on some core issues. She should take the advice from my colleague for Port Darwin about get some priority areas, talk about it. Leave all the black hole stuff behind. Let’s look at the future. I am happy to keep debating the black hole, but its really not getting us anywhere at all. What she has to do is get away from the wordsmiths. We know she is being driven by wordsmiths because we get a draft speech that says one thing and the next day it says something else.
We know that she said: ‘I’m going to fix up violence with nurses out bush by stewardship - oops, no! I mean leadership’. This is somebody sitting on a keyboard telling her what her policy is. This is a nonsense. This is stupid. This is people putting words into a word processor that turn into government policies in a speech because this person doesn’t know how to fix violence against nurses. The stuff in here …
Mr Henderson: What did you do about it?
Mr DUNHAM: Well, if I was the health minister, I would be doing a lot more than this one, and so would that person and that person and that person and that person - even him, probably. We are talking about the lowest common denominator in your Cabinet pack, and I believe that this is something that is so serious that this statement - what this statement has shown you is even when we say: ‘Could you please tell us what’s in your budget about things that you took to the electorate and know and love, and are probably good news stories?’ and we got a seven minute, read speech regurgitated from last night. So not only are her wordsmiths driving policy off the word processor; they are lazy and incompetent because they are giving her the same speech she got last night.
Under standing orders, we shouldn’t have even allowed her to continue to regurgitate this stuff. Nonetheless, out it came. That is a very sorry state of affairs for the Northern Territory, not just for people like myself and others in this room who have been involved with the health services and who believe it’s a precious service, but people who will use it.
In my own case, I have had children born in four Northern Territory hospitals, and I have worked and lived in different places. I know how powerful and potent these institutions are for us, and I believe that I am a person who will continue to use these services until I die - perhaps in the palliative care centre that is going to be inappropriately designed, constructed and inherited by us next term because there is no planning, thought or absolute fundamental design behind this stuff.
So my plea to the Chief Minister - and she can interject if she likes, if she believes that I am wrong in this - I would ask the Chief Minister to please assure me that this minister has her full confidence and its not forthcoming. That’s the point I am trying to make.
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: There has been a desertion of this minister and, apart from a couple of bobber boys who get around her when it starts getting difficult, you are in a position where you could be dangerous to the health services in this place and to the quality of life of people who live here. I suggest you get out of the way and find somebody who is able to put in - I mean, this person was flat out crashing through the stamina barrier tonight. Let’s face it. This is not a late night, really. I mean, most of us put in a night like this every now and then, so I am sure that it would have been within the minister’s capabilities to listen to this debate in its entirety. I am sure the minister would have been able to crash through that stamina barrier, have a late night, and get back to work tomorrow. Now, if she can’t do it tonight, she’s got hundreds of them in front of her. Hundreds and hundreds of nights like this. So let’s get it organised, let’s make sure we’ve got someone there who one, likes the job; two, is enthusiastic about the job; three, can do the job; and four, has got a bit of energy for the job. This minister fails on all of those counts and it is time that you ’fessed up to that, and it is time you did something about it because if you don’t fix it, the clientele of the department, the non-government sector and others will fix it for you.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I know it is late at night but I feel I must respond to a lot of what's been talked about tonight. First up, I would like to assure the member for Drysdale that our minister for health has our full support, and full support within our Caucus as well. Over the past couple of days, we’ve been remarking about the wonderful job she has been doing, particularly when she was attacked - or you tried to attack her - over the Palmerston Health Precinct. Absolutely fantastic, and she has our support.
Mr Dunham: She wasn’t even here. She wasn’t even in town. She was on R and R. She was not even in town.
Mr Henderson: One GP service - $900 000!
Dr BURNS: If I could go on. As a Labor Party and a Labor Caucus and a Labor government, we’re absolutely united; we are a team. I have been sitting here over the past two days watching that side. All I can see is some discord. I see people rising to answer questions that other people had prepared for - almost usurping other people’s shadow ministries - I see the 10 canaries in a cage on that side. Health is a serious issue, so let’s turn to it.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We’ve had the mongrel dogs, the possums and the canaries. Are we really going to go with this animal theme because, as I said, I have a whole list of animals I could think of that have remarkable similarities to these people?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, there is no point of order.
Ms Lawrie: Your Leader called me a cat.
Mr DUNHAM: Yes? Well, we’re going to have more of that. He’s a snake!
Dr BURNS: If I could continue? I would like to continue.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, quieten down!
Dr BURNS: I believe - I know - that the Northern Territory has many fine and dedicated health professionals. To be fair to the member for Drysdale, as he said, we all acknowledge that being health minister is a very hard job. I have no doubt that as health minister, he was a very dedicated person, but the case I’d like to build tonight is that you inherited a situation - some of it not of your own making - and found it very hard to reform. You’ve come here tonight and laid on the table your and your party’s openness to look at the drug situation, rehabilitation and treatment, and address these very serious issues. I commend that. I think we have to move forward, as you say. I agree we have to move forward, but I think we also have to look at history to inform us about where we are now and how we’re going to get to where we’re going to go. I’m going to try and be as fair as I can in what I say tonight.
There are some shining examples within what I call Territory health - it’s the Department of Health and Community Services now. Disease control is a fantastic, shining example that is recognised Australia-wide as having best practice. There are many things to boast about in disease control. Indeed, there are probably quite a lot of other aspects of Territory health where there is fine work done and where there’s national and international recognition of the work that’s done - I don’t tar everything as being negative and bad and falling apart. But let’s try and move forward.
I’ve witnessed in my travels, particularly around the Top End, many fine registered nurses who are fantastic people who are so dedicated and committed. They’re on call all the time; they see people into the world, they see people out of the world, they work in very difficult circumstances and they are very dedicated people. I’ve also seen many dedicated medical officers and particularly, I’ve seen some very dedicated Aboriginal health workers who work under even more extreme conditions. I doubt whether I’ll be getting to an adjournment debate tonight, but in my upcoming adjournment debate I’ll be talking about the work of Terrence Guyula who is a fantastic Aboriginal health worker at Gapuwiyak. His work received a national award late last year, and he is a Territory Health Services employee. So, there’s fantastic experience, commitment and energy out there.
There are difficulties with the health portfolio; we’ve mentioned funding, hospitals, and retaining staff. These are almost perennial issues that need to be addressed. My own view is that something lacking over the years has been - for whatever reason - that the primary health care system hasn’t worked as effectively as it could. That has meant that our hospitals have been filled with Aboriginal patients; there’s been a stream of Aboriginal patients coming into hospital, and the hospital costs have gone through the roof. I think everyone would acknowledge that.
I was going to beat you over the head with the deadly Territory stuff. I’ve done that before. I think it is on the record that we know about Aboriginal health and the deterioration of Aboriginal health. I brought to the attention of this House in October what Territory Health Services’ own statistics showed about the deterioration of non-Aboriginal health over a period between 1979 and 1997. The reasons for both the deterioration of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal health are probably quite complex, but I don’t think it’s right. I know the member for Greatorex and, to a lesser extent the member for Port Darwin, blame lifestyle factors as being the major reason. I don’t think that explains everything to do with why this situation arose. It does explain some of it. Tobacco is something that has been talked about here tonight, and I know from my conversations with you in another life and in another profession that you were quite committed to changing tobacco laws in the Territory. But I suspect that there are all sorts of barriers - we’re not going to go into it, I’m not trying to bang you up here - but there were barriers.
This government has proposed a way forward. Our health minister has made a statement about moving forward on tobacco issues in the Territory. They are very important issues for us to address. So, lifestyle issues, yes, let’s try and address them.
We mentioned drugs. I was going to beat you over the head about the drugs; I did that in October. The fact remains that I think you inherited a situation where there was a former health minister who said: ‘Put them on the bus’. We had another former health minister, the member for Katherine, who has a real problem with methadone treatment, and I think we were just stuck in there for a long, long time. I was a member of what was called the Schedule 8 Committee. I was a foundation member of that, along with others, trying to address this issue many, many years ago. There was a frustration within the committee, and I guess it spilled over at various times with Dr David Meadows - who you know is very committed and passionate in this area - about what he perceived to be the inaction of the former government about addressing this very important issue.
There are issues there. I know that the health minister has made some announcements about the task force. We met with that task force as the select committee, and I saw a lot of expertise around that table. I think we should value the recommendations that they propose as a way for us to move forward to try and address this very important issue - particularly morphine abuse here in the Territory and, of course, amphetamine abuse. These are big problems, and I’m convinced that they contribute to crime.
I’ve mentioned to you before that - I suppose I was a bit heated when I did it - about Strategy 21. Strategy 21 on paper is a plan forward, but I found it very frustrating as a member of the Preventable Chronic Diseases Strategy Committee - I know that’s a mouthful, but it was a very good representative committee to try and move forward in implementing what is really a fantastic and groundbreaking framework that I think Tarun Weeramanthri and others within the Territory Health Services developed, and you signed off as health minister. But it never really went anywhere. It never went anywhere. We just kept on going around in circles, and we didn’t know who we were reporting to. I’m not blaming you because of that, but actually that was one of the reasons …
Mr Dunham: I don’t mind that, either.
Dr BURNS: No, that was one of the reasons why I actually put my hand up for parliament because I became frustrated. I came to the conclusion that after 26 years of one party being in power that within certain levels of the public service there had become a sort of a malaise, there had been a lot of self-satisfaction or there just wasn’t the energy there. I just wanted to get in here and get the whip out a little bit.
The Preventable Chronic Disease Strategy, let’s do it. That is what I would like to say - let’s do it - because by putting that in place we will actually take a lot of pressure off our hospitals. That’s what I believe.
You mentioned this side of the House and where we were going with health. There is a lot of expertise related to health on this side of the House, and I am prepared to put in, I know the member for Arafura is prepared to put in, we are putting in. We are keen for things to move forward. We have very good links with professional groups and with the public health movement. This is certainly a way forward for us, because I come back to that primary health focus to try to take the weight off the hospitals. But I will come to the immediate problems with the hospitals very soon.
I was going to take a few swings at people, but it is very late at night; I will probably leave them to another time.
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: No, I am not. We have had enough tonight. It would only stir things up.
In your motion, you raised some issues related to the mini-budget, specifically related to health. I honestly believe that the mini-budget and the financial plan of this government over the next four years to try with our target of turning quite a large deficit into a surplus, a modest surplus, I agree with it. It is a good strategy. We haven’t cut growth. We have merely slowed growth, and our aim is to turn a deficit into a surplus.
Without getting into the matters of the PAC, I know that you asked many questions of the CEO for Health, Mr Bartholomew. It is all on the public record; the transcripts are available on the Internet. I think you asked about some of the issues to do with the nurses, about funding, about renal units, about all the things that you have in you memo. I thought Mr Bartholomew answered those questions very adequately in terms of future planning and controlling the budget and moving forward on that. A lot of that stuff is already on the record and we seem to be going over it. It is a very important issue, but I believe this government is very intent on demonstrating our fiscal credibility and our management of budgets and outcomes for the money that’s put in there.
Another important aspect in terms of health and redressing health issues is in terms of education. I will be speaking on this issue when the minister for education gives his statement on indigenous education. I commend the former government for engaging Bob Collins and generating the Collins report. But, a bit like the Preventable Chronic Disease Strategy, it never really happened. I went to the Learning Lessons conference that was hosted by the AMA, let’ say, and what struck me during that conference - and I did ask some senior education people at the time – was: ‘Where’s the plan for the implementation of the Collins report?’ and there wasn’t one. There was just a series of loose meetings and we really hadn’t worked out where we are going.
Well, this government - and I am not trying to steal the education minister’s thunder here - has a way forward on that, and he will be detailing that in his speech. There is a very important inter-relationship between education and health that I know that you’re aware of, and Professor Allan Walker is someone who commands immense respect, talks about the impact of health on education and the impact of education on health. We will be addressing that and I will leave that to the education minister to detail it.
The challenge for us - we do have big challenges; we do have big problems. But once again, I will come back to what I talked about before: we need to cooperate, we need to move forward and I really welcome your laying on the table here tonight, say with the drug issue, that your party is willing to talk about that and I welcome that, and I congratulate that.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Speaker, I wasn’t going to contribute to this debate, but I will try and be as brief as possible.
It is preposterous and absurd for the former minister for health and his colleagues to put the argument across that since we won government everything has gone down hill with the health situation in the Northern Territory. The situation is that this has been building up for quite some time and we are a government that is going to be very responsible on how we turn around the health problems in the Territory community. I sat up there doing some files and listened to the contributions from the member for Daly, the member for Greatorex, and the member for Drysdale, and it more or less disturbed me that they still cannot get away from this philosophy of throwing money at things and just fixing it and it is no wonder we inherited a big debt.
Yesterday in the debate, the member for Daly raised the issue of Dillinya. I personally know Sheila Miller and I tried to contact her when I visited Katherine recently. I wasn’t able to get through to her because I believe there might have been a fax/phone that was out at Dillinya. But I did hear the member for Daly talking on the ABC that morning expressing concerns about the closure of Dillinya and that our government was mean-spirited or something to that affect and it was not going to be providing any further funding.
Anglicare, as the sponsoring organisation in this particular community, never approached the Department of Health, as I understand it, for further funding.
Mr Baldwin: Didn’t give a briefing to the minister in person?
Mr AH KIT: Well, I am addressing this as the Minister assisting the Chief Minister on Indigenous Affairs and if this is an Aboriginal community, I believe Madam Speaker, I have every right to pull up members opposite who have taken this upon themselves to run an attack on the health minister and this government.
The department was told in June 2001 that Anglicare were provided $3000 to employ Sheila Miller to write a submission for funding to develop a model of care. The then Treasurer and member for Katherine, Mr Reed, approached Anglicare directly to sponsor this project. Mr Reed advised officers of the department that he had secured Commonwealth funding for this service. Prior to this, Dillinya was not a recognised alcohol rehabilitation service; it was an outstation providing time out for family members. I might add, I am supportive of any successful alcohol rehabilitation service that has a good program in place, is getting good results and value for money. The member for Daly might tell us the success rate and how many people are actually residing at Dillinya because the latest update that I have …
Mr Baldwin: Are you for it or against it?
Mr AH KIT: How many people living there?
Mr Baldwin: Tell us, for it or against it?
Mr AH KIT: How many people living there?
Mr Baldwin: Are you for it or against it?
Mr AH KIT: How many people have been successful in the program? You don’t know.
Mr Baldwin: I’m for it; he’s against it.
Mr AH KIT: He does not know how many, but the latest update is that there are five families there, five individuals and their families. There was an application - after the $3000 was provided by the former Treasurer and member for Katherine in conjunction with the then minister for health and obviously the local member would have know about it and received copies, one would think - for this outstation of something like $1.225m, an application for establishment costs, and $555 666 annual operating costs.
Now, the response provided to Anglicare by the minister was that funding would be one-off, and I have here, and I can table it if members desire, a letter from the health minister at the time, dated 10 July 2001, to Mr Peter Fisher, Director, Anglicare, Top End, post office box etcetera:
Dear Peter,
That is available if members so desire.
So we had, yesterday, the member for Daly cutely saying things like: ‘Well, if they’re not incorporated’, well I believe they are incorporated. He also said: ‘well, you know, if they haven’t put in an application, I can understand that’. He knew all along, he knew as the local member, that that funding was limited and one-off. There was pressure applied by the then Treasurer, and this is how you blokes work, this is how you decided to do business, and no wonder we inherited a big debt. Mr Reed approached Anglicare and he said to officers of the department - I repeat - that he had secured Commonwealth funding for this service.
Later on, on 10 July, the response provided to Anglicare by the minister at that time was that funding will be one-off and there will be no commitment, as I said earlier. But there was also a mention that at this time it was evident that the Commonwealth was not going to commit to the funding. So we have the former Treasurer putting the pressure on departmental officers, saying: ‘I’ve got the Commonwealth government committed to this’, and now we find out that it hasn’t.
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Arnhem seems to be quoting from something, and if he is I’d like him to table it.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, but the member for Arnhem can perhaps clarify what he’s saying.
Mr BALDWIN: He is actually trying to allege that he has some information there that is testimonial and substantiated. So if he has, I’d like him to table it.
Members interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: I’m not quoting from any document; I’m reading from notes. You can have a copy …
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: Because he seems to be reading it, and standing orders say if you are reading from a document, you can be asked to table it, to table the document.
Mr AH KIT: I sought a briefing, as a good minister, from my colleague the minister for Health and Community Services …
Mr Baldwin: So you are sensitive about this. Why isn’t the minister …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr AH KIT: I’m not sensitive about this. You are sensitive about this because this shows a really good example of how you and your cliquey little group walked around, looked at a little place that jumped up and down, and you threw some money at it and said: ‘We’ll fix it. We’ll put the pressure on. We have an election coming up. This is how we do business’.
They should be very ashamed of themselves. I call on the member for Daly, and the former minister for Health, the now shadow minister for health, to provide some concrete evidence that the program is working well, get off your backside and help them get incorporated so that you can do your job properly as the local member and we may be able to help this community with its alcohol rehabilitation service.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, I won’t take a lot of time. It’s great to see the member for Arnhem coming in here tonight after I raised this issue, and it was raised also by the member for Nelson. It’s very interesting that after the remarks he made last night, he feels he has to come in here and equivocate those remarks. It’s very interesting also that the health minister is not standing up and doing this. It’s very interesting that in this debate of this motion that the member for Arnhem chooses to come in here and make remarks about Anglicare who have taken on this program as the service agency, which is a normal practice, a normal practice for them to do, and you would confirm that, I’m sure, minister for Health. Yes, she confirms that.
Yes, this was restricted funding for this program, but that doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t continue. I am interested that the member for Arnhem is virtually saying here tonight that he is not going to support this program. I think he’s trying to vindicate his remarks of last night - in the Hansard of last night - that have already gone to these people, for them to read, and he’s come back in, after a special briefing from the minister for Health. I find this intriguing. Why would you have to come in here, on a motion by the opposition, to vindicate the remarks he made in Hansard last night. He is very sensitive about this issue. He is very sensitive. And I stand up here tonight, very briefly, so that I can make the point about these remarks because these, too, are going to go out to the people concerned about this and the people at Five Mile, because this is all wrapped up together.
Mr Ah Kit interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: If the member for Arnhem …
Mr Ah Kit interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: I won’t speak to him directly because he’s trying to interject …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Arnhem.
Mr BALDWIN: If the member for Arnhem is not going to support this program, which is Aboriginal owned, Aboriginal run by people who have put themselves through training, and it’s a great, new, innovative program that you would agree with, and if he’s not going to support this program, then which ones is he going to support? This one he should be supporting to the utmost, and the people in my electorate and his electorate are going to know about it.
Mr Ah Kit interjecting
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arnhem, that’s enough. Quiet!
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker, I’ve had a rest; I feel better now.
Madam SPEAKER: I’m glad you do.
Mr WOOD: When Dillinya was mentioned, I’m afraid it got my back up a bit because I believe if the government is fair dinkum about helping Aboriginal people, it won’t put hurdles in its path, and I think that’s what you’re doing. I know you’re trying to win a debate against the member for Daly, but …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr WOOD: All I felt is that the government, I believe, should find ways of overcoming the hurdles that it says are there to try and help this community. There may be some hurdles, but I think it would be better for the government to look positive by saying we can overcome some of these problems.
The same with Wulik Witbi or Five Mile Hill. I know the minister spoke yesterday, and I am concerned, but I am concerned from what I heard from the minister yesterday that maybe the powers that be - and in this case it may not be the minister - have a different agenda. I feel, if we are going to discuss Aboriginal health, if we are going to discuss the problems with drug and alcohol rehabilitation, that if we don’t send out a positive message to these Aboriginal groups that are trying their hardest, that may not fit into this model someone else has because they do things differently, like – amazing! Five Mile Hill does things like take people out hunting with a spear, concentrate on sweating the alcohol out of them, living on the floor instead of on beds, by preference, and doing things traditionally.
I think if Aboriginal people are making the effort, I would like to see the government support it. I know that there may be some difficulties, but I would rather hear: ‘All right, we know there are some difficulties, but we will try and overcome those. We will do our best to back them’. That is what I’d like to hear and I think that’s what should come. Sometimes the politics get in the road. We shouldn’t be allowing that; we should be saying: ‘Let’s get behind these people. We’ll do our best to support them’.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is the amendment be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, do you want to sum up before I put the amended motion?
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Yes, Madam Speaker. I won’t go back to all the points here, but I will make two observations. One is that I thought the member for Johnston spoke like a health minister, and that was one of the points I was trying to make. Here is a man who spoke without notes, who was passionate, who was motivated to get involved in political structures and struggle on the basis of health experience. Look, I applaud him. I thought: ‘This is the sort of speech that should be being made by the health minister’. So get the video; go back and read it.
Another telling statement was the one that was just made – ‘… and the powers that be, and I know that might not be the minister …’ – that is the point we’re trying to make. This thing is being driven. We talked today about smoking policy. Now, smoking policy was mentioned in the speech that was tabled last night and circulated, and it’s down here as - you’d reckon I could put my hand straight on it, wouldn’t you? Anyway, it was interesting that smoking policy changed last night. Here it is. Page 24 of the speech as circulated to me, and it came to me as:
After full consultation with industry and interested community members, we will look at passing through tobacco legislation proscribing smoking in enclosed places.
So one of them is talking about pulling it up; the other’s talking about having a look at it. That’s the point I’m making. Speech writers are driving this minister. She is making comment about full consultation on something at 8 o’clock one night turned into something else by the time the speech was delivered. That’s not a possibility. So we’re looking now at a significant problem here.
I thank members for their contributions to the debate. It was much more wide ranging than was intended; it was intended to be a showcase for what the government was doing. There is still the potential for us to do that; it doesn't have to be done in this debate. I’d like to see some of those issues brought forward.
I was disappointed that disease control wasn’t in the minister’s statement last night - world breaking work going on there. These statements can be brought piecemeal to this House, we can talk about them and we’ll probably disagree about them, but for God’s sake, let’s not do them in such a cold and clinical way in rigid speeches where people are rigidly adhering to the written word that’s been prepared by somebody who is very cold from an operational viewpoint. I would ask Cabinet over there - I don’t know how you guys do it, caucusing or something - please revisit this decision because I think the contributions tonight from at least two of your members have shown your minister up.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): I apologise to members, but we have to do this today, I’m afraid. Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Classification of Publications, Films and Computer Games Amendment Bill 2002, (Serial 34) passing through all stages of this sittings.
Motion agreed to.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Under Standing Order 306, a suspension can only be passed by an absolute majority, therefore I believe it has been lost.
Madam SPEAKER: Absolute majority? The Clerk will need to advise me on that. I thought that we approved it in the affirmative, the suspension of standing orders. Do we have the absolute majority of the whole number of members? You are opposing the suspension of standing orders?
I shall put the question again. The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to. Yes, Leader of the Opposition.
Mr BURKE: With respect, Madam Speaker, the decision has been made; it has been made on the voices. You cannot rescind a vote that has been done on the voices, and the voices were done without an absolute majority, so there is no vote.
Madam SPEAKER: I am asking the Clerk for advice.
Dr TOYNE: I seek leave to suspend standing orders.
Leave denied.
Madam SPEAKER: If there is a ‘no’ when leave is sought, then it is not granted. They are the standing orders. Therefore the point of order is upheld.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move the House do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I with to draw attention to the presence in the Gallery of Year 6 and 7 students from Stuart Park Primary School accompanied by their teachers Sylvia Sisamanis, Scott Clode and Christina Parker. On behalf of all members, I extend a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
WARRANT
Deputy Chairman of Committees
Deputy Chairman of Committees
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 12, I hereby revoke all previous warrants nominating members to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees and nominate the following members to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees: Dr Burns, Mr Kiely, Ms Lawrie, Mr Elferink, Mr Maley, Mr Mills and Dr Lim when requested to do so by the Chairman of Committees.
PETITIONS
Palmerston 24-Hour GP Service
Palmerston 24-Hour GP Service
Mr BURKE (Brennan)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition, not conforming with standing orders, from 1116 petitioners relating to the 24-hour GP service in Palmerston. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
We the undersigned, do hereby petition the NT government to withdraw the decision to abandon
the 24 hour GP service in Palmerston. We support the establishment of a 24 hour medical
assessment service to allow Palmerston and rural residents to access in person either medical
advice from nurses or paramedics or be transported by ambulance to Royal Darwin Accident
and Emergency.
Palmerston 24-Hour Emergency Medical Service
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 3908 petitioners praying that a 24-hour emergency medical service be retained at Palmerston. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
To the Speaker and members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.
We the undersigned citizens do respectfully request:
That a 24 hour emergency medical service be retained at Palmerston, so that residents of the rural area
have access to this regional facility instead of relying solely on Royal Darwin Hospital for after hours
medical assistance;
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
RESPONSE TO PETITION
Mr CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that response to petition No 5 has been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of the response will be included in the Parliamentary Record.
- Petition No 5
Quality of Education in NT Schools
Date Petition presented: 18 October 2001
Presented by: Mr Stirling
Referred to: Minister for Employment, Education and Training
Date Response received: 26 February 2002
Date Response presented: 27 February 2002
Response:
Teacher and Educator members of the Australian Education Union indicated acceptance of the
government’s enterprise bargaining offer on 26 September 2001.
The offer provides for:
NT Teachers and Educators to be the best paid in Australia from 30 August 2001 to April 2002,
after which they will be the second-best paid teachers to 31 December 2002. Pay and allowance
increases are backdated to 30 August 2002.
of non-contact time for teachers in small remote schools.
A ballot which concluded on 26 November 2001 resulted in acceptance of the Agreement. The Agreement has now been certified by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.
With the Agreement concluded, government is now concentrating on implementing our election commitments and a range of other education reforms.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Capital Works Program
Capital Works Program
Ms MARTIN (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to advise the Assembly that I have approved an increase in the total capital works program of some $20m to allow construction of a bulk liquids berth and extensions to the East Arm Wharf. The additional program cover will enable a 110 m extension to the multi-user wharf and a 156 m bulk liquids wharf to be constructed in time to meet the needs of the Adelaide to Darwin rail link and the relocation of the fuel tank farm from Stuart Park.
The contract for this will be let almost immediately, as the Procurement Review Board has approved a tender from Thiess Contractors for approximately $42m. That is $42m worth of work and up to 100 jobs for Territorians. Awarding this contract is the last major port component associated with the rail project. It is anticipated that preliminary works will commence in May and the contract is due for completion by June next year. This announcement will mean more jobs for Territorians created by this government. The decision by the government to award this contract in its full scope also means that we are now in a position to seriously push forward with the removal of the tank farm from Stuart Park.
We are determined that this project will move ahead. Darwin residents have been promised this since 1994, and it is disappointing that the CLP government could not deliver the project years ago. The CLP government made many announcements and promised much about the tank farm removal. This government intends to ensure the move does occur, and in a timely way. Cleaning up the existing tank farm site will mean that we at last can remove this unsightly industrial use from our CBD and redevelop this prime land.
It also means a private capital works project of around $65m will be added to our overall economic picture as a result of the government’s commitment to spend $15m on constructing the bulk liquids berth at this time. This decision will add to the growing confidence in our economic recovery and more jobs for Territorians, a high priority for this government. Also, by freeing up valuable land for development of residential and retail projects, there is now scope, over time, for further investment of hundreds of millions of dollars to strengthen the economic future of the Darwin CBD.
In keeping with my government’s commitment to keep Territorians fully informed on issues affecting their future, I have to advise that further negotiations with the oil companies will now be required to finalise the details of the relocation project. The project arrangements have been complicated by recent advice that Mobil will not be participating as an investor in the project but has confirmed its intention to use the new terminal. Unfortunately, that means that Shell, BP and Mobil will need to renegotiate their commercial arrangements as a matter of urgency.
I can assure Territorians that the government will be using all means available to it to encourage the companies to reach an early agreement to enable the fuel terminal project to commence in the coming Dry Season and to be completed by the end of 2003 as previously agreed. So, I am sure you will agree, great news.
Mr REED (Katherine): Whilst the opposition welcomes this announcement, Madam Speaker, it is long overdue. The tenders for what I think is really stage 3A of this wharf project were called last July, and it has been the lack of initiative and the inaction of this government that has seen the inability of this government to make a decision. Tenders were called in July and closed a month or two later. The government has been sitting on this decision for months whilst people have been losing jobs, whilst the economy has been slipping away, whilst the confidence in the Territory government from small business enterprises has dropped from 41% to 5% in November, and to February, a minus 12%. The delay that has been caused by this Territory government has resulted in that loss of business confidence.
It should be a timely warning to the government that they have to be more decisive, they have to be more proactive, and they have to come forward with more initiatives if the economy is to be lifted, if job creation is to be generated and we are to see in the future - hopefully not too long - a reduction in the unemployment rate of over 8%.
The Chief Minister, in a statement yesterday, said that she hoped throughout the course of the cycle of the Dry Season, that would lower the unemployment rate. Well, she just cannot hope for something in the ether to reduce unemployment. She has to do something. She is in government, she has to start making decisions and her ministers have to start working if we are to achieve a reduction in unemployment because it will not come through cycles of the seasons; it will only come through a decisive, proactive government that will come forward with some innovative programs to generate activity in the economy and jobs for Territorians.
Ms MARTIN (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, very sadly, and it is sad to have school children here to listen to the kind of words from the opposition, the whinging, whining, carping opposition. An announcement that has 100 jobs in it - 100 jobs - $42m to add to complete the port development, and if you were not so ignorant - I mean, I would have some sympathy but, really, in terms of when we needed to build this final component of the port, the railway was delayed and everybody understands it was delayed - that was a sad fact but it was a fact of life - and we are now letting this contract to complete the port in time to meet the requirements of ADrail and the whole railway construction.
So this is a perfect example of properly running the capital works budget as opposed to our predecessors who could not run a capital works budget to save themselves, and we have seen the results of that. So whingeing from that side, 100 jobs and investment from this side.
Members: Hear, Hear!
Northern Territory
Telecommunications Infrastructure
Telecommunications Infrastructure
Dr TOYNE (Communications): Madam Speaker, I rise today to reaffirm the critical importance that the Martin government places on the further development of our telecommunications infrastructure in the Northern Territory. In fact, we consider it is impossible to deliver the full measure of our announced policies without a significant new development of our remote area telecommunications system.
We inherited from the previous government a history of uncoordinated approaches which has sullied the reputation of the Northern Territory in the federal system and made us under-achievers in terms of bringing in the money that is available in the Telstra sell off; T1,T2 remote area funding.
So we have now have one final chance to bring in some of that funding into the Northern Territory with some $20m-plus on offer. We have taken steps since I inherited this portfolio to bring together a strategic framework for the development of such infrastructure and its use by the Northern Territory government, a strategic framework which was sadly lacking under the previous administration.
This strategic framework will allow us to go to the Commonwealth government with a clear relationship argued between the LATIS rollout within our school system, the health rollout within our remote clinics, the Electronic Outback project in some 14 of our communities and the new infrastructure for which the Northern Territory will be bidding, so we are starting to make sense down there. We are starting to show that we actually do know what we’re doing and we know where we are trying to go with this type of technology development.
We have thrown the support of the Northern Territory government behind a powerful bid by the Outback Digital Network in consortium with Telstra and NDC with a commitment to take up a main client status once the network is established with a successful funding bid. What that means is that we are going to trust a private sector not-for-profit organisation in consortium with one of the major carriers to carry out the development of this infrastructure and pledge government support in a client status to make sure that infrastructure is then used in a sustainable way.
That is a challenge for every single department of government, and we will be working with every one of our agencies to systematically assess, on a cost-benefit basis, what uptake of the infrastructure use is appropriate for service delivery, whether that is in the department of health, the department of education, any of our government departments that carries out business with people in the Territory who happen to live in our remote areas.
It will also apply equally to our main urban centres where the prevalence, the sheer prevalence of such infrastructure will really put very strong questions to our agencies on how best to adjust their methodology to get better value from the infrastructure. There are 400 jobs attached to the ODN bid, not just in the Northern Territory but across Western Australia and Far North Queensland. This is a visionary bid which, unlike the previous government, the Queensland government knew when they were looking at a good thing. They backed it fully in the last bidding round and they subsequently were awarded a significant amount of money to carry on the development of the infrastructure in Far North Queensland.
I have just returned from a visit to Canberra and Sydney, and as a result of meetings with Senator Alston and with members of the board and the secretariat for the Networking the Nation programs, we are very confident we will be seeing a successful outcome to the bid that is going in. The first bid to the National Communication Funds will go in at the end of this month, in the next couple of days, and the second bid to Networking the Nation will go in at the end of March. We will know by the middle of the year whether we will be involved in one of the great new developments that the Territory can look forward to seeing under the Martin government.
I would like, finally, to acknowledge the fine work that has been done by the Communications Unit within DCIS and the work of the joint bid team which consists of our DCIS staff and people from ODN, Telstra, NDC and I wish them all the best in their bid.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s report on DCIS and how it is performing. It is, indeed, a difficult task for DCIS and I think they have done their job very well. LATIS and the outsourcing that we have done in the years of the CLP have been particularly good and has been one of the key things that have allowed the Territory IT people to develop the business.
Now, while the minister was speaking so loudly about Outback Digital Network, I caution him that this is an unproven entity. While the Queensland government has committed a lot of money to the Outback Digital Network, it is still an unproven entity, so be particularly careful because you will be committing yourself to something that might cost you more than you expect. The outsourcing has been particularly good.
The NT government wants to be the core client for ODN. Well and good. ODN needs to have core users otherwise they cannot be successful. It is precisely for that reason they are still unproven and I caution the minister and the government that it is better to be slower than too fast.
As regards Networking the Nation, I believe the CLP government has done very well in providing networking to many Aboriginal communities throughout Central Australia and the Top End, and you have seen the significant impact that improved communications has had with all these Aboriginal communities. Our police, in particular, have had great access to the electronic network as well as our remote health units. In all, I believe that DCIS is doing very well and I hope they continue to do so.
Dr TOYNE (Communications): It is a bit rich. Madam Speaker, in terms of what I inherited within DCIS regarding the situation and outsourced arrangements, I have been, as you have probably heard in the media, putting a huge amount of work into cleaning up the total mess that the previous minister left behind, particularly with the desktop outsource contract - and this is with CSC which is one of the biggest corporations in the world. They are very proven, so what went wrong? There was an incompetent minister in charge of a process by which we were outsourcing over $100m worth of work to that company within a contract that had rubbery provisions within it. So don’t talk to me about we should hasten slowly. What I would say, though, is I would look to bipartisan support for the bid that is going to Canberra. We have under-achieved to the point that we only received 20% of the funding that was on offer to the Northern Territory in previous bids; we hope to get the rest of it now.
Palmerston and Rural Area Health Services
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, this morning I would like to report on Palmerston and the rural area health services, and it is particularly relevant given that there have been two petitions tabled this morning regarding the so called 24-hour health clinic.
I start by saying that no wonder people are signing petitions when there has been so much misinformation peddled by the opposition. I would like to give a bit of background on the so called 24-hour service which in fact was not a 24-hour service. It was a service which was discontinued as part of a trial. In the lead up to the election, the CLP government introduced a trial which included a review of that trial after three months.
Unfortunately for the CLP, they weren’t in government and did not receive the review of that service. The service was simply a GP service; it was not an emergency service as has been peddled by the opposition. It was never intended to be an emergency service. It was simply a GP service that was run from the hours of 10 pm to 8 am. There was also a service which was subsidised by the CLP and by this government as well for the 6 pm to 10 pm service. That service continues, and I would just like to make one comment about this service and the subsidisation of this service. No other - not even one GP service in the Northern Territory apart from this one - is subsidised by the government. I think that is just a little bit curious in the lead up to an election.
I want to confirm that this government is committed to services in Palmerston and the rural area. The review that we received indicated that the GPs themselves came to us and said: ‘We don’t want to run this service. This service is totally unviable. There are insufficient people coming. It is not commercially viable and, if you want to continue the service, it is going to cost $900 000’. $900 000 which, I might add, was not budgeted for by the previous government.
What we did do was introduce extra shifts in ambulances to ensure that the Palmerston ambulance service could actually stay in Palmerston instead of the absolutely pitiful situation before where the ambulance services from Palmerston were required to come in to Darwin all the time. We have a commitment to increasing those services even more.
In relation to that, we have put in a review of the whole area of the rural region, particularly Humpty Doo and further south. I think there are areas which need considerable looking at by this government, and we will do this. I am very happy to announce today that at Humpty Doo we have organised with St John Ambulance the introduction of a voluntary ambulance service starting from July this year. This will mean that people in that area will have the same type of services as in Adelaide River and Batchelor which will once again release the ambulances in Palmerston strictly for the Palmerston area. This is a very good measure for the people in that area. There is also a continuing look at various services in the total area, and I will report to the House on those when that review has been received by government.
There is one other issue which I wanted to bring to the attention of the House. The member for Drysdale and his colleagues have been mischievously spreading stories that the government is on the verge of closing the Specialist Allied Health Services that are available at Palmerston Health Precinct. This is totally made up …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This must be demonstrated because the mischief she is talking about is tantamount to accusing me of telling fibs, and I suggest she demonstrate that.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, can you clarify your remarks?
Mrs AAGAARD: Madam Speaker, there have been media reports that have led me to believe that the member for Drysdale has levelled these accusations. However, I will just say that there have been accusations levelled at us that there are going to be closures in the Allied Specialist Services at Palmerston. I want to assure the House that this is absolutely untrue. There will be no closures of any services in Palmerston.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I take the opportunity to respond to this. It would normally be left to the shadow health minister, but today once again we see the Health Minister who is, I believe - and many people in the Northern Territory are beginning to believe - the most incompetent health minister that has ever been in government in the Northern Territory.
This is a woman who is spoken about throughout the community as working less than public service hours and more concerned with taking her children home than being at work. That is being said right around the Northern Territory, particularly in Darwin. This is a health minister who has no idea.
If you think for a moment that a volunteer ambulance service in Humpty Doo and an extra ambulance in Palmerston is going to fix the problems of the Palmerston and rural community, you are totally out of touch. Think for a moment and go back in history and find out what were the representations from that community since 1995 when I was health minister. If you go through any of the debates, you will find out what the real concerns of that community are. The real concerns of that community are these: if you are a young mum or you are a pensioner and, in the middle of the night, you have what you perceive to be an emergency, you want damned help, and you expect the government to deliver on those services.
The previous CLP government made a commitment that the people in the Palmerston and rural area, if they had a problem in the middle of the night, they went to a facility which became the Palmerston Health Precinct and they were in the hands of the system. The system would take you and look after you.
Now, what has evolved? What has evolved is this: a bureaucracy that has never supported that principle. That’s what's happened. We have an opportunity with this government - if you are genuine, you have an opportunity, like the previous shadow health minister urged this government, to get on and deliver that service. Go back on your own record. Go back on your own newsletters. Deliver that service to the people of Palmerston and the rural area, and get on and do some work.
Do you also know, health minister, that the health precinct out there is not managed by one person, that there are two separate modules out there? No one looks after one of them. When you talk about those services being withdrawn, Allied Health Services …
Madam SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.
Mr BURKE: … I will tell you one that has been: Family Youth and Community Services have withdrawn their module back and centralised it.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, your time has expired!
Mr BURKE: That’s one of the concerns out there, along with the concern about the specialists.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition!
Mr Stirling: Totally out of order.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, you were out of order, Leader of the Opposition. You knew your time had expired. Minister, we will allow the member for Nelson one minute also to respond. That was the agreement, I believe.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I did stand for the tank farm discussion and East Arm Port, I would have liked to have made a comment on that, but …
Madam SPEAKER: You did stand? I am sorry. You will have to wave.
Mr WOOD: It’s all right, Madam Speaker.
I don’t believe that people do want a 24-hour GP service. In the petition that went around, people were fairly clear to me that they understood that it was costing too much money. But they do - and that’s what the 4000 people are saying - they do want some service there. The government is having a review. I would ask the government to please, in that review, make it a public review, look at the possibility of having a nurse or some other paramedic at the ambulance centre which is open 24 hours.
I appreciate there are more shifts, and I must congratulate the government on introducing an ambulance service to the rural area. I think that’s a great initiative and it will go some way to helping people in the rural area. I would ask the government to bring forward their plans to build a Police, Fire and Emergency Service facility, because I think they have it on next year’s budget, and it will give the ambulance service a permanent place to be established.
The other thing is I believe that the review - I call it the secret review which established that this GP service was too costly - needs to be made public, so we can all have a look at it.
Madam SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I am very happy to reply firstly to the member for Nelson. In relation to the review to which he refers, unfortunately it is a Cabinet document, and Cabinet documents are totally confidential, as indeed …
Members interjecting.
Mrs AAGAARD: … the members on the opposite side would know. It is a Cabinet document.
I would like to make some comments on the member for Brennan.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! I can’t hear the minister.
Mrs AAGAARD: He has tabled today a petition asking us to return the service. Yesterday in the House he said: ‘We don’t want a GP service. We don’t want an after-hours GP service’.
I have a copy of the member for Brennan’s Christmas newsletter where, in my opinion, he has given complete misinformation on ‘the 24-hour health service to close’, it says here. And he says:
The concept is that there would be an outreach service of Royal Darwin Hospital so that the Palmerston and rural residents could seek emergency medical help out of working hours without having to go to Royal Darwin Hospital.
This was a GP service. People still have to go to Royal Darwin Hospital. If you are an emergency, you have to go to Royal Darwin …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr Burke: What are you going to do? Do something rather than take your kids home from school.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, quiet! Order!
Progress of Major Capital Works Projects
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to update the Assembly on the progress of major capital works projects. I will start with the Alice Springs Convention Centre with expenditure at $11.3m which was programmed for completion in April 2002. The expected completion now is the end of March 2002. I believe some of the rooms have been completed and some functions have been already held there.
The Alice Springs Hospital redevelopment - $30.7m. It is progressing four months ahead of schedule with anticipated completion now expected in April 2002.
The Bradshaw Field training area access road and bridge across Victoria River - $8.6m. This is a Department of Defence project, we acknowledge that. Ten piles comprising five of the 13 piers been driven to date. The completion is scheduled for July 2002.
In Katherine, the Chamber Drive extension - $900 000 - is now complete.
The construction of Corella Creek Health Clinic - $300 000. The project is now 53% complete with block work, roof structure and internal walls complete.
The Darwin River Dam - $2.7m. The project was completed in December 2001.
The East Arm Port Development Stage 2 with a total expenditure of $87m. The scope of work for the second major contract, worth $42m - the wharf extension and bulk liquid berth - has now been awarded. The contract was awarded to Henry Walker Eltin for the container terminal and railway embankment, and is progressing well.
The Mandorah Jetty major repairs - $500 000. The work is expected to be completed in February 2002, with cathodic protection currently being undertaken.
Ramingining School - $1.2m. This project involved the replacement of a burnt out building which included five learning areas and associated offices, store rooms and toilets. The project was completed on 1 February 2002.
The roll on-roll off pontoon major repairs - $3m worth. This is a jointly funded project between the Northern Territory government and the Department of Defence. The project comprised extensive structural steel repairs to internal buoyancy tanks combined with complete replating of the bottom and repairs to side walls of the pontoon. The work is 93% complete.
The Royal Darwin Hospital redevelopment - $37.7m. Progressing well and expected to be completed by October 2002.
The Tanami Road upgrade - $1m. Current condition of the road is terrible. Grading commenced on 7 January 2002 at Tilmouth Well and will continue through to the Western Australian border.
Victoria Highway rehabilitation and widening of pavement - $1.65m. Works have been completed at chainages 399.7 to 400.05. Fencing of the road reserve is now underway. Rehabilitation and widening of pavement will improve safety as a result of wider shoulders.
Stuart Highway/Arnhem Highway intersection upgrade - $750 000. The traffic lights were commissioned on 3 January 2002. All works are now complete and include the traffic signals, street lighting and landscaping works.
National highway pavement rehabilitation - $5.1m. This is an ongoing project and will progressively improve the strength, the riding quality and the safety of the three national highways in the Territory.
Local road pavement rehabilitation - $1.5m. Pavement rehabilitation and works to the value of $800 000 have been identified on the Litchfield Park Road and the Batchelor Road. Tenders will be invited in February-March 2002. Works identified for the remaining $700 000 will be undertaken in 2002-03.
Construction of high level Hugh River bridge and approaches - $6m. Works including construction of a 250 m long bridge and 2.5 km of approaches. The contract has been awarded and construction is expected to start in February 2002.
Fogg Bay Road - seal 10 km from Leviathan to Venture Roads - $1.3m. That project is now complete.
Rural arterial pavement rehabilitation - $1.1m. Pavement rehabilitation works are ongoing and areas identified as the next priority are on the Arnhem and Kakadu Highways. Tenders will be invited in February-March 2002.
Upgrade of strength deficient bridges - $1.3m. The project will strengthen four bridges on the Buntine Highway and will include bridge guard rails. Tenders will be invited in February 2002.
I am sure that members will agree with me when I say that the capital work projects are doing very well. Jobs are being created and well generated throughout the Northern Territory and I would like to table for the Chamber information about the progress of major works.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, the Australian vernacular for someone who leans on someone else and takes the credit for the work that someone else has done is ‘a bludger’. It is not a particularly nice term but it’s the term that – and I mention it here because it was explained to me by a contractor who is out of work because of the inactivity of this government.
But for this government and for the minister to stand up and take the credit for all of those projects - and the major ones were well underway before he became the minister and before the Labor Party gained government - is, Madam Speaker, bludging on the efforts of others.
It ill behoves the minister and, indeed, contractors cannot survive on parrot fashion repeating of projects that were underway before this government came to power. What this government has to do is become active and proactive in terms of projects that are going to happen after these projects that the CLP put in place and started are underway.
It is interesting that the minister avoided mentioning a couple of projects that the former government was going to fund. I mention one: the Venn horticultural subdivision in Katherine in that producers are currently having trucks bogged which are loaded with their product that they are trying to get to market because this government shirked on the former government’s commitment to seal Fox Road in the Venn horticultural subdivision. That was a project that the former government was treating with priority so that the hard working horticulturists in that area could continue to support the Territory economy.
The government has to become proactive. It has to stop repeating the projects that were already underway before it came to government and decide what it’s going to do after those projects are stopped and to start generating activity and jobs in the economy.
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I took this opportunity today to push the level confidence in our business community. However, what we hear from the member for Katherine is a replay of his yesterday’s speech. With regard to the matter he brought to my attention, the Venn issue, not only was there no money, not only was the estimate only for $400 000, new estimates indicate that to construct and seal the road will be higher than $400 000, and a letter to that effect was given yesterday to the member for Daly. That is in the forward program.
In the past few days, we heard about the economic miracle of the CLP. How come such an economic miracle came to a crashing halt within six months of a new government? It looks to me as if it was not an economic miracle; it was a mirage.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, time has expired for ministerial reports. I will just clarify that - we actually went over our 30 minutes limit just to allow the end of that report.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
MOTION
Refer matter to the Committee of Privileges
Refer matter to the Committee of Privileges
Madam SPEAKER: Members, the next item is the matter of privilege that Dr Lim has raised. I just want to make a couple of comments before we start the debate.
I remind members that the Public Accounts Committee has a reference from this parliament to report by May. They still have further hearings to be held; they still have witnesses to appear. I ask you to be cautious in your remarks so that you do not prejudice the outcome of the hearings. If you refer to Standing Order 111, members should not attempt to interfere with the committee’s work or anticipate its report.
So, I suggest you concentrate on the wording of the motion, avoid referring to the deliberations of the committee and be aware that this is what you are discussing: whether this matter should be referred to the Privileges Committee. You are not discussing the Public Accounts Committee or its findings. So just be careful and mindful of those remarks.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I move –
That:
(1) the action of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, Dr C Burns, MLA,
in making a public statement on 30 November 2001 in respect of his opinion of
evidence taken before the Public Accounts Committee could be a contempt of this
parliament in that the contents of his statement served to prejudge the issue under
consideration by the committee and, as such amounts or is likely to amount to an
improper interference with the free exercise by the committee of its authority or
functions; and
(2) the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges for inquiry and report pursuant to Standing Orders.
Madam Speaker, I will be brief in my presentation as I expect all the relevant information will have to be presented to the Privileges Committee anyway, and there is therefore no need for me to go into detail. Besides, some of the information relates to matters from closed meetings of the Public Accounts Committee and it would be wrong of me to make any comment on them.
However, before I commence the body of evidence to support my motion that the member for Johnston has breached privilege through his behaviour in this House and outside in terms of the current review of budget matters by the Public Accounts Committee, I wish to quote from this advisory document from the Clerk to PAC members, handed to PAC members when they joined the committee, which I seek leave to table right now to remind members, new and old, of the meaning of privilege as it applies to parliamentarians. I seek leave.
Leave granted.
Dr LIM: I quote:
In general terms, the concept of privilege is defined as ‘an act or omission which obstructs or impedes
a House or the Assembly in the performance of its functions or which obstructs or impedes any members
or officer to discharge his duty which had a tendency to produce such results’. An action may be a
contempt without breaching a particular right or immunity but a breach of privileges always amounts
to a contempt.
I further quote:
- Committee proceedings are ‘proceedings in parliament’ for the purposes of the powers and privilege
legislation (section 6(2) of the Act).
- Unauthorised disclosure of materials may damage the ability of the committee to gather evidence, destroy
the confidence and trust of witnesses and committee members or expose members to additional representations
and pressures that would otherwise not exist. In the longer term, repeated disclosures could be seen as
damaging the committee system itself.
Turning now to the behaviour of the member for Johnston who is also the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and a member of the Privileges Committee, I have the following to put to the House:
During the debate on the censure motion of 25 October 2001 when the Chief Minister moved a motion to censure the member for Katherine, the member for Drysdale, and the member for Brennan, the interjections made by the member for Johnston clearly indicated that he had already formed his opinion on the matter. While the Hansard did not keep verbatim interjections from the member for Johnston, I clearly recall his attitude towards the whole matter, behaving in an arrogant and gloating manner. His recorded interjections while the member for Drysdale was on his feet will go somewhere to demonstrating the member for Johnston’s predetermined thinking.
The censure motion was on 25 October, two days after the member for Johnston was elected Chairman of the PAC. On either 27 or 28 November last year, I took the extraordinary step of approaching the member for Johnston to counsel that the content and tone of his interjections during speeches made by either the Leader of the Opposition or the member for Drysdale were inappropriate and were indicative of his mindset about matters yet to be considered by the PAC.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is a very serious motion we are debating here. Now, the member for Greatorex is commenting on supposed comments made by my colleague, the member for Johnston …
Dr LIM: Look in the Hansard.
Mr HENDERSON: … that have not been recorded in Hansard, and if they had been recorded in Hansard, he is bound to draw attention of this House to the specific nature of the comments rather than the broad allegation that he heard and has not been picked up in Hansard. Now, we are debating fact here, what is on the public record, and he cannot draw innuendo into this debate.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, all right.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, speaking to the point of order, it seems to me, listening to the member for Greatorex, that he is outlining the case and in outlining that case, I believe he is quite at will to refer to instances that he believes are pertinent.
Madam SPEAKER: I believe that there is no point of order. I am quite sure the member for Greatorex, from what I am hearing, is listing a series of events leading up to why he is taking this action.
Dr LIM: To paraphrase what I just said, I actually approached the member for Johnston about matters and his interjections were indicative of his mindset about matters yet to be considered by the PAC. I was given short shrift by the member for Johnston. He waved me away, and said angrily that he was not interested in talking to me about the matter.
On 29 November, the member for Johnston rose to speak to the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Bill. In his opening remarks, he commented:
- As members here will be aware, the Public Accounts Committee is currently examining a serious charge
that was brought before this House by the health minister from the CEO of Territory Health Services in
relation to the alleged manipulation of budget estimates.
He goes on:
- I will repeat my statement of yesterday about the way in which the Territory public purse was caught in
the CLP crocodile jaws.
And further, he added:
- … all based on mismanagement, lack of honesty and facilitated by a lack of transparency. In other words,
the final responsibility for financial projection with the related information lay with the former Treasurer,
and not with the Under Treasurer.
- I really question what sort of review the former Treasurer had. Was he dyslexic? Was he myopic?
What was happening? Maybe he needs a new pair of glasses because there was a difference
between $12m and $107m.
- I seek clarification, advice - perhaps from the Clerk as well - on this point: we have listened to not a member
of the Assembly speaking, but the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee speaking, a committee of this
Parliament that is supposed to be unbiased in its deliberations. What I am hearing is the chairman of the
committee, prior to the receiving the full wealth of evidence with regards to allegations that are being
made - not only against myself, the former Treasurer and the former minister for health - standing in
this Chamber and clearly demonstrating that he is totally biased in his opinion. I believe that by his
comments …
- … so far, he has demonstrated his incapacity and ineligibility to continue on that committee.
- I have been advised that comments made by the Leader of the Opposition should be taken into account.
You admonished the member for Johnston, asking to keep in his mind that he is also the Chairman of the PAC. You also commented to the Leader of the Opposition that his point was valid.
So we see here a member who not only knows his responsibility on the PAC, he also knew of the matter that was coming before the PAC, who received a gentle reminder from myself that he should watch his comments, who was the subject of a point of order from the Leader of the Opposition, and who received an admonition from you following the Clerk’s advice. This member has had the best advice available.
I now come to the media statements made by the member for Johnston. This was highly publicised in newspapers and in the electronic media. I myself could not believe my ears when I heard the member for Johnston’s comments on the late news on Friday 30 November and over the weekend. On the 6.30 pm Channel 8 TV news, the following news item was broadcast:
- Claims today that the former CLP Treasurer, Mike Reed, wanted a health department budget altered to show
an increase in funding the following year. The allegation was made to a parliamentary committee hearing its
first evidence, Labor Chairman Chris Burns declaring the move was designed for political gain, something the
CLP denies.
What can be more damning that that? The reporter had formed the opinion - I repeat: the reporter had formed the opinion that the Chairman of the committee had already made up his mind…
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is absolute, pure speculation on behalf of the member. He is now telling us what the reporter had in her mind. All he can tell us, surely, is what is in his own mind at the moment.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Dr LIM: If the reporter, in her professional capacity, had formed that view, what did everyone else watching the broadcast think? Later in the same news, the member for Drysdale said:
- We are on an information gathering exercise which will eventually find its way into the report.
The reporter responded to the comment with:
- But according to the Committee’s Labor Chair, Chris Burns, that may not be necessary. He is convinced the
budget was manipulated for political gain, despite not hearing all the evidence.
The member for Johnston was shown saying:
- It was an artificial reduction so that the CLP could pretend that they were increasing the health budget in an
election year. That’s the evidence.
The member meant that it was evident that it was an artificial reduction so that the CLP could pretend that they were increasing the health budget in election year.
Mr Henderson: Yep.
Dr LIM: That was what he meant. Yep! ‘Yep’, he said. I pick up that interjection. He said that, and he meant that, that it was evident that it was an artificial reduction. So he has already made up his mind, that it was an artificial reduction.
The ABC TV News at 7 pm that same evening reported in a similar fashion and the reporter said:
- The Chair of the government-dominated committee says today’s evidence shows the former government misled
the public.
The words uttered by the reporters are clear. There is no doubt here that the reporters were under the impression …
Mr Stirling: Why aren’t they before Privileges?
Dr LIM: There is no doubt here …
Mr Stirling: Well, you want to run the Chairman, but you don’t’ want to run the person who wrote this, who wrote this, who wrote this!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Leader of Government Business. You’ll have your chance to respond.
Dr LIM: The words uttered by the reporters are definitely very clear. There is no doubt here that reporters were under the impression that the chairman of the committee had already made up his mind - and that, immediately after the first day’s hearings. Journalists with their professional training normally would weed out the false from the truth. They were definitely under the impression that the chairman had made up his mind. I suggest to you that if the journalists were so impressed, so would be the public.
Let me now go on to the next few days following that disgraceful episode. On Monday 3 December, the following was reported on NTD8 TV news at 6.30 pm and I quote:
The Public Accounts Committee was called to determine the accuracy of the CLP government’s last budget. It sat
for the first time on Friday, the members hearing health boss Paul Bartholomew confirm $8m had been removed
from one budget to show an increase in health funding for the following year. Labor Chair, Chris Burns, jumped
on the evidence saying it proved that the CLP had artificially manipulated the budget for political gain.
In the same news item on channel 8, the member for Johnston had this to say:
This is a parliamentary inquiry and I have got every right to comment on the evidence.
Words from his own mouth. Half an hour later on the 7 pm ABC News, the reporter said:
In his first major role since being elected, Committee Chair and Labor backbencher Chris Burns told a hearing on Friday he was satisfied the former government had misled the public over the size of the health budget.
The member for Johnston, in closing the interview, responded thus:
We are not dealing with a court of law here. This is a parliamentary inquiry and I have got every right to
comment on evidence which is what I did.
On Tuesday, 4 December on 8.30 ABC morning radio program, Julia Christensen interviewed the member for Johnston and I will read the interview for the record:
The Public Accounts Committee hearing into claims the CLP falsified budget figures continues tomorrow with a
fair degree of controversy surrounding the hearings. Shadow Attorney-General Peter Maley has accused the
Committee’s Chair, Labor backbencher Chris Burns, of destroying the Committee’s credibility by pre-empting
the outcome. This is what Chris Burns had to say on Friday:
and this is the voice-over from Chris Burns:
The bottom line is that the budget was artificially reduced by $8m in health so that the CLP could
pretend that they were actually increasing funding in an election year.
That was the voice-over and then the reporter comes back:
- That’s Chris Burns, the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee hearing into claims the CLP falsified
budget figures.
The reporter went on further. After introducing the member over the radio, she said:
- It’s a kangaroo court according to Peter Maley, but I must say …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Government members, your behaviour is outrageous. We are trying to listen to the member for Greatorex. Just settle down. The Leader of Government Business, I expect you to set a better example.
Dr LIM: For completeness, Madam Speaker, let me say this again: The reporter went on further after introducing the member over the radio, and she said:
- It’s a kangaroo court according to Peter Maley, but I must say listening to what you said on Friday, you
do appear to have pre-empted the outcome.
Here we have a very professional journalist who, after hearing what the member had to say, was led to believe that the member had pre-empted the outcome. Listen to what the journalist had to say. She thought the member for Johnston had already made up his mind. If she did so, how many more people listening to the radio program on Friday and the weekend would have thought the same?
The journalist then said:
- But you have not heard all the evidence yet. You have still got quite a lot of hearings to go, haven’t you?
Madam Speaker, I believe that I have demonstrated quite strongly that the Chairman had his mind made up before the PAC even got to the first day of hearings. His commentary and the impression created in the journalists - not one, but several - all showed his bias, his mind set. He brought into the deliberations of the committee not only a bias, but more: he had already decided on the outcome of the review by the PAC.
It is not for me to divulge what was said and what was decided within closed sessions of the committee’s deliberations. There were many things said and many actions taken which I am not at liberty to discuss. This evidence needs to be heard by the Privileges Committee so that a fair assessment can be made about the member’s alleged breach of privilege. All that evidence must be brought to bear and that can only be done at a deliberation of the Privileges Committee. Obviously, the member for Johnston will have to be replaced as a member of the Privileges Committee while it deliberates on his fate.
Madam Speaker, I move that the matter be now referred to the Privileges Committee for inquiry and report pursuant to Standing Order 83.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to reply to this very serious charge that has been brought by the member for Greatorex, a matter of privilege.
I will begin by talking a little bit about the Public Accounts Committee under our government because prior to election, we made commitments about open and accountable government and about the committee structure and we have endeavoured to keep that. The Public Accounts Committee, when we came to government - looking back through former reports, talking to former Labor members and also looking through some of the Auditor-General’s reports - I believe was a very moribund committee and it was very closed.
We moved very quickly to open up the operations of the Public Accounts Committee to the public, and part of the controversy here is that there have been public hearings. We have also moved to include an Independent member on the Public Accounts Committee: Mr Wood, the member for Nelson. So we have moved to open up the committee, to have as many hearings as we can in public and also to table documents; that was not something that was done too often under the previous regime. So that is an important aspect. We have opened up the Public Accounts Committee.
Just turning to the main allegation here about - and a lot of it turns on a media comment that I made on 30 November last year after public hearings in which we heard evidence from Mr Paul Bartholomew, CEO of what was Territory Health Services, that was what he was talking about. The member for Greatorex has at length talked about what some media have attributed to me there and he is right. Paul McLaughlin on NTD8 News on 30 November said:
- The former health minister and committee member is due to have his say next week but according to the
Committee’s Labor Chair, Chris Burns, that may not be necessary. He is convinced the budget was
manipulated for political gain despite not hearing the evidence.
So that is what McLaughlin attributed to me. Now, here is what I actually said and, once again, this is what the member for Greatorex has also laid on the record here. The quote was:
- It was an artificial reduction so that the CLP could pretend they were increasing the health budget in an
election year. That’s the evidence.
Now, my recollection is also - I was asked a number of questions by the media, and most of them I also prefaced by saying: ‘We have heard in evidence today …’ so I was very clear that I was repeating evidence that was given in public hearings. Now, how the media attribute quotes is the media’s business. That is one element of it.
The second element of it is is what the member for Greatorex has attributed to me - or tried to attribute to me - during parliamentary sessions in November last year. The first one is - and he had no substantiation for this - alleged interjections on my part, negative or biased. So, there is not one shred of evidence on the record that he can point to. It is a fairly flimsy case that he is mounting here. He also mentioned in the speech, in relation to a number of matters, that there was a Point of Order raised by the Opposition Leader and was considered by the Speaker. I will quote again exactly what I said in that debate:
As members here would be aware, the Public Accounts Committee is currently examining a serious charge that was brought before this House by the health minister from the CEO of health services in relation to the alleged manipulation of budget estimates.
I was clearly stating there - and I will stand on it again, and I said I would stand on it on the day - that this was an allegation. Once again, I fail to really see where the member for Greatorex is coming from in this. He is trying to construct this case that is really a house of cards and really baseless. There is not a lot of substantiation that he has been able to bring to this House today to substantiate this serious charge.
Now, his approach to me to counsel to me - yes, the member for Greatorex did approach me, but I was busy. He planted himself in front of me; I was busy. I said - I don’t recollect the words. I said: ‘Not now, I’m busy. Go away’.
Now, the member for Greatorex also mentioned the crocodile jaws. The crocodile jaws really are a matter that was, I guess, a basis of what Professor Percy Allan had to say. They are not really a subject of inquiry for the PAC within the terms of reference. It is all about that yawning gap between income and expenditure over successive years under the CLP government. It was a matter that was also mentioned by the Under Treasurer in public hearings. So, the crocodile jaws are a matter of public knowledge; they have been in the newspaper. There is nothing secret about them, the crocodile jaws, and it’s happened over successive years, not the years that are involved in the focus of the inquiry of the Public Accounts Committee. It was something that was going on for quite a number of years. The crocodile jaws - I don’t know how he can attribute some sort of bias on my part in terms of the PAC inquiry, in terms of mentioning the crocodile jaws in debate.
Now, if I could move on. Look, I could have a lot to say. I guess - it’s true, it is true, I am a new member in this parliament, I am the new Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. I do acknowledge that I have a lot to learn and I am keen to learn. I think all of us on the PAC who are new, the four of us - that is, the members for Barkly, Sanderson, Nelson and myself - I think we all acknowledge that. It was a big fillip, I think, for all of us to get such positive press after a recent public hearing where we were complimented on our work, as backbenchers, about trying to discover the truth, about trying to get to the bottom of our inquiry.
I know the member for Greatorex puts great store on press comment and I am sure he probably would have been wounded by what he read there about the - if I could just get the quote here. I think they were called ‘churlish’. The editorial writer reminded them that they were the ones who lost the election and I guess he was hinting it was churlish behaviour that did it. I was, at a personal level, heartened by the comments within that particular editorial that I was well mannered and patient as a Chairman and I take that as a compliment.
Now, I know there has been controversy over my press statement, and I did seek the advice of the Clerk. The Clerk counselled that in the best interests of the inquiry, members should refrain wherever possible in future from making public comment. Now I have refrained - that was in early December - but I notice that the member for Drysdale has just chewed on and on with his public statements directly about the work of the Public Accounts Committee. In fact, I think since that time, I have made no comment but the member for Drysdale has made four comments about the work of the Public Accounts Committee. I found it a little insulting to hear him denigrate the work of the PAC. He was asked on the Col Newman’s show about how it felt to be a witness before the PAC and he said, in typical style: ‘Oh yeah, a bit like being mauled by a wet sheep’. So, denigrating the PAC, denigrating the work of the PAC.
I hold the work of the Public Accounts Committee in great esteem and respect, and I want to be working over the next three-and-a-half years. There are many important issues; issues raised by the Auditor-General that we will be taking on board, issues referred to us by the floor of this parliament that we will also be taking on board. There is a lot of work to be done; I would like to do it in a bipartisan way. I realise that this particular inquiry is politically charged, but I would encourage members opposite to join us to look at some very important issues that face the Public Accounts Committee, that can make this Territory work a hell of a lot better.
Members: Hear, hear!
_______________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Before we go on, Leader of the Opposition, I wish to advise members of the presence in the gallery of our Year 12 students from Kormilda College, accompanied by their teacher, Pam Wallace. On behalf of all members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
_________________________
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, listening to the comments from the member for Johnston has done nothing to convince me that there shouldn’t be a reference to the Privileges Committee. Now, I begin by saying firstly …
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: I make a plea to the government: this is a very serious motion. I recognise the government has the numbers in this House; I recognise the government can made any decision they want in this House and will get away with it. You have that weight of numbers, you have that absolute authority, and you can cackle and carry on and do whatever you like. I guess you feel very strong about it, and that’s fine. We don’t mind being the underdog, because that’s the way this parliament works. In fact, I actually look forward to being the underdog because the more you carry on the way you do, the more you look arrogant. The one thing that you always said was that you were going to change the way this parliament operated; you would not be arrogant, you would not carry on in parliament the way this terrible CLP did. You are so joyfully being arrogant, you are so joyfully using the weight of your numbers that you are making fools of yourselves every day. So, I hope you keep it up. That’s the first thing.
The second thing I would say to you is this: the Westminster system has checks and balances on this oppressive weight of government. It also has checks and balances on frivolous efforts by the opposition. We are talking about something that is really the backbone of the system of democracy that we operate in. The system of democracy allows for properly constituted committees to interrogate issues that are seen to be important in this House. I would say to you with absolute honesty that, in my opinion, right from day one - and that is why I stood up in this House and made the point of order on your comments - there is nothing that the member for Johnston can say to me that will ever convince me that, first, you want to operate in a bipartisan way and, secondly, that you are not totally committed to bringing up the most scathing report, and you were committed to that from day one. That is my opinion, and I believe that your utterances since that day have only reinforced that position.
I believe that what you have said in the House today - that I stood up and made a point of order - that alone, I believe, is sufficient reference for you to go to the Privileges Committee because it may not have done anything except demonstrate to you not only the importance of your position as Chairman but demonstrate to you that your comments were an affront to the Westminster system and this parliament, and that could have been the end of it. Get a bit of counselling from the Privileges Committee and that is the end of it, but that committee has a responsibility to this parliament to demonstrate to all of us that there are processes in place that have to be adhered to and that is what this motion is all about.
This motion alleges impropriety by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. It does not make a judgement of you; it alleges impropriety. I would have thought, if your defence is so strong, if the motion is so frivolous, the Privileges Committee itself would turn on the opposition and say this was a waste of time, this should not have happened, reinforce your position, reinforce your independence and that in itself would have been a demonstration to the opposition not to proceed with these sorts of things. But we have the confidence to put ourselves in the hands of that committee knowing at the outset that we do not even have the numbers. But we have the confidence to put this case in the hands of that committee if for no other reason than to demonstrate that this parliament is important as a house of democracy.
This parliament has a responsibility to all Territorians and any of us who sit here charged with that responsibility maintain the confidence of all of us in the way they conduct themselves and you, the member for Johnston, from the outset, in terms of the way you have handled this episode, have been an absolute disgrace in my mind. In terms of the fact that you have denigrated your position as Chairman, you have denigrated the PAC, and you are laughing at the authority of the Privileges Committee and so is the government.
But go on, do whatever you like. All we are saying is this: this is not a motion against you or condemning you or prejudging you. This is a motion to say that this issue is so important the Privileges Committee should deliberate on it. I look forward to the member for Nelson hopefully making a comment because it would seem to me that there is sufficient evidence to at least have the committee deliberate on it and to disallow that evidence from being heard, to my mind, is an affront to democracy and the process of this parliament.
If for no other reason - and you can say in this House that you have been counselled by the Clerk, you can verbal the Clerk, yet the Clerk has no opportunity to speak in this House but the Clerk does have an opportunity to speak in the Privileges Committee and at the very least he can balance what you say - we can see what the Clerk thinks of your actions, the Privileges Committee can. Maybe the reporters can be called and they can give their opinion about the full tapes, not the extract that you read that was on the news that night; what you actually said because they still have the tapes, and then let the Privileges Committee decide just whether you did prejudge this case or not.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to direct his remarks through you as he is bound to do.
Mr BURKE: I am almost finished, Madam Speaker. I would also say to you and refer to the fact that you yourself saw the issue when I made a point of order as having some gravity. I believe from those instances alone there is sufficient evidence to at least put a prima facie case before the Privileges Committee. If the Privileges Committee wants to admonish the opposition at the end of the day and totally rule in favour of the member for Johnston, fine. But we have sufficient confidence in that committee to at least deliberate seriously and we ask the government to support that committee in its effort to get to the bottom of it.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I must commend the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the member for Johnston, for his contribution to this debate. I was tempted to have the question put because I thought he had dealt with each of the issues raised in such a substantive motion that there seemed little left to say. Of course, that was made apparent by the bleeding heart contribution from the Leader of the Opposition who gets in here – now, he was elected in 1994 and I think it was the first time I have ever heard him refer to democratic processes in this Chamber and refer to the Westminster system. Music to my ears! Where has he been the last eight years? It was fine when he sat on this side of the Chamber, it was fine when he sat in the Chief Minister’s chair; he never once referred to democratic processes of this Chamber or anywhere else, let alone the Westminster system.
Now, if he has a problem with the way this Assembly works in making decisions on whether to refer a member of the Assembly to the Privileges Committee or not, I have to tell him that it was the CLP and his government that made this Standing Order the way it is; that it is the Chamber that debates the merits of a case on whether a member goes forward to Privileges or not. Prior to that, Madam Speaker, you may recall it was a Speaker’s decision on receipt of a letter from a member wanting to refer another member to Privileges and the Speaker worked through that issue and reported back to parliament. I think this is probably a better way to go. But we would be open to suggestions from the opposition if they do not like the system that they themselves put in place because I have to tell the Leader of the Opposition this is not going to succeed. This motion will be defeated because it is a farce. It is an absolute farce and it is moved with the sole intention of creating a smokescreen about the real work and the real job, diverting attention away from the real and important work of the Public Accounts Committee which has been charged with its work by this Assembly as a whole.
It is this parliament, it is this Assembly that gave the Public Accounts Committee its reference and it is that point, and the point at which the member for Greatorex’s motion goes to undermining the work of the committee itself, undermining the Chairman and in turn undermining the work of this Assembly that pushes the standing orders much more than the member for Johnston did. It could well have been ruled out of order because he is really trying to undermine the due and proper processes.
Let’s have a look at the terms of reference:
- (1) That the Public Accounts Committee inquire into and report upon the accuracy of the budget data
published in the 2001-02 budget papers with respect to both estimated outcome for 2000-01 and
the budget for 2001-02, with particular reference to:
a) whether the data published for individual agencies differed materially from that
understood by agencies to properly reflect the best estimates available to each
agency at the time;
Treasury or the Treasurer’s Office with regard to these differences, and the nature of
that advice;
c) whether the agency undertook to advise its respective minister prior to the budget being
delivered that these differences existed;
It would seem that in one case at least that was the case.
d) the impact these differences had on the reported totals for the Northern Territory
public sector; and
e) examine both the expenditure and receipts attributable to each agency in regards
point (a) to (e); and
- (2) The committee report to the Assembly on or before the second sittings of the Assembly in 2002.
The member for Johnston and the Public Accounts Committee Chairman is doing a job for this parliament and for the people of the Northern Territory. It is very clear to me, at least, what the investigation is about when you read the terms of reference. And it is the former minister for health, above all others, along, of course, with the former Treasurer, who are right in the frame in this case.
We know that Dr Lim has been thinking about this motion for some weeks and it is really no surprise given the media reports of the committee. I am glad he went through what occurred on Channel 8 on a particular night and what occurred on ABC on another night because I did not happen to catch those news reports at the time, so it is good to see that they are now on the Parliamentary Record for all to read. That is helpful in itself. But certainly, the press clippings - and I have a couple here - do make interesting reading. One wonders in the context of headlines that say ‘Bottom line that’ll will suit your needs? Yes, Minister’ John Loizou, 6 February, ‘Misery for Reed’, Editorial, NT News, 6 February, ‘Budget didn’t add up, admits Clarke’, 5 February 2002, again by John Loizou.
One wonders how on earth the member for Johnston and the Public Accounts Committee Chairman can ever be referred to Privileges Committee in the face of this. What on earth did he say that was not out here? Let’s have a look:
- Misery for Reed: Micawber knew the road to happiness - in theory, at least. As those who have read
David Copperfield by Charles Dickens will know, the old rogue’s definition was simple: …
You should listen, Mike. It might be informative.
- ‘… income 20 shillings, expenditure 19 shillings and sixpence, result, happiness. Income 20 shillings,
expenditure 20 shillings and sixpence, result: misery.’
- Former Treasurer Mike Reed seems to have chosen the latter course. Mr Reed’s political games have been
laid bare by his own Treasury under secretary Ken Clarke at the Public Accounts Committee hearings.
Mr Reed was going into an election with the books showing no growth.
- There would be little to crow about on the hustings.. So he made ‘an inquiry’ of Mr Clarke - and the public servant
took this to mean that his boss wanted ‘a defendable means of demonstrating there was growth’. The Budget figures
were touched up a little and, hence, the economy was suddenly ‘booming’. Of course, it was smoke and mirrors.
Mr Clarke has told the PAC that the crocodile’s jaws were widening - that is, the difference between income and
expenditure was getting worse. There was, in fact, a $190m black hole. Mr Reed says Mr Clarke’s evidence vindicates
him. How he works that out is anybody’s guess. Having said that, we accept fully his assertion that nothing illegal was
done, and no funds were misappropriated.
- He was just manipulating the figures, hoping, as Micawber always did, that ‘something would come up’. The irony
is, Mr Reed’s no longer in power - the rest of us are left to suffer the misery of his budget black hole. And Micawber?
Well, he migrated to Australia and became a rich man.
The other one is ‘Bottom line that’ll suit your needs? Yes, Minister’ by John Loizou.
Truth, as every mother will tell you, will out. And at this week’s hearing of the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee in Darwin, a most unlikely quartet proved this to be true. The three ALP and one Independent members of the six-member committee showed in a single day that the age of an effective backbench MLA in a representative democracy is not dead.
And it is a pity that the Leader of the Opposition is not here to hear this:
- And the truth they exposed was that the figures used by former CLP Treasurer Mike Reed in his last election year
Budget were manipulated. The quartet was a most unlikely grouping - four novice MLAs who at first seemed, at
best, ditherers and at worst, inept.
It gets better:
- But despite their inability to lead or cross-examine witnesses, they made their committee effective in showing how
ministers and public servants work. And in passing, they might also have taught three churlish former CLP
ministers - Dr Richard Lim, Steve Dunham and Chris Lugg - that it was they who lost the last Territory election.
- But if ignorance proved bliss, and the patience and good manners of Committee Chairman, Labor MLA
Dr Chris Burns, eventually won out, it was the Yes-Minister performance of former Under-Treasurer,
Keith [sic] Clarke that stole the show. Accompanied by a phalanx of mostly women senior Treasury advisors,
the man who told newly elected Chief Minister Clare Martin that Mr Reed’s budget was unsustainable admitted
that the CLP had used two sets of figures in its last budget.
The motive was plain. In the first week of May last year, Mr Reed was worried because his about-to-be-delivered
budget would show little or no growth in spending for health, education and police. And in the best Yes-Minister
tradition, Mr Clarke anticipated his master’s needs – ‘a defendable means of demonstrating there was growth’. No,
he was not given instructions as to what to prepare. Nor was he told to artificially adjust the numbers. And the
final decision, as Mr Clarke regularly reminded the Committee, was to be made by Mr Reed.
Madam Speaker, one wonders, in the face of these sorts of remarks - there is a copy of it, it is available everywhere, it was widely read, I imagine, on 6 February 2002 - one wonders where John Loizou is in this and why is he not here before this Assembly to explain his actions and face a referral to the Privileges Committee compared to the innocuous remarks made by the Chairman of the Committee itself.
The work of the Public Accounts Committee is of critical importance to this Assembly, to inform the Assembly exactly what went on in the preparation of this very misleading 2001-02 budget. And it is important for this Assembly to get to the bottom of this process so that all steps available are put in place by this Assembly to ensure that that sort of dodginess and shoddiness can never occur again as part of future budget preparation.
These issues are, of course, very important for the Country Liberal Party because they go to the heart of their credibility on economic management, a mantra that they stood on for 26 to 27 years in this House. They prided themselves on economic management and, of course, the fallout over the 2001-02 budget has completely exposed them as charlatans. That’s what hurts them, and that’s what is behind this motion, much more than anything the Chairman may or may not have said. But the work of the Committee is not yet finished. The motive, as I said, behind this motion is simply not bona fide. It seeks to undermine the work of this Committee and this Assembly, and the motivation goes more to trying to protect the Country Liberal Party’s incompetence and dishonesty than furthering the work of this parliament, and it’s a tactic we have seen in the first two days of sittings this year. It’s a tactic that they are trying to employ in their desperation to get a headline.
Yesterday, it was the Commissioner for Correctional Services whose integrity and credibility was challenged by the Leader of the Opposition. Today, it’s the new Police Commissioner and the police force that the Country Liberal Party is trying to undermine.
Members interjecting
Mr STIRLING: These tactics are the desperate, negative tactics of political destruction and that destruction will be your own. That destruction will be your own.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr STIRLING: Madam Speaker, at the end of all of that, of course, is their ever-readiness to run the racist flag up that pole as high as they can get it.
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: As high as they can get it.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I don’t believe it is in the best interest of this parliament for members to call other members racist.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, will you stick to the motion and make sure you don’t deviate by making remarks that are inappropriate.
Mr STIRLING: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. Territorians saw through the charlatans opposite, and they saw through the charade in August last year, and they will see through it again, particularly if they want to get in the gutter with their destructive politics that they seem so hell-bent on pursuing. The real motivation for this motion is an attempt to smear the Chairman in the hope that, in turn, they can discredit the findings, whatever the findings of that Committee may be when they hand it down in due course.
Finally, the motion itself does the mover no credit and I can assure him it will be defeated. Madam Speaker, I move that the question be put.
Mr Dunham: You gutless bugger.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I would ask that be withdrawn.
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw.
Mr DUNHAM: I withdraw both words, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Before we go on, the Leader of Government Business has actually moved that the motion be put. Would you defer that until after the member for Nelson has his say?
Mr STIRLING: Absolutely, Madam Speaker.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I know this is a serious matter, but I must admit I didn’t know whether I should rise to defend wet sheep. That was a comment about the PAC and, being a member of that committee, I thought it was a strange remark.
My comments today I hope will not be taken as any indication of my views as to the outcome of the PAC hearings. There are a number of issues that need to be raised. This motion is basically singling out one person, the Chairman, as having made statements which could be seen as an improper interference with the free exercise by the committee of its authority and functions.
But you have to look at the whole way in which the PAC was set up, and you have to put it in to the context and the time it was established to look at this issue. It is difficult to not accept that this PAC, and the matters of which it has been charged by parliament, haven’t forced it to be political because we had a censure motion from the government of the opposition passed before this committee was set up. So, to some extent, you can say there was a judgement made about the government before the Public Accounts Committee released its findings.
For me, you tend to have a Public Accounts Committee on one side which will have a group of people supporting what the government already has passed and on the other side, of course, another group of people who are doing their darndest to say that was not true which leaves me in a position of trying to, you might say, sieve out the political rhetoric for the truth.
I turn to the comments that three people, members of the Public Accounts Committee, have made occasionally in the public arena. I think I have also said to the Chairman, Dr Burns, that perhaps some of his statements could have been worded better. We are all new. That is not an excuse, but four of us, at least, are new to this whole concept of being thrown into a Public Accounts Committee. Some of us had no experience in dealing with the media, and that can be daunting sometimes, especially when a microphone and a camera are stuck in your face. I am not necessarily saying that is an excuse but, again, I think you have to look at things holistically before you can make an overall comment. I think that the Chairman, since then, has refrained from making any more comments and any comments he has made are purely of what you might call a technical nature.
I’ll just quickly take out two other issues: I think at times other members have said things that perhaps could be seen to be not quite appropriate. Mr Dunham made a statement to Top-FM, I think. I have the transcript here. I think it is from 16 January this year. He made a statement, for instance - he is referring to the health minister here and he says:
So the question for the health minister - and we will get the opportunity. Gerry is going to get the opportunity, if he cannot get into to see her, because he is on the PAC and we are going to call Minister Aagaard to come before the PAC to talk about the budget papers that gave her the extra $34m.
I believe that the decision to call Minister Aagaard was at that time not public. I am just making a statement that perhaps that should not have been said until the PAC had officially announced that the minister was going to come before the Public Accounts Committee.
The second item I want to mention is that when the motion was moved for the setting up of this Public Accounts inquiry, there was a second motion made after that motion had been supported. This motion was - and it came from the member for Drysdale and it was in the form of an amendment, and the amendment said that the PAC investigate Professor Percy Allan’s two reports, the Access Economics investigation and assessment of Labor’s pre-election policies and that the PAC be allowed to investigate Labor’s mini-budget due in November.
Now, that was put before the House and that was defeated. In the public hearing on 30 November with Mr Paul Bartholomew, Dr Lim raised the issue, and I quote from page 20:
Now, Professor Percy Allan recommended a series of measures to address his perception of budget problems. Have you read them, are you aware of them, which of these measures that you read would you implement in the now Department of Health and Community Services?
I just take that one example. Again, I felt that - and perhaps in hindsight I had not realised that this amendment had not been passed until fairly recently - but we were actually starting to discuss issues that it was recommended by this parliament that we should not take on.
What I am saying is that I see a range of things that have occurred on both sides that may not have been up to scratch, may not have been technically correct, or perhaps some sort of motion should have been moved that they also should not have occurred. I would be happy if people felt that there had been a range of matters that had been raised during this Public Accounts Committee’s inquiries that were a bit dubious as to whether they should have been said or not, then perhaps we should be looking at all those matters in a Privileges Committee and that way, I think we would get a fairer outcome.
I say all of us have probably made mistakes. I have done a radio interview. In fact, I started off that radio interview saying that I felt that the censure motion was serious and the evidence that I had seen looked as though the government had certainly done something wrong. I was brand new; I have since heard a lot of evidence which may make me think one way or the other, but we do make mistakes and I think that we will learn and become a better PAC as we go along.
I think that this is picking on one person for, you might say, a number of perceived errors, but I think we are all perhaps guilty of that and if this parliament is to be fair and it wants to have a Privileges Committee look at the lot of us, I would welcome that.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be now put.
Motion agreed to; motion put.
Motion negatived.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 44)
(Serial 44)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Local Government Amendment Bill is to reinstate section 13 of the act which was repealed in 1995. This bill was presented to parliament in February last year but was defeated. The bill is designed to allow elected members of local government to contest an election of the NT Legislative Assembly and if they lost that election could, within seven days of the declaration of the poll, be restored without penalty to being a member of the council from which he or she had resigned.
I have heard all the arguments that have been stated in previous debates about this bill, but for me the best reason for restoring this section is that parliament should encourage people to stand for public office, not put impediments in their way to discourage them. This makes for a stronger, healthier and more vibrant democracy, and in a place like the Territory where we have such a small population, encouraging people to stand should be a priority. I know from my time in local government, local governments strongly support this change and would certainly welcome the reintroduction of section 13.
I am not going to go over old arguments or debate what was raised in previous assemblies unless there is opposition to this bill. I do feel confident that both sides of parliament will support this bill and that to raise the ghosts of the past would not be conducive to assisting a bipartisan approach for this change. This bill is about encouraging people to stand as representatives in our parliament. It is about strengthening our democracy and, surely, anything that does that is good for the Territory.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to members.
Debate adjourned.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 36)
(Serial 36)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill is introduced with the intention to overcome difficulties that are created in section 357 of the Criminal Code. The bill is an attempt - and I do not really put it any higher than that - to grapple with the issues that are of critical importance to us all, and it is my hope that debate and further discussion will ensue so that, ultimately, a bipartisan approach can be adopted to this vexing area.
Put simply, the community must be protected from violent offenders who are declared unfit to plead and who, as a result, are not dealt with by a court appropriately. The fact is that often violent offenders are released into the community. They can be repeat offenders who commit particularly violent crimes. For instance, the case of Anthony Scotty in Alice Springs illustrates the difficulties created by several parts of the Criminal Code. Anthony Scotty was not, most would argue, dealt with sensibly by the criminal justice system over a period of years. Ultimately, a man who had a history of violent offences was allowed to roam the streets of Alice Springs, and he ultimately murdered a local woman, Rosemary McIntyre.
The inquest into her death illustrated that the justice system was not well equipped to deal with a man who had organic brain damage. Had the system been better, arguably Rosemary McIntyre would be alive today.
Today in Alice Springs, in particular, there are violent offenders roaming the streets with brain damage - often from petrol sniffing - and who, for one reason or another, are deemed by a court to be unfit to plead. Unless legislators take action to change this situation, it will be a matter of time until another innocent person is murdered. Hence, the introduction of this bill is an attempt to generate healthy, bipartisan discussion with a view to changing at least one part of the relevant legislation for the benefit of those for whom we govern.
The bill proposes changes to section 357 of the Criminal Code. The salient parts of section 357 are subsections (3) and (4), which read as follows:
(3) If the court finds that he …
an accused person:
- … is not so capable …
that is, not fit to plead to a charge:
… it is to say whether he is so found by it for the reason that he is in a state of abnormality of mind or for some other reason that it shall specify and the finding is to be recorded; then the court may order the accused person to be discharged or may order him to be kept in custody in such place and in such manner as the court thinks fit, and admit him to bail, until he can be dealt with according to law.
Subsection(4) reads:
- A person so found to be incapable of understanding the proceedings at the trial may again be indicted and
tried for the offence.
Pursuant to subsection (3) there are, put simply, three options or three dispositions available to the court when dealing with an accused person who is unfit to plead. They are, for all intents and purposes, defined in subsection (3). In simple terms, the options are:
To discharge the accused. That is a significant concern for many in the legal profession as well as members of the public because the effect is that the subsections provide that offenders can be discharged into the community only to offend again. A typical example is a person who has permanent brain damage from petrol sniffing who may not be fit for trial. As that person - based on medical evidence, of course - will never improve, it follows that the trial can never be held. In addition, such a person may not fall within the provisions of the Mental Health and Related Services Act and there are no other facilities suitable for protecting the community against the offender committing further crimes.
The second disposition available to the court, or the second option it has, is to order that the offender be kept in custody until the court thinks fit. This is a problem because, as a result of the decision of R v Jabanardi 1983 50 ALR 147, this means in practical terms that if a person is permanently unfit to plead, once having been declared so by a court, he can be discharged. Again, this is an unacceptable risk and poses significant risks to the community.
The third option under subsection (3) of section 357 is to give bail to the accused. In other words, to release him on bail. This, in particular, is a troubling disposition because if an offender is unfit to plead, he is also unfit to enter into bail conditions. So, it follows as a matter of logic that bail is often dispensed with. This means that offenders are not even subject to a variety of bail or protective measures a court can usually impose.
In real terms, this means that offenders who are permanently unfit to plead are not held in custody, nor are they bailed. Instead, they are systematically discharged or released into the community. Hence the extraordinary situation exists where a person may have been previously found to be unfit to plead and then discharged into the community; they will have been discharged regardless of whether they shoplifted or committed a violent assault.
In Alice Springs - and I’m sure the Attorney-General knows this well - there are a number of repeat offenders who have been declared by the Supreme Court as being unfit to plead. So that there can be no doubt, the type of offenders in question include the likes of Roland Ebatajitna and Seth Namatjira. Since they have been released by the court, they are free to roam the streets committing more crimes. Some of these offenders have histories of particularly violent offences and, indeed, a matter was in the Supreme Court in Alice Springs last week dealing with the ongoing difficulties posed by Roland Ebatajitna’s problems.
This, in essence, is a dangerous revolving door. It is a minefield to discharge violent offenders into the community. A safeguard must be created to protect the public and this is necessary, particularly in Central Australia, given the high rate of petrol sniffing and the link between this and violent offences.
As a result of the obvious difficulties created by section 357 and the risks posed to the community, the opposition’s view is that a legislative regime is required where, if an offender, on the facts, committed an offence, thereby disregarding the need to examine his mental state or his mental intent, he should be sentenced as if he were fit to plead. Otherwise there will be a group of violent offenders who repeatedly commit crimes and who are systematically discharged by the court.
It is noteworthy that every other jurisdiction in Australia has legislation on fitness to plead that says a court can still sentence a person previously declared unfit to plead. I think the leading jurisdiction is Victoria. In other words, just because an offender has been declared unfit to plead by a court previously, he can, nevertheless, be dealt with by a court in other jurisdictions.
The central aim of this bill is to provide that a hearing can be held to determine, on the facts, whether the accused committed the act constituting the offence and, if so, the court can then detain that person for a certain period, thereby protecting the community and, for that matter, the offender. In terms of the bill, it provides that existing subsections (3) and (4) of section 357 be omitted and substituted with new subsections (3) and (4). Those new subsections are fairly straightforward.
The new subsection (5) provides that if an offender is likely to become capable of understanding the proceedings, he may be remanded in custody or admitted to bail, but if the court is satisfied that there is a risk of the person offending again, then pursuant to subsection (6), he must not be released into bail unless under the care and control of another person who is capable of understanding any conditions the court imposes. This will provide comfort and security to the community. It is therefore a useful and practical amendment.
In addition, subsection (7) provides that if it is unlikely that the accused will become capable of understanding the proceedings for the next six months, the court has some options that are not presently available to it under the current regime. The subsection clearly anticipates those who are permanently unfit to plead. Specifically, it provides that, in such a case, a hearing must be held to determine whether, on the facts, the accused committed the offence for which he is held, and the details of that are outlined in subsection (8).
In the event that at hearing, the court does find that the accused did commit the act, in accordance with subsection (11), the court must then go on to deal with that person in accordance with the new section 357A.
Pursuant to section 357A, the court must either order that the person is to be detained in accordance with section 357B or discharge that person subject to the conditions the court thinks fit. However, the terms of any discharge contemplated by section 357A(1)(b), are limited and this is due to the inclusion of subsection (4) of 357A which provides that if there is a substantial risk of the person re-offending or posing a risk to others, he will only be discharged if in the care and under the control of another person who is capable of understanding any condition that the court imposes. This significantly improves the current provisions which are so obviously unsatisfactory.
Finally, section 357B provides that if an offender is found to have committed an act, whether it be shoplifting or murder, an option available to the court is to detain the offender and the period of detention is to be not less than the period of imprisonment that would have been imposed having regard to factors outlined in subsections (a) to (c) which include considerations such as the offender’s character, his history of offending, his mental condition and the public interest.
This bill affords protection for the community and gives the court practical options when dealing with an offender who is unfit to plead. The options included in the bill are workable and sensible and I know that there are people in the legal profession, and, I suspect, the judiciary, who are calling for this section to be worked on at the very least by government.
As I said at the outset, this bill is intended to promote discussion with a view to achieving an outcome that should have bipartisan support. As the number of violent offenders seems to be increasing, the stakes are high. For my part, I do not want the death of an innocent person on my conscious and for that reason I implore the government to look seriously at this bill.
I should also add that I became aware last week of the matter in the Supreme Court in Alice Springs involving Roland Ebatajitna. I assume that the Attorney-General has been advised of that. I understand that it is going back to court on 4 March. There is no better example I can illustrate than that case.
It is for that reason, Madam Speaker, that I commend the bill to members.
Debate adjourned.
SMALL CLAIMS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 40)
(Serial 40)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The bill deals with an amendment to the Small Claims Act which will allow a court, in a limited number of situations, to award costs against an unsuccessful party in a small claims action. Too many times it seems people who owe less than $5000 to a creditor are not concerned about the prospect of civil recovery litigation as the costs associated with a recovery action by a creditor often makes the whole exercise uneconomical.
Small and medium sized businesses cannot afford to engage a solicitor or take the necessary time off work to pursue many outstanding debtors for sums of less than $5000. This bill gives the court the discretion to make an order in relation to costs in proceedings where the amount claimed is less than $5000 in two discrete situations. First, where there is a written agreement between the debtor and creditor stating that the recovery costs in respect of the debt will be paid by the debtor; and secondly, proceedings that are for the recovery of a debt within the meaning of section 46 of the Unit Titles Act.
I will just talk briefly about section 46 of the Unit Titles Act. Section 46 allows for a body corporate to recover money from a member of that body corporate for money that it has expended under the Unit Titles Act in the Northern Territory for any negligent act or omission on the part of the member of that corporation. That money is recoverable as a debt against the individual member of the body corporate, but once again, the situation arises where you have a recalcitrant unit holder who refuses to pay that debt and the cost associated with instituting recovery proceedings against that recalcitrant unit holder makes it uneconomical for the body corporate to proceed. The amendment to the Small Claims Act allows for recovery of costs against a member of that body corporate.
I have consulted with some small and medium sized businesses as well as a couple of managing agents of bodies corporate who are of the view that this type of amendment is required, particularly in regard to the tight economic climate which we find ourselves operating within and when margins are so small. The proposed amendment to the Small Claims Act will close both of the loop holes in which debtors in these two very specific categories who owe less than $5000 currently enjoy.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES COMMITTEE BILL
(Serial 45)
(Serial 45)
Bill presented and read a first time. Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
The necessity for this bill to come on General Business day is because of the inaction of the government, notwithstanding that this has been seen as a very high priority area, and the growing suspicion from those of us on this side that the intention of the government is to do absolutely nothing about this because they have quickly realised that the promises that they made prior to the election and their many, many statements in Hansard are a charade and can be proven to be such.
I shan’t be visiting the wealth of material that is in the historical records of Hansard for two reasons. First, this debate will take place, obviously, when the bill’s passage is debated at the next General Business day, but second, I thought it was important to talk about it in a contemporary context because it is a matter that is now for this government and it is a matter that this government has to deal with.
Members would probably be aware that the Northern Territory Public Accounts Committee was established by temporary Standing Order 21A of the Legislative Assembly back on 16 August 1986. The committee’s status was altered by way of a motion of the Chief Minister on 23 August 1988 from a sessional committee on a trial basis to a standing committee of this parliament. As a result, as a committee of this Legislative Assembly, its authority is derived from the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act of the Commonwealth and the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act of the Northern Territory. The details of the Public Accounts Committee are enshrined in our standing orders and are at 21A which specifically describes the Public Accounts Committee. There are several other references through the standing orders, including select committees, and examination of witnesses, etcetera.
I draw the attention of the House to a sequence of events, commencing prior to the election of Labor presenting a position paper parading as Good Government. This position paper had a few references to the Public Accounts Committee, and it was seen as a fairly pivotal change that would be brought in as a matter of some urgency. For the benefit of Hansard, the paper is called Position Paper, Labor Northern Territory Good Government, and I quote from page three of that document:
- Good governance depends on sound fiscal management strategies and guidelines. This position papers outlines
how Labor’s sound fiscal management principles will guide the functions of government.
Labor in government will introduce the following initiatives to ensure that open and accountable government
becomes a reality for all Territorians:
And it cites several dot points, but under the dot point ‘Reform Parliament by’, it says:
- … introducing an Estimates Committee …
- … tasking the Public Accounts Committee to scrutinise all Government expenditure on advertising publicity in conjunction with the Auditor-General.
That paper goes on, and a couple of pages later at page six, it talks about the parliamentary accounts system
in a little bit more detail. I quote again from the paper under the heading ‘Parliamentary Committee System’:
Parliaments in most democratic nations have established a system of Parliamentary Committees for the purpose of assisting public scrutiny and maximising accountability of the elected Government of the day
Parliamentary Committees should be free to operated unhindered, and to praise, criticise or call to account the actions of the government. The CLP has developed a limited committee system, and one that does not meet these criteria.
Parliamentary Committees in the Territory are established under Standing Orders. These can be changed virtually overnight at the whim of the Government.
Labor will enshrine the broad structure of the committee system in legislation so that the status of committees is raised, and they become part of the institutional framework of the parliament and not subjected to the wishes of the party that holds the majority of members in the house.
Under this new regime, Labor will have legislatively prescribed areas of responsibility. This arrangement will free the committees to investigate issues of public concern without the approval of the governing majority party. Each committee will have the power to consider issues, conduct hearings, report on them and make recommendations. The committees will have enhanced powers to call for evidence. The makeup of the committees will be changed to have six members each, only three of whom will come from the party in government.
So that’s when we went to an election, and it was interesting because immediately after the election there was some rhetoric about moving quickly to implement some of these changes. And, indeed, the Whip, on 15 October, wrote to the Opposition Whip, prior to the first sittings, about proposed changes to Standing Orders and Sessional Orders of the Territory Parliament, and he talked about a similar style of rhetoric, and I’ll quote from the last paragraph:
- These changes are intended to make the Legislative Assembly focus on core business, legislation to be the highest priority of the day. They are designed to have a more responsive, efficient, effective parliament that is open and accountable to the people of the Northern Territory.
I look forward to receiving your support for these new initiatives.
Public Accounts Committee nor the Estimates Committee.
We then were sworn in, Madam Speaker, a great day for us all, being successful in our elections. Very early in
the new parliament, I go to the debates of Tuesday 16 October 2001, at page 3, where His Honour gave his address
to this parliament, a fundamental first speech that forms a platform from which this government intends to introduce
and run its principles in government. At page 3, His Honour said:
- The priorities of my government …
And this is very early in his speech, this is merely a dot point to the second paragraph:
- The priorities of my government will be:
to reinforce and enhance, as necessary, open, accountable and democratic structures. In other words,
provide good government.
And members will recall that’s a lift from that other paper.
He further went on, and at page five he expanded on good government:
- Good government. The government will introduce a range of initiatives with the aim of entrenching open and accountable government to the Territory. This will include:
FOI;
establishing a parliamentary committee system;
introducing an Estimates Committee.
So, very early on, we on this side of the House were aware that they were going to use Good Government as some form of a blueprint to change some of these things. Those expectations were quickly shattered because we then moved to a variety of motions to set up the structures of this House, and they were the committees.
We are still on Tuesday, and I have merely got to page 16. The Leader of Government Business talked about the Public Accounts Committee. In talking to it, I did put the case that only that morning His Honour had described how we would be progressing with this committee, and that it was our understanding that it would be based in legislation, and that it would have some of those features that were enunciated to the electorate prior to the election. I put it that, and I quote again:
- I would ask therefore, with the good traditions of the Westminster system, the Labor Party’s own platform,
that matters relating to His Honour’s speech this morning be adhered to in this particular instance and
that the Public Accounts Committee have membership of three members of the opposition and three
members of the government. I am sure if this paper is not available to the current Chief Minister I could
make it available.
And that was responded to by the Leader of Government Business virtually shutting down debate. And we thought: ‘Well, there you go, that’s just another broken promise,’ and that was probably the quickest because we were barely sworn in and we had the Leader of Government Business saying: ‘Sorry, that’s a backflip job and we are not going to go there’.
What surprises is that the first speaker in reply to His Honour’s address, in the Address-in-Reply, was the Chief Minister. And somebody forgot to tell her speech writer, because her quote, here from page 21, she says:
- We will introduce a parliamentary committee system with an independent chair and an estimates committee.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That approach was made in deliberative sessions within the Public Accounts Committee. I am not sure whether it is appropriate for the member for Drysdale to be discussing it here.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, please do not refer to anything that happened in deliberative sessions.
Mr DUNHAM: I shan’t refer to anything in closed session, and to put the matter at rest, I can say that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee heard that debate. He knows that it’s something we’ve asked, and it’s something we asked in the public record of Hansard, so when I said I sought the attention of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I am not going to divulge exactly what was said in closed session, but I can tell you that I am dissatisfied with the answer. And I am dissatisfied, notwithstanding anything in the Public Accounts Committee, about the fact that this is seen as an urgent issue that is now in the third sittings, and still no sign, no mini-statements, none of that rhetoric that was so very, very important on General Business days when the Labor Party was in opposition.
I have introduced what I would call a minimalist bill. It is broadly lifted from the Queensland bill, and I think it has some applicability here, given that that is the only other unicameral parliament in our Westminster system here in Australia. It is also, fortuitously for those opposite, a Labor government, so they can get some pretty good inside government advice as to how the thing works and whether it has any difficulty. I thought that that would make an easy road for them.
I am aware that there are still some jurisdictions in Australia that do not have Public Accounts Committees enshrined in legislation; they still form parts of standing orders or, in some cases, broad legislation covering committees in general which has Public Accounts Committees underneath it.
The bill also has the capacity to look forward and to look back. Members would be aware that the Public Accounts Committee basically is an historical committee. It looks at data that is already on the public record. We think there is some benefit in having the capacity of that committee to be a forward looking committee, to peruse the estimates of the government of the day and to talk about some of the issues that find themselves in estimates.
We think that this is in rough accord with those opposite, but I am prepared for them to put a countervailing point of view notwithstanding that it will put a lie to their election rhetoric and to much of the rhetoric that has been put on the Parliamentary Record that we can revisit at another time.
The bill only goes to five pages and 33 clauses. It is a fairly readable document. Certainly, for members of the Public Accounts Committee, it should present no problem. The area of responsibility is encompassed in just two points:
- The Committee’s area of responsibility is to assess the integrity, economy, efficiency and effectiveness
of government financial management …
and I am sure I would have great agreement from those opposite on that:
- (a) by examining government financial documents; and
which is a Public Accounts Committee style of activity and, interestingly, an estimates type activity so we can call for those documents, and
- (b) by considering the annual and other reports of the Auditor-General.
I would like to consider this bill to be a model style of a bill in the sense that it can be easily appended, changed and amended, and that we do have a substantial period in between the two general business days for that to occur. It is not my intention to put this bill out as the ultimate. My intention really is to say to the government that we would see some features of this legislation that must be embedded and for them then to treat this as a matter that they previously saw as having a high priority.
If the Labor Party is to be believed with its promises, the legs that must be included are: that it should be in the form of legislation under this House; that it should have even numbers on its makeup and members will note that at clause 6, membership is of six members, three appointed by the Chief Minister, three by the Leader of the Opposition.
Now, the obvious problem that could present is if there is a tied vote for the chairperson - and this is not lifted from Queensland; this is something that I thought might be advantageous - is the chairman could be agreed upon by this parliament. I can see an occasion where the opposition who seem to be very impressed with the fact that an Independent member is now on the Public Accounts Committee could actually nominate an Independent member. So the Chief Minister could nominate among her three nominees an Independent member and also nominate that member for chairman. So it leaves all those options open to the government of the day.
The features, getting back, first is that it is legislation; second, even numbers of opposition and government members; third, that it embrace the capacity for the committee to look forward in an estimates style of interrogation and also in the traditional backwards looking with public accounts. It should be able to investigate its own issues, and that is, certainly, something that is in the position papers that are here, and it should not have to be beholden on the government of the day to give it the issues that it believes to be important. The Public Accounts Committee should have the capacity to independently ascertain what those issues are and to pursue them. Last - and it is worth saying because it has got the potential to knobble a committee of this type - is that it should be provided with adequate resources.
I have not put that into the legislation because I think it is immensely difficult to draft, but in contributions to this debate, members should talk about the resourcing issues for the Public Accounts Committee so that if a future government wishes to merely pay lip service to this bill, the wishes of this parliament are clear in terms of its basic operating charter and the necessity for staff and for funds.
I shall leave it there on the basis that this is merely a model and a draft, and I intend it only to provide a vehicle for the Labor Party in government to achieve one of its fundamental ambitions. I am very happy to assist them to do that given that they seem to be fairly busy at the moment and incapable of bringing their thoughts to this legislation.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Northern Territory Police
Northern Territory Police
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move:
That this Assembly -
- (a) notes the current low morale of the Northern Territory police force;
Commissioner, Mr John Valentin;
(c) seeks an explanation from the government on the full extent and effects of budget savings
as revealed by the Commander of the Southern Region in a memo dated 15 December 2001;
and
(d) calls on the government to urgently appoint a suitably qualified team to conduct a comprehensive
review of the needs of the operational police in the Northern Territory.
The men and women of the Northern Territory police have long been regarded by Territorians as an exceptional group. They enjoy a rapport with the community, I would suggest, that is unequalled elsewhere in Australia, if not the world. It is a reputation built up over many years and the basic principles on which it has been created are passed on to each succeeding generation.
They have an enormous task to police such a huge area, an area of 1 346 200 km containing so many different communities, towns and cities and a mix of cultures unlike any other jurisdiction in Australia. They are crucial to the functioning of our society and they deserve the full support of government in fulfilling their tasks. We in the CLP are proud of our relationship with these men and women and we are proud of our record of support over successive governments. In the past five years we increased the manpower by 150 and lifted the police budget from $92m to $129m, an increase of some 40%.
This Labor government went to the election promising to employ a further 50 police over its term, yet it has already slipped this by failing to achieve any increase in its first year. With only one recruitment class this calendar year, this government cannot meet its own target of an increase of 10 in 2001-02. We already know that this government is placing pressure on the budget for the police this financial year. At least two documents have been leaked, and this goes to the very question of morale in the police force, that detail this pressure. We have the infamous memo from Gary Manison, the Commander of the Southern Region, that stated bluntly, and I quote:
We have lost 3% of our budget.
Mr Manison went on:
I need you to advise me how you will cut spending in your division. The obvious areas that will have to be done
are higher duties allowance and overtime. Only in the most critical situations is overtime to be approved.
Mr Manison continued:
This means that where members go sick, they will not be replaced unless it is a critical area. This also goes for
relieving at stations when there are more than two members. You need to consider whether they can function
for a time without the additional member.
Then within days, there was a second leak to the Northern Territory News of the minutes of an Operations Command meeting which again made it clear that the police budget is short of funds. The newspaper quoted from the minutes:
Next year’s allocation has received $1m less than this year’s allocation and we have a 4% pay increase to pay
out of that.
The newspaper quotes the senior police as saying: ‘Operational costs are no better’. And what was this government’s response? What did the police minister do? Well, first of all he said the police have received more money because the CLP government gave them more money. Incidentally, perhaps the minister should pass on this information to his colleagues in the Public Accounts Committee who seem to have a different point of view. But after congratulating the CLP government for increasing the police budget and adding that his government had topped up these funds in their mini-budget to pay for the Falconio investigation and the pay increase, the agreement between police and government, he wiped his hands of the whole affair and left it to his new Commissioner to clean it up.
So much for ministerial responsibility. ‘We’ll sack the Deputy Commissioner, we will tell you how many police to put into various units, we will get you working on projects that the Chief Minister doesn’t want, like demerit points, but we won’t take any responsibility’. The police minister even left it to an anonymous government spokesman to contradict him and the commissioner and, again, I quote from the NT News of 6 February:
The Northern Territory government said the shortfall was caused by the $1m investigation into
Peter Falconio’s disappearance.
Our police men and women deserve better than this; they deserve to be supported from the highest level of government and they deserve to know that they are being supported. The forced departure of Deputy Commission John Valentin speaks volumes as to how much support they can expect from this government. It was a shameful episode, and the police minister stands condemned for the manipulative role he played in the whole affair. Let me put on the record the chronology of this sad affair.
First, John Valentin made it clear that if he was not selected as commissioner he would, in the interest of the force and the Territory, continue to serve as deputy for as long as was required - certainly, for long enough for whoever was to be the new commissioner to establish himself in the new job. This was known to Commissioner Bates and known to the government, or certainly should have been. On 22 November, Police Commissioner Bates …
Dr Burns: He did not want to serve the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr BURKE: Do you want to give your ears a go? On 22 November, Police Commissioner Bates rang Deputy Commissioner Valentin who was in Adelaide to tell him that Paul White had been chosen by the government to be the next commissioner. There was no further contact between the two men because of their various duties and commitments until 28 November when Commissioner Bates returned from several days in Sydney and Canberra. At that meeting, Commissioner Bates told Deputy Commissioner Valentin that he, Bates, had been asked by the government to stay on for a further two weeks until Commissioner White arrived. He told Deputy Commissioner Valentin that he, Valentin, would not be required to act as commissioner which he had invariably done on numerous previous occasions when the commissioner was absent.
Commissioner Bates further told Deputy Commissioner Valentin at this 28 November meeting that the new commissioner did not have a role for Valentin in the Territory police force. Finally, Commissioner Bates made it clear to Deputy Commissioner Valentin that if he sought to serve out the remaining two-and-a-half years of his contract, then the government would ensure that Valentin was seen out of his job. Not surprisingly, Deputy Commissioner Valentin said to Commissioner Bates at that meeting that he would take off what was left of that afternoon to seek legal advice on his position. The next day, 29 November, Commissioner Bates and Deputy Commissioner Valentin had another meeting in which Commissioner Bates confirmed the four points he had put the previous day.
On 30 November, Deputy Commissioner Valentin again spoke to Commissioner Bates and sought and was granted three weeks recreational leave to consider his options. On the same day, the police minister issued a media release indicating that Commissioner Bates would be remaining in the position because Deputy Commissioner Valentin had said he wanted to take leave to consider his position. Remember, this media release was put out the same day Deputy Commissioner Valentin decided to seek leave and at least two days after he was told by Commissioner Bates that the government had asked Commissioner Bates to stay on.
It was this police minister who spread the scandalous story that Deputy Commissioner Valentin had spat the dummy because he had not been appointed commissioner. It was this police minister who put out a press release saying retiring Commissioner Bates had been forced to stay on because of the alleged dummy spit when, in fact, it was this police minister who asked Commissioner Bates to stay because he would not allow Deputy Commissioner Valentin to act in the position. It was this police minister who made it clear to the retiring Commissioner Bates that Deputy Commissioner Valentin …
Mr Stirling: Is that right? Evidence? There’s a little old conspiracy theory here. Have you got the minutes or the agenda to verify this rubbish?
Mr BURKE: You should at least listen. It was this police minister …
Mr Stirling: Unsubstantiated tripe! You are a grub!
Mr BURKE: … who made it clear to retiring Commissioner Bates that Deputy Commissioner Valentin would be seen …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr BURKE: … out of a job if he tried to …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, we have a point of order.
Mr ELFERINK: If the honourable minister wants to make allegations of that nature he can do so by substantive motion, and I think he should withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, that was a very unparliamentary term. Please withdraw.
Mr STIRLING: Their sensitivity gets ever more precious, Madam Speaker. I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Now, it would be useful with members even from the Leader of the Opposition’s side that we don’t have interruptions while he is giving his speech.
Mr BURKE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would ask the police minister to listen because he will have adequate time to respond to these allegations, and I would hope when he does so, he does stick to the issue rather than spraying all over the place which might give him some satisfaction but never, ever addresses the issues that are being raised here.
It was this police minister who made it clear to the retiring Commissioner Bates that Deputy Commissioner Valentin would be seen out of a job if he tried to serve out the remaining two-and-half years of his contract. It was this police minister who forced Deputy Commissioner Valentin into the invidious position of having to write to all the Territory commissioned officers to tell them what the real situation was. In that letter, John Valentin made it clear he was prepared to stay on and assist the new commissioner for as long as the new commissioner wanted. He also made it clear that the only reason he was given for being pushed out was that he was perceived to be too close to the CLP.
Now, we accept that this new government might want their own people in these crucial positions, but why can’t they be upfront and honest about it? Why can’t this police minister stand up and be honest and say: ‘I didn’t want John Valentin as Deputy Commissioner. I want my own men’? Why must he make up stories and damage the reputation of a man who has given many years of meritorious service both to the Territory police and the Australian Federal Police? Why can’t he be upfront and say: ‘We are going to pick our own men for the top police jobs irrespective of any recommendations from selection committees or the views of the serving men and women of the Territory police’? Why can’t he be upfront and publicly say: ‘We are getting rid of John Valentin because we think he is too close to the CLP’? In that context, I would be interested to know what was the real recommendation from the selection committee.
How comforting it must be to the rest of the men and women who are still employed as police to be told the police minister knows how they vote. He told the NT News in December:
70% of police vote CLP. Does that mean I am going gunning for them?
This police minister owes an apology to John Valentin for the way he was treated, or put the record straight because there are only a few possible explanations for what occurred. The first is that Commissioner Bates acted independently and without the authority of the minister when he told Mr Valentin there was no wish by the government for him to act as commissioner in the interval between Commissioner Bates’ retirement and the arrival of Commissioner White. Second, that the government did not want John Valentin to continue as Deputy Commissioner. Third, the government had no role for John Valentin in the Territory police. Fourth, the government would get rid of John Valentin if he tried to remain in office to see out his contract. Last, the reason for all this was the allegation that Deputy Commissioner Valentin was too close to the CLP.
If the previous Police Commissioner acted without warrant to make those statements, the minister has opportunity to stand up and say it. That is the first option: that Commissioner Bates made it all up and told Mr Valentin those five points, independent of the government and the minister, and without any authority to do so.
The second option is that Commissioner Bates was acting as the agent of, and on the instructions of, the minister, and just passing on the minister’s position to John Valentin. The minister now has the opportunity to explain. I ask the question: is it his contention that at the end of a long and very distinguished career, Brian Bates made it all up, thus leaving an enormous blemish on a previously unsullied record? If that is the case, then the minister, on behalf of the government, should apologise to John Valentin for how he was treated and misled. I have had the honour to know Brian Bates. I have enormous respect for him, and I cannot and do not believe that Brian Bates would have done such a thing and acted alone.
That leaves us with the second option that Commissioner Bates was carrying out the instructions of his minister and passing those instructions on to Deputy Commissioner Valentin, a man he had worked with for many, many years both in the Territory and in the Federal Police forces. Forcing Commissioner Bates into this position was a cowardly act by this minister and this government.
Coupled with the allegations against the former minister for corrections, it demonstrates once again a very undesirable attitude by this new government and its new ministers. They have no compunction in directly interfering with the day-to-day operations of the police force. They have no compunction in shifting or forcing out public servants that they believe are politically incorrect. They have no compunction in forcing other public servants to carry out their hatchet jobs. That is what this minister and this government did to John Valentin, and for the cowardly way they did it and for the reasons they pushed him out, they owe him an apology. And they owe an apology to the remaining men and women of our police force. They owe it to the Territory’s police men and women to explain that their personal politics will not be any bar to their promotion and advancement in the force.
Further, they owe it to the members of the police and to the rest of us Territorians to explain just what all their fiddling with funding is doing to the operational effectiveness of the Territory police force. They need to address suggestions that ACPOs are being asked to carry out the same duties as commissioned officers. They need to make it clear whether they will continue to pay overtime to police officers in bush stations who have to stay overnight because they have people in the cells. They need to rule out any suggestion that the very successful School-Based Constable Scheme is to be abolished, or so severely curtailed as to be virtually non-existent. They need to explain just how they propose to increase the police establishment this financial year when they have only one scheduled training course which will produce no constables for the beat until next financial year. They need to explain just how far they are planning to go in telling the commissioner how many police he will have in the various squads, a matter that surely goes to the heart of who has responsibility for the day-to-day operations of the police force. Is it the minister or the commissioner or his deputy?
Incidentally, Madam Speaker, one has to wonder how the loss of its two most senior officers, one to an honourable retirement, the other forced out by the minister in the most despicable fashion is affecting the morale of the rest of the force. Equally, the situation that has been left behind, that is this round robin of Acting Deputy Commissioners. Until now it has been the Deputy Commissioner who is actually responsible for the day-to-day running of the force. Now we have the three Assistant Commissioners taking it in turns to give orders to the other two, and none of them are guaranteed to get the deputy’s job anyway. Such a stupid competition at the top can be doing nothing for the morale of the force. The amount of information that is seeping out is evidence of that low morale.
Certainly, I would think that anyone who has been in a management situation and who employs that sort of practice in selecting the new Deputy Commissioner needs to reconsider that approach. But in the case of Commissioner White, it would seem to me that he has no option because it seems to me also that he has been given a short list of three, and there is no possibility for him to go outside of that situation, and also to make it seem as if the process if proper.
As with so many issues in the Territory under this Labor government, the minister and this government need to start telling Territorians what they are doing, if anything, and what they are planning to do. They need to stop what seems to have been a six month long caucus meeting and start acting as the government.
The last clause of this motion calls on the government to urgently appoint a suitably qualified team to conduct a comprehensive review of the needs of operational police in the Northern Territory. The malaise they have produced in the force, the low morale, the penny pinching and the outright interference in operational matters calls out for such a review. It calls out for someone removed from this government and removed from the politics of it all to examine just where the force is, where it is going and how it is going to get there. It is time to review the role of the police in our community and how they can be more effective and helped out to be more effective.
It is seven years since the McAuley Bowe Review was completed and the changes in our community, the growth of the population, the increasingly technological society in which we live, mean it is appropriate for another dispassionate look and an objective look at the police force. In my view such a review should not be looking at how money can be saved here and there by fiddling with the conditions of our police men and women, but rather at the way the force operates for the good of the community, the demands on their operations and whether or not significant resourcing issues are involved and how they need to be effected. It should be tasked at looking at the adequacy and appropriateness of resources - human, cash, technology and machinery.
This is not just about how this government got rid of the second most senior policeman in the Northern Territory. Nor is it just about how much this government intends to interfere in the day-to-day operations of the police force. Nor is it limited to how accountable the minister is for his actions. What it is about is the passionate belief on this side of the House that we do have a great police force. We must constantly renew our efforts to ensure the men and women who serve our community so ably are adequately supported and resourced by the government.
Madam Speaker, I commend the motion to honourable members.
Mr STIRLING (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, this sickening self-righteousness from the Leader of the Opposition in relation to this motion - he uses that to try to disguise the damage that he is actually causing to our police force with a motion of this nature. Well, it does not wash.
I said yesterday in this Assembly that I am enormously proud of our police force in the Northern Territory and I meant it. The Productivity Commission figures that we went through yesterday, released in January, back up the confidence and pride that I hold in the police. Most Territorians, more than any other in any jurisdiction in Australia, to the extent of over 76%, really respect are grateful to the police for the job that they do. They have a tough job in the community. It is recognised by most, except I think the Leader of the Opposition, that it is a tough job and they do it well. I guess my greatest disappointment is to be standing here as minister for police having to debate such an unsavoury motion as this is before us today. The only time in my 11 plus years in politics in the Northern Territory as a member of this Assembly that I have seen the Northern Territory police force dragged into the public arena in the manner that this Leader of the Opposition is trying to do today, occurred just prior to the October 1990 election, subsequent to the furore of the Mulholland Inquiry, and the House was closed down for that October 1999 election in the midst of a fiery debate over those matters.
That highly politicised event centred around a drugs investigation, and really the central question appeared to be at the end of it all, certainly, in the media’s view, it came down to the question of when the then police minister and former member for Sanderson, one Daryl Manzie, had or had not met with a prostitute called Rhonda. Now the police force was dragged through unsavoury …
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: I was a member in the House when the Mulholland Inquiry was finally tabled, under such security that one Mr Andy Bruyn had to front the Bar of the Assembly for breaking privilege in relation to the release of the Mulholland Inquiry, so secretively and so highly secured was the release of the report.
I use that as an example, Madam Speaker, and I think it was a lesson to one and all to stay away from this sort of strife because it does the police no good, it, certainly, did parliament no good, and it did the people of the Northern Territory no good. In all the years since that 1991 tabling of that Mulholland Inquiry, there have been a number of police ministers and shadow ministers come and go through that role as minister for police. Certainly, Brian Ede held opposition responsibility for police for many years; the member for Fannie Bay, Marshall Perron; the former member for Port Darwin; the member for Katherine; and in all of that time police were kept out of the political fray. They were for a very good reason, and I know the member for Macdonnell would understand exactly what I am talking about because the basic reason is this: it is because a police force can act honestly, openly, efficiently and remain effective as long as it holds the trust and confidence of the public that it serves.
One thing the Northern Territory police do not need is to be dragged through the mud by the Country Liberal Party opposition because they have picked on this political wrecking style as the style that they are going to take forward in the remaining months under this current leader. I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he thinks it is in the best interest of the Northern Territory to talk down confidence in the police. If I ask myself this question: does it help the criminals or does it help the police if a false message is circulated and perpetuated that morale is low? Well, I will tell you.. Our new Police Commissioner is not long back from a pretty comprehensive tour of stations throughout the Northern Territory and it’s not his view. It is not his view that morale is a problem at all.
We, as a community, as in every other jurisdiction, rely on our police, rely on our police force as the front line against criminals and crime. And I ask myself, whose side is the Leader of the Opposition on …
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: … when he seeks to undermine our police? And this grub over here wants to scoff. It’s not for no reason that in the last 10 years, the police have not been dragged into the political fray as they have today, there’s good reason for it.
Does the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for police encourage the leaking of police documents? Who does he think he’s helping when he goes to the media, with a so called leaked document, detailing efforts by senior management to keep within budget? Well, I can tell you it’s not the police he’s helping, and it’s not the interests of the Northern Territory government because this is a foolish, short term, opportunistic grab at political capital at the expense of our police. That little exercise necessitated a press release by the Police Commissioner, and I’ll quote from it, but again I ask myself: wouldn’t the Police Commissioner have more to do than to have to put out a press release to respond to the likes of this grub over here because he thinks he’s gotten on to something now:
- Commissioner Paul White has responded to comments about cuts to the police budget, saying it had not been
cut, but had been reviewed as part of normal operations.
‘It is normal practice to conduct mid-year and ongoing regular reviews of the police budget. As part of the
process, budget allocations are adjusted according to current and future anticipated future expenditure’,
Mr White said.
‘As a result of the mid-year budget review early in December some adjustments were made to budget allocations,
due in part to the Falconio investigation, the fact that staffing levels in the first six months were higher than the
establishment level, and the need to provide contingency funds or reserve funds for unplanned events, ie disasters
such as floods or other unexpected operating costs’.
Mr White said the decision to not replace some officers on leave is based on balancing policing services to the
community in various policing districts.
‘In relation to staffing and absence, it has always been the case that short and long term vacancies are assessed
by managers. Replacement officers are provided whenever it is necessary to ensure the continuation of adequate
policing services to the community’.
A response that should not have been necessary but for the actions of this would-be shadow minister for police opposite. And I would expect that he never would get the job as police minister given that he probably has a reasonably short term left in this parliament. But I do ask this question: does the shadow minister for police think that his activities are in line with fighting crime, or are they more in line with helping criminals? I encourage the shadow minister to ask himself that question because I think the answer is obvious to any clear thinking individual.
The opposition also sought to undermine the new Police Commissioner and, again, I ask who they are helping here. They put out a myth, they perpetuated a myth that former Deputy Commissioner of Police John Valentin was not made Commissioner because of alleged links with the CLP. Well, I can explain what really happened, and the Leader of the Opposition went to some lengths on this point.
Commissioner White was selected on merit by a selection committee. I did not hesitate one iota in accepting the committee’s recommendation. Following some of the media about this, on 21 December, I received a letter from the former Commissioner for Public Employment, Mr David Hawkes. Mr Hawkes was, in fact, chairman of the selection committee that promoted Commissioner White. I will read that letter from Mr Hawkes and I will table that as well:
21 December 2001.
Dear Minister
Addressed to me:
Despite the fact I retired officially yesterday, I have a continuing concern about several aspects of matters raised
by Mr John Valentin in the letter published in the NT News and associated comments. I feel it necessary to set the
record straight as far as my involvement is concerned.
As you are aware, I was Chair of the selection panel which assessed applications, interviewed Mr Valentin and
two other candidates, spoke to referees and which then recommended the appointment of Mr Paul White. The
assessment of all candidates was based solely on merit in relation to the selection criteria. The panel’s assessment
of each was confirmed by the respective referees. At no time did the political associations or interests of any candidate
enter into the panel’s deliberations.
Mr White clearly established superior merit. The report reflected that result.
In the course of the interviews, both Mr Valentin and Mr Smith were asked what their reaction would be if they were
not selected. Given that both were local candidates with strong aspirations for the job, the question was valid and
relevant. The ability for the senior management team of the department to work well together is an important
consideration in the appointment of commissioner.
Mr Valentin made it clear that, if he was unsuccessful, he would resign within a reasonable time frame. Mr Smith’s
reply was more positive.
I must say that I find Mr Valentin’s subsequent claims inconsistent with this response. I also take personal offence
(as no doubt do my colleagues on the panel) that our assessment was based on extraneous factors.
As I have already made clear, it was not and neither would I, as Commissioner for Public Employment,
entertain such matters. The assessment was based on relative merit and merit alone.
I trust these comments are helpful.
Yours sincerely,
D J Hawkes.
I table that letter for the benefit of the shadow minister for police.
I think it’s true that the Country Liberal Party have found their adjustment to life in opposition somewhat difficult, and after so long in government I guess we can all appreciate and recognise that. What we as the government, and the Northern Territory community overall, do not appreciate, and never, ever will, is their willingness to try to undermine the police force and the Police Commissioner. I ask the shadow minister for police to reflect on the remarks I made earlier in relation to this.
I had concerns put to me at different times whilst I was shadow minister for police and, of course, I asked myself: Did I ever get out to the media, trying to promote a story for the opposition on these points? No, I did not. What did I do with it? I wrote to the Minister for Police on every occasion that I had these concerns, with a copy to the Commissioner of Police. I wrote directly to the Minister for Police. I did that because I balanced the concern I had in relation to whatever the matter was with the police against the view that I have of the police force being dragged through the political mud for what end? I always believed that going to the minister outweighed the short-term benefit. I learnt that lesson fairly early in my time as the member for Nhulunbuy after I had gone public with an unfounded allegation about the police, and I was dressed down in fairly strict terms by the then Leader of the Opposition and shadow minister for police, Brian Ede, to be further done over by the Secretary of the Police Association who Brian arranged for me to meet with. And it was a lesson I did not forget.
In my time as shadow minister for police, I gained a far greater insight into their role and a growing respect for the way they carry it out as well as nothing but a total admiration for the role and ability of the former Commissioner, Brian Bates. I sense that Commissioner White is not all that dissimilar in many ways to his predecessors. I meant what I said yesterday when I described him as a class act. The fact is the commissioner deserves the support and loyalty of all elected members, as does our police force.
In relation to the review that …
Mr Burke: No, no, no. You haven’t answered any of the questions yet.
Mr STIRLING: … a bit of self-righteousness …
Mr Burke: Come on, about the information …
Mr STIRLING: What questions? Your grubby allegations without a shred of evidence? You didn’t even bring in a scrap of toilet paper like the member behind you did yesterday. You don’t even pretend to have any evidence. You get up here and you rattle off a whole lot of spurious allegations, and because you stand here and make these allegations we’re expected to take them as truth? Get on your bike. At least he bought a scrap of toilet paper in; it was not worth much, and he did not know what it was that he had, but at least he bought something in to try and put his case.
Now, in relation to the review that the - I do not even like describing him as the shadow minister for police - Leader of the Opposition talks about that it is timely to conduct a review cloaked in these self-righteous terms, you know, it is seven years since McAulay Bowe. The new commissioner, as part of his style, is conducting his own review and some time you might request a briefing and he will take you through these things. He will explain quite clearly to you how he sees his role in working over the next 12 and 18 months with the police. I would have thought that a review imposed by government on top of his own internal review, the way he is setting it up, would do nothing but simply undermine him.
I think it is sad to see the Country Liberal Party degenerate into the politics of destruction which we have seen over the last couple of days whether it is the Commissioner for Corrections and now, of course, the Commissioner for Police and the police force. The member for Katherine may have his own reasons for being in here at the moment but he, certainly, never would have allowed rubbish like this to put forward if he had the role as shadow minister for police.
Madam Speaker, I move that the motion moved by the member for Brennan be amended by omitting all words after ‘Assembly’ and inserting in their stead:
(1) express total confidence in the Northern Territory police force;
(2) welcomes Commissioner Paul White to his new role and offers him the
Assembly’s full support;
(3) notes that under the Labor government’s mini-budget of November 2001,
the Northern Territory police will receive $4.9m more than it spent in
2000-01; and
(4) notes with concern the attempts of the Leader of the Opposition to create instability
in the Northern Territory police force.
Madam SPEAKER: Do people want to speak to the amendments, or to the amendments and the motion?
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, there is absolutely no doubt that the police are a crucial and important part of our community. I saw a sticker on the rear of a vehicle on the way into work this morning and it really sums it up: ‘You protect your police or you protect yourself’. There are many good people in the police force. They do a dangerous job and often a fairly thankless job. I am going to raise specifically some of the issues which have been articulated to me which are of concern, the end result being there has been an effect on morale.
I can speak with some authority or some qualification in respect of that. My father was a policeman for nearly 30 years in the Northern Territory, as was my uncle. I have grown up with many police families and am fortunate enough to be part of a larger police family. We’ve spent Christmases together. I have many good contacts in the police force and was a prosecutor for a couple of years.
I can say that from those contacts and from the people that I have spoken to over the last three or four months there are concerns - and these are perceived, but I think the government should be aware of them. At least, they can take them on board and, hopefully, address them in a responsible way. There is a perception that the Labor government has, certainly, gone soft on crime. There is, certainly, a perception amongst police that police do not enjoy the confidence and full support of the government and an example of that was the way in which the John Valentin matter was handled, and the message that was sent out into the force, to the fellow on the ground, to the operational police that this is a sign of things to come. It was handled badly and the perception lingers.
I understand that there will be a review by the government of the Crimes Compensation legislation, and the possibility that police or Correctional Services officers maybe excluded from the operation of that act has been a cause of concern. There is talk by the government of regional Fisheries officers - and I think that is the right phrase - but the member for Wanguri at the Amateur Fisherman’s Association talked about some of the commonsense reasons why there should be more regionalisation of Fisheries enforcement. The difficulty is that it seems the government has not given an assurance to the Police Marine and Fisheries Unit that they will not be disbanded, that there will not be a reduction in their number of operational police. Also that unit, and the members I have spoken to in a social context, would appreciate an assurance from the minister for police that the unit is not going to be affected by the regional Fisheries officers and the unit will not be transferred back into the public service.
The combined effect of some of those matters I have touched upon are that general police morale is low. Honourable members perhaps should keep this in mind: the police are a large section of our community. There are many police who have been in the Northern Territory for lengthy periods of time. They have family, they have children here and their lack of confidence in the government, their lack of morale is really - you can compare it to the lack of business confidence. There is a lack of confidence in the government on all levels, the police is one of these many levels.
There needs to be a comprehensive review which will put in place procedures to enable police to articulate these concerns in a meaningful way, and probably more importantly those concerns need to be acted upon in a proper and respectful fashion by the government. A person of the calibre of the late Peter McAulay who was a great police officer and a family friend, someone like that who is independent and strong needs to be in charge of that review, needs to hear submissions, needs to make frank submissions to the government.
The Labor government, in my view, and, certainly, from what I have heard, is not listening. Their response and the comments made by the current minister for police really confirm that he is arrogant. He only pays lip service to those concerns and so concerned about pursuing this social agenda the Labor Party have neglected the police. The facts speak for themselves. It seems the government, through their conduct, have demonstrated no intention to properly resource the police, and the one thing I did agree with that the minister for police said is that the police really are our front line. They are our front line; they are also our last line of defence. I do not have the history which some of my colleagues on this side of the House and the member for Nhulunbuy enjoy in terms of what has occurred in the past and what was said and what has been recorded in Hansard; I can only articulate the facts and concerns that have been given to me. What I have said are real concerns of real police and they have to be addressed in a real and meaningful way.
The police, along with many other sections of our community, gave the Labor government an endorsement on 18 August; they trusted the Labor government and it seems no doubt that that trust has been broken and they have been let down, and let down very badly. The very fact that the current minister for police will not even take on board the constructive criticism and suggestions which the Leader of the Opposition suggested is proof.
In terms of the amended police motion, I can say that I, certainly, express my total confidence in the Northern Territory police force. I think all members of this House should do so. I haven’t met Commissioner Paul White, but, of course, I offer him my full support in his new role.
Madam Speaker, the difficulty with the motion is that there’s not even an acceptance that there is a problem, and there’s not even an acceptance that we are going to do something about it. Subparagraph (3) of the motion is something outside my independent knowledge, but I, certainly, cannot support subparagraph (4) of the motion. In the circumstances, I can’t support the amended motion.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the story from the Leader for the Opposition, ably supported by his deputy, the dill from Goyder, and it comes to mind …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I’m not sure that affixing labels of this type are really in the best interests of parliament.
Mr KIELY: Madam Speaker, yesterday it was pointed out quite clearly, we either have a liar in our midst or a dill. Now, I don’t believe he’s a liar, but I do believe he’s a dill.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, you know that you cannot use unparliamentary language in these type of debates. You can only do it by substantive motion. Withdraw.
Mr KIELY: I withdraw it, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Would you just get on with your speech.
Mr KIELY: Madam Speaker, what is this motion about? The motion is about getting stuck into all of the institutions in the Northern Territory. It’s not only getting into the police. You see, this opposition here is not interested in the community. They’ve been down to Lake Bennett …
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Aren’t we speaking to amended motion which praises the institutions of the Labor government? I suggest that the member stick to the motion.
Mr Kiely: No, I can speak to both, as I understand it, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, and I advise all members now we have an amended motion so you are speaking to that amended motion, not the original motion.
Mr KIELY: All right, Madam Speaker, I will speak to the amended motion. I’ll speak to it in balance of how our motion - the government motion – is a far better proposition than that put forward by the opposition. It’s for this reason: that the opposition’s motion is one of wedge politics, it’s one of not really caring about the community, and it’s one of getting stuck into the institutions that uphold the way of our lifestyle in this community.
Their motion has not only been attacking the police force and the members of it in a destabilising, demoralising manner, but I have seen this activity from the opposition in the way that they talk about the public sector, in the way they talk about tourism, in the way they talk about small business. This just seems to be some sort of strategy that came out of their Lake Bennett lock-away. I think they would have had better strategy looking for that cat which is probably still missing and eating all the wildlife up there at Lake Bennett rather than coming back into this Chamber with half-baked, ill-conceived strategies to try and grab a headline. All they do is tear away at institutions that we value, that we share, that we support, that we want to see get ahead.
This government values the police force; that is why our motion is framed the way it is.
A member: The amendment.
Mr KIELY: The amendment. That is why we say that we want to express total confidence in the Northern Territory police force because we believe that the police force that is supported by its parliament is a police force that will be effective for its people. Not the sort of motion that the opposition has put up, one that tears away at the police force. It demoralises it, which will have an affect on the way it goes on.
As I said, I believe that the motion put up by the opposition – and the reason why the government had to put up an amending one - is because of this one of wedge politics. One has to question who benefits. Who benefits from this? And I would argue them that the opposition’s motion benefits only the opposition because they cause disharmony. I don’t know, I really don’t understand why they would want to set about destroying our institutions. I find that our amendment, one that expresses total confidence in the police force, one that welcomes the commissioner, is one of substance.
I find, on the other hand, the one put up by the opposition as one of carping, one of hypocrisy, one of sanctimonious backflipping, because that’s all it is. The opposition had years and years and years to fix up any issues – seven years, I believe the Leader of the Opposition said it was since the last review of the police force – seven years. What, I ask, was the opposition doing in that time? What were doing? You know, institutions do not get to the state they’re at in five minutes flat. It’s a cultural thing, they’re led into it. Slowly, slowly, slowly they take on a persona or some identity, and it’s because of the inability of this opposition over here, when they were in government, to actually do anything creative, to actually support the police force.
Mr Burke: That they’re in the state they’re in, is that what you’re saying?
Mr KIELY: I’m saying that - I’ll pick up on that, Madam Speaker. This gets back down to whole point that I’m making about destabilising our institutions. Nothing in these statements is creative, nothing is meant to help the police. They sit there, they harp, they carp, they carp, they badger, they badger, they just tear away at our institutions. Why? For their own good, for their own reasons, not for the good of the community. Don’t let the community be swayed by what you put up. Twenty-seven years you had to address any problems in institutions. All you did - and might I say under your stewardship, what was that definition given by the member for Drysdale? Stewardship? In charge of a mess! That’s what it was, and that’s what you gave us. You gave us a mess. We are about to get us out of the hole that you put us in.
This is called Drum. This is the official publication of the Northern Territory police, December 2001. And this is the commissioner’s message on his farewell:
- I have been fortunate to receive excellent support from my various ministers. I have worked with
Daryl Manzie, Shane Stone, Mike Reed and now Syd Stirling. Whatever side of the fence they’re
on, they have been supportive and allowed me to pursue issues, important to the tri-services.
That does not sound like a commissioner who feels like he’s been done by a government. This sounds like a professional public servant who will get on with the job. He is beyond the politicisation. He is beyond the politicisation that you lot would do. I’d also go to another part of this publication. It is an article called ‘The Changing of the Guard’. This is a person who the opposition are claiming not to have any faith in, a person who they say: ‘Look, we need to have a great review of this police force because we have got no faith because the appointee in here was done for political reasons’. And while I’m on about that, another one of these false claims that go on over this side - they consistently come into this parliament either waving bits of toilet paper around or just making allegation after allegation after allegation with no substance time and again. Time and again, we drag out the paper, we get the advice from the department, and we table it and we refute it, but they don’t seem to learn. You know, his mother - the Opposition Leader’s mother - told him: ‘Knock me flat on me back and I’ll get a clear look at the sky’. Well, by geez, he’s had a real sleep out this week!
I’ll get back to Drum. This is about Commissioner Paul White:
Mr Paul White has been appointed the new Commissioner of Northern Territory Police, and
Chief Executive Officer of the Fire and Emergency Services. Mr White has had a diverse
career in South Australia Police, most recently as Assistant Commissioner. His areas have
included specialist investigations, intelligence and general duties, as well as professional
development. Throughout his 33 …
How long did you last in the army?
- … throughout his 33-year career, Mr White has been seconded to the Australian Bureau of
Criminal Intelligence, undertaken exchange to Kent County Constabulary in the United Kingdom,
and was the international team leader for the United Nations review of police training in Kurdistan.
He has been a board member on numerous state, national and international committees, including
the national CrimTrac DNA Steering Committee, the Australasian Crime Commissioners Forum, the
National Crime Authority Consultative Group, and was the Treasurer and board member for Crime
Stoppers, South Australia.
Well, I would take this B-grader any day. Is this what you are saying? These are the credentials of a B-grader? Well, Leader of the Opposition, I would say the Territory is a fortunate place to have been able to have had this man put his hand up, and wish to come here and help us out at this hour. Because we need police like this. It is him who will give us a whole great leading culture within the police. This is a man about whom you wish us to hold an independent review into his abilities to manage. Well, I’ll tell you what, Leader of the Opposition, you’re barking up the wrong tree on that one again.
Mr Dunham: Nowhere near the tree, you goose.
Mr KIELY: A feeble contribution from the member for Drysdale. I have always enjoyed his input into debates no matter where they are, be they in the public arena, be they in the PAC, be they in the public toilet. They’re anywhere and everywhere, his contributions.
Madam Speaker, let me pick up on that point about the Labor Party clearing out people because of their political affiliations. Let me say that the Labor Party is well aware of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act. They value that act. They also value the part in the Anti-Discrimination Act. You know, that one we talked about the other day - vicarious liability. You have read that act, haven’t you, Leader of the Opposition? That act makes it a crime to discriminate against people because of political affiliation, not to mention the moral dimension which is another aspect that I guess we will address a bit later on. Let me say this: when it comes to political interference in appointments - Dr Notaras - let me say this, let me talk about political interference - I believe he is still on the government payroll. Andrew Macrides, another fine mate. A mate. A man I call mate.
Mr Dunham: Is that a threat?
Mr KIELY: Is what a threat?
Mr Dunham: The fact that you’ve mentioned his name here in connection with the fact that he’s got a job.
Mr KIELY: Once again, Madam Speaker, the member for Drysdale who has it down to a fine art, trying to put words into people’s mouths. Right? This is how he gets around. He hears one word, he will construct the sentence, he will construct the paragraph, he will tell a whole story. I will tell you what, the bloke should be a fisherman not a politician.
I will tell you another one: Constable Styles in my own electorate in the schools, the School Constable - a great bloke.
Members interjecting.
Mr KIELY: You blokes, you are amazing. Madam Speaker, this opposition - carping, hypocritical, back flipping, sanctimonious opposition over here, when they don’t get their own way - who cannot adjust to life as an opposition, might I also say - this mob over here, when they don’t get their own way, they turn. They turn like mongrel dogs. They turn and they bite the hand that feeds them. Look at this. They turned on …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It has been a colourful speech. Yesterday we were called possums, mongrel dogs. I have a list of wonderful animal names to call these people and I think that if we allow this I will peruse that list.
Madam SPEAKER: I do find that offensive if you are referring to me also as a mongrel dog.
Mr KIELY: No, no, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: So I really do think perhaps you should withdraw that remark and do watch your terminology. You cannot just throw insults around the room if I consider it unparliamentary, so withdraw.
Mr KIELY: I withdraw it. Madam Speaker, they turn on people who support them if they detect that they no longer do. The funny thing about this is that these are professional public servants. These are professional public servants who are only serving them out of their professionalism, not for any political affiliation, not for any other reason except they are professionals. But they perceive doing a good job as being with them. But if they don’t get the answer they’re seeking, then it is turned around isn’t it – they are perceived as enemies. They questioned Commissioner Bates and his integrity, they questioned the CEO of Health and Community Services, Mr Bartholemew. They questioned Correctional Services’ Mr Moore. Who next will it be? Will it be Mr Tyrell? Will it be Ms Butterworth? Will it be Mr Chambers? Who else? When these CEOs, these professionals, are working hard at their job doing government policy as all good public servants do, who else will they turn on then say: ‘Look, they are political appointees’? I tell you there are inconsistencies within the opposition in the way they view the world that are incredible.
Madam SPEAKER: Can I just interrupt for one moment, member for Sanderson, and say that I am uncomfortable with members bandying the names of public servants around in this House. They probably also feel uncomfortable being named in the House over different things. I would just say caution to all members on both sides not to raise names of public servants in your debating.
Mr KIELY: Madam Speaker, thank you for that enlightenment. I, certainly, wouldn’t have expected it from the other side.
Mr Elferink: I would have expected it from your leader to shut you up.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Macdonnell, I have spoken. I don’t think there is any need for you to add any more.
Mr KIELY: Madam Speaker, there’s been no ruling on carping or whingeing, has there?
I am amazed at the amount of would-be bosses in this Chamber. I am amazed at that. That is another indication of the failure to really accept the position that they are in, isn’t it?
Madam Speaker, I am proud to be part of this government. I am proud to say this government has put in $4.9m additional funds into the police to make sure that we can get it going again. I am proud that we have a good Commissioner in Commissioner White. I have met Commissioner White. As a matter of fact, I would like to swap barbecue stories with the member for Goyder. I would like to see maybe if I could count up as many police as he knows, see if I have been to as many barbecues with as many police as he has. Because I will tell you what: the police I know are happy police. Maybe I go to the wrong barbecues. Maybe the member for Goyder should come to the same barbecues as I go to. Maybe the member for Goyder should meet the police that I know because I tell you what: they’re happy police. They are very happy police. Once again, we have the member for Goyder coming in, this time waving some fictional mates around his head saying these blokes are unhappy. Well, I will tell you what: that’s the whole lot, isn’t it? I’ve heard stories at barbecues. Come on, come with the real stories. Come with the facts, member for Goyder. I know you have never let them get in the way of a good story before, but come with the facts and we will happily address them.
At the end of the day, as I surmise it all, I would like to say that this is a government that supports all NT institutions. This is a government that wants to see all our institutions strive for greater efficiencies, strive for better service to the community, and I am just flabbergasted by the opposition’s persistent attacks on the institutions.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I am stunned by what I have heard from both speakers from government who seem to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the direction of this motion. They would like to pussyfoot around the issue and try to divert any of the spotlight onto the very institution that they are charged to lead. If you are talking about troops of any kind who are going into perform any kind of action, the issue of morale is an issue that is related to leadership. That is exactly what we are talking about.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Blain, I need to remind - and I know we got off the track with the last speaker - but do remember you are talking to the amended motion, not the original motion.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The intent of the amended motion does not far differ from the original motion in the fact that we are talking about low morale. If we have to have an amendment on the floor to allow the responsibility to be diverted from those who are charged to provide that leadership and to provide a response to any kind of situation, well so be it, and be it on their heads if we are going to play silly games here and ignore the real issue.
We have had an incredible amount of time spent talking about Lake Bennett as though there is something strange going on here. Why is there this strange fascination with Lake Bennett? I think it would be time for those who are charged with leading and addressing this situation perhaps to go and visit Lake Bennett and spend some time working out how they can respond to the current issues that are affecting the Northern Territory community rather than have a speaker who seems to be a parody of some after dinner speaker providing, to me, a disgraceful response to a very serious matter, trying to find a place to stand where all responsibility is diverted from the shoulders of those who are charged with discharging that duty.
You cannot deny the fact that there is a matter of concern. If you want to word the amendment in a way that makes you feel a little more comfortable and you could just sheet the blame home somewhere else, so be it, but you cannot deny the fact that there is an issue that you need to be attending to. Take one, for example. There have been a range of reports, in the NT News for one, that are …
Members interjecting.
Mr MILLS: Don’t be ridiculous! They have presented alternate views about what is actually going on in the NT Police Force. That is a reflection of what is going on in the community. Now, it is not for the opposition to come charging in and providing solutions; that issue should be addressed by those who are in leadership. I cannot see any kind of meaningful response generated on this issue which has been placed in all seriousness, and what the government is endeavouring through its response is to paint us into a position where we are actually attacking the institution of the Northern Territory police. For goodness sake, it could not be further from the truth.
I, for one, as a local member have the utmost respect for the role that the Northern Territory police play in Palmerston. I would charge other members to take an active role in working with their local constabulary to address some of the local community issues. That is the kind of leadership you actually do need, not playing silly games and trying to find someone else who can take responsibility for your lack of action, but to get actually involved in the situation. It requires understanding what is going on in your community and working with your community and working with the local police to build morale and to build those partnerships. That is the kind of leadership we do need.
Now, you might laugh at that. You might scoff and think: ‘Well, what is this bloke talking about?.’ You just look at the crime figures: 43% increase in the northern suburbs. There has been a 20% decrease in Palmerston. That is to do with leadership in the community, of a community group taking an active role and working with the local police in meaningful and helpful and constructive discussions. That is leadership and that has an actual effect on the morale and the delivery of service to the community.
Rather than play games and try to shirk duties, and sheet the message home to someone who is not charged with the responsibility of dealing with this issue, we are charging this parliament to oppose and to bring a reflective view to those who are in government. We are discharging our duty in opposition and the issue here is not the opposition bringing disrepute upon an institution within our community, for goodness sake - if you would like to paint that picture - it is us in opposition bringing a message home to the government to do their job and provide that leadership.
There is nothing further from the truth in terms of our respect for the institution of the Northern Territory police. Absolutely nothing. What we have here is some silly political word game being played to try and find a place you can stand where you can distort this issue into a matter of the opposition being destructive. It could not be further from the truth.
Dr Burns: Support the new commissioner.
Mr MILLS: There is no problem there. No problem at all. You just attend to the actual issue there rather than play silly word games and try to construct some reality that suits yourself.
Dr Burns: Support the new commissioner.
Mr MILLS: There has never been anything that has been said in this debate that is contrary to that view. Nothing at all.
There are many issues that do need to be attended to, and it is a simple matter to understand, particularly for those who now find themselves in the position of government. I know it has been over six months. I must walk in different circles from those who are in government. I can tell you for one that silly games are not being played here. This is a real issue. It is to do with law and order, and it is to do with an institution that has the need of the complete support of our community and this parliament. The issue here is the leadership that is being provided by this government, nothing else, and they are charged to respond to the issues that are being presented in this motion, nothing more than that.
What I find most peculiar in the arguments that have been presented from the other side is the complete preoccupation with the mindset of the opposition. That, to me, is a complete betrayal of the charge with leadership. Why on earth would you be so worried about the mentality and the psychology of what is going on on this side? You do not need to be watching us; you do not need to be watching this side of the House, I can tell you that, because we are standing tall in our job to do what we have been asked to do in this Chamber. We are doing our job, and I can tell you what: if you are going to play games like have just been played by these last two speakers, the circle of people that might be standing around you and giving you a completely different picture, perhaps they have not gotten over the chardonnay that they had on 18 August because the reality is there is a distinctly different message out there in that community and it is my duty to reflect that.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, before I turn my attention to the motion, I would like to make a few comments about the parliamentary system under which we operate and, frankly, I have to say that sometimes I am quite disappointed that there is almost a rigid adherence inside this Chamber to the pack animal approach to politics which is the party political system.
The party political system, certainly, as a general rule, requires the members of this House to vote in certain directions, but it does not prevent members of this House sharing opinions which are not always directly in accordance with one’s masters. There is a certain amount of latitude to express opinions beyond that. In the past in this House, it has been the habit of members to do so from time to time. Indeed, former member Steve Hatton was wont to do it from time to time, as were members of the Labor Party. The fact of the matter is that it has been a culture in this House for the years that I have been in it to actually get along with the opposition, and I have had, I believe, a reasonably good relationship with the member for Stuart, a fellow whom I respect. I, certainly, respect the member for Wanguri, as I am starting to develop a very profound respect for the member for Arafura. I think that she has a very bright future, not to mention a laser beam smile.
But that as an aside, there are aspects to the behaviour of other members in his House which I find absolutely astonishing.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, I realise you want to make these remarks but you are talking to an amended motion, and I think you need to make the remarks relevant. Come back to the topic.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, in that case I will bring myself to the amended motion forthwith. The fact of the matter is that …
Mr Stirling: You should be proud to support this motion as a former officer.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection from the minister. As I proceed to the issues and the motions forthwith, I am concerned that the member for Sanderson’s Oliver Hardy approach, and with his cohort, the member for Millner’s Stan Laurel approach, to this House is starting to diminish the quality of debate.
However, on to the motion …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Millner has not spoken on this motion or the amended motion, so the relevance of his reference to the member for Millner …
Madam SPEAKER: I think we have already told the member for Macdonnell to speak to the amended motion.
Mr ELFERINK: As I was moving on to forthwith, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: We have been very tolerant of all speakers, but I think it is time we got on with the debates.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I have looked at the amended motion and I have no problems with Clause 1:
- … express total confidence in the Northern Territory Police Force.
Clause 2:
- Welcomes the Commissioner Paul White to his new role and offers him the Assembly’s
full support.
No worries with that.
- Notes that under the Labor government mini-budget of November 2001 the Northern Territory
police force will receive $4.9m more than it spent in 2000-2001.
Well, that is little more than CPI if it even reaches CPI. In other words, no real increase but the dollar numbers have gone up. But at the end of the day, there is an expectation that this police force, in which we have so much confidence that we are not prepared to fund them to make up for the Labor government’s promises in relation to creating new numbers - 50 new police members in the first term. No effective or real budgetary increase; no real attempt to make more money available for these extra numbers. I don’t believe that the minister himself or the government of the day is showing confidence in the Northern Territory police force to recruit its own people. They are, certainly, not reflecting that in the budgetary approach.
Now, the Leader of the Opposition did nothing more in his motion than to ask the minister for police to be open and honest about the way they go through the process of appointing people. Yesterday we saw in this House that an open and upfront approach is not being applied.
Mr Stirling: Didn’t you listen? I went through this at some length. Waste of time telling you; you don’t listen.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection by the minister because I consider it extraordinary that he stood here and all he had to do was say no to the propositions put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. Simply had to say it did not happen. Yet the very second word that he said when he began speaking after ‘Madam Speaker’ was ‘sickening’. He then began to trawl through, in a most despicable way, some occasion in the past with which he had a hand in being a most dreadful operator in this House, where he helped try and sully the name of Daryl Manzie in a most horrible way. To sit here and then suddenly say: ‘I am cleaner than a white shirt; I am cleaner than any product Fab could produce’ is extraordinarily trite. He immediately climbed in the gutter when he had the opportunity to try and rise above it all, as he says.
He accuses the Leader of the Opposition of trying to drag this process into the gutter, hops into the gutter immediately, without hesitation, because it is the place he is most comfortable. In fact, I sometimes think he actually goes up a couple of flights of stairs to reach the gutter when he approaches debate in this fashion. Yesterday, he had a wonderful opportunity to support his Chief Minister and all he did was launch some meaningless tirade about trying to undermine the confidence of the opposition. Why don’t you get on with the business of government? You had a chance to support your Chief Minister and you barely said a word in support. Get on with the business of government and get on with dealing with these issues. If it didn’t happen, just stand up here and say: ‘No, it didn’t happen’ and that is the end of it. Once again, we don’t see that; we see this trip through the gutter.
The member for Sanderson pointed out amongst his barely rational words ‘support my police force’. Certainly, the first clause of the amended motion says that we should express our total confidence in the police force. If there is evidence or an allegation of any sort of political interference in any part of the police force - indeed, any part of the public service - then it is my contention that I would be supporting those public servants by bringing the issue in here and having the matter debated out. That is not an extraordinary assumption; it would be the correct thing to do. If you look at the Good Government policy that the Labor Party went to the last election with:
- Labor strongly believes that good government is not served by major disruption to the public service.
yet we have the member for Sanderson mentioning by name individual public servants and their political associations.
Mr Dunham: His assumption of their political association.
Mr ELFERINK: Mentioning by name, tacking his assumptions on. I can tell you now that if I, as a member of the CLP while I was still a police officer, had my name dragged across this parliamentary floor, I would be horrified and I would be charging to my union saying: ‘What the hell is going on? What on earth is happening in that parliamentary chamber to make me a target and a victim of the political discrimination that these people harbour?’ It is a disgrace and they are utterly silent on the issue.
While I was listening to comments by members - just interjections across the floor - I heard repeatedly interjections from the member for Wanguri about the Hells Angels motorcycle group. I support my police force and I applaud the member’s comments. I think the government should go after those groups of organised crime with gusto and passion. No problem with that. I am happy to support the member for Wanguri on that and, indeed, I point out to the member for Wanguri that if you look at a lot of these motorcycle gangs they have the little leather vests - I am sure we have all seen them before - and on the back or around those vests they have little badges. Those badges indicate certain things. Some motor cycle groups have a set of brown and blue wings, and I encourage the member for Wanguri to find out what that means. Some motor cycle groups have a little 1%. It is in a diamond and usually sits about here on the colours. I encourage the member for Wanguri to find out what the insignia mean because it will mean that he will become even more passionate about going against these villains. I take great heart in the suggestion that they are going after organised crime and I wish the members opposite great luck.
Ms Martin: We are going after the drug dealers and manufacturers which you never managed to do.
Mr ELFERINK: Really? What, me personally or we as a government? I just pick up on the interjection by the Chief Minister. That is an extraordinary thing to say. This former government has set up and prosecuted successfully many hundreds of drug cases; I personally have done so. All of a sudden we have a criticism of the police force from the Chief Minister saying: ‘Oh, no, you guys never did anything about it’. Well, that is a reflection on the police force. That is going to have an effect on morale in the police force and those sorts of things.
Ms Martin: Oh, sit down!
Mr ELFERINK: Absolutely. You’ve just basically said that they are losing the battle. You have just said that they’re losing the battle, as the member for Sanderson has said on repeated occasions that they are losing the battle.
Ms Martin: I said very clearly that you guys never started the battle.
Mr ELFERINK: I’m actually sitting here agreeing with one of your ministers, and you’re still interjecting.
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: This is extraordinary. The habit of interjection is so deeply ingrained - and this relates to comments I started these observations with - is that these people don’t know when people are agreeing with them. I’m speaking in support of one of her ministers and she’s interjecting. So it’s just this tirade by habit which concerns me so grievously.
The fact of the matter is that there are problems out there. I have, certainly, in my travels in the bush, been approached by members who are not getting relieved in bush communities where there are more than two police officers gazetted to those stations which means - and there are any number of police stations in the Southern Command area which are affected by this. Now, this directly came back from the document that Commander Gary Mannison put out in relation to the Southern Command, and the effect on morale is real. These guys have to work in these bush stations under-strength because of that direction.
Whether or not there is an increase of funding across the board because you’ve padded it out with capital works programs or something like that, the truth of the matter is this: police officers in the bush, because of this particular directive, are not being relieved in three or more man stations when members go on leave. That has a work health effect, and that part concerns me.
There is no attempt by the Leader of the Opposition, I believe, to create any form of instability in the Northern Territory police force. The Leader of the Opposition has walked in here and quite directly and correctly outlined a concern he had with the process. The minister for police simply had to answer a couple of simple questions with ‘Yes, that did occur’ or ‘No, that did not occur’, and he has failed to do so. His failure to respond to a simple question put to him is the sort of thing that can create instability in the public service. When you consider that Labor’s position is that they strongly believe in good government and it is not served by major disruption to the public service, he should be giving clear, unambiguous, unequivocal statements about the matters put to him. Put it to bed right now; it is finished and there is no attempt by the opposition to create instability. The opposition, quite correctly, brings issues into this Chamber. It is for that reason that I cannot support Clause 4 in the amended motion.
Madam Speaker, I move to strike Clause 4 from the motion.
Madam SPEAKER: You are moving an amendment to the amended motion?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes.
Madam SPEAKER: Okay. The amendment that the member for Macdonnell has moved is that Clause 4 be deleted. The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, I seek clarification. Is there no opportunity to speak to the proposed amendment at all before the vote is taken?
Madam SPEAKER: You do it now.
Mr Stirling: What was just carried?
Madam SPEAKER: Let me just seek clarification. We have an amendment to the amendment. The amendment that has been put to the amendment is that Clause 4 be deleted. Before I put that, I will call on the Leader of the Opposition to speak to that amended amendment motion. I hope you’re all with me.
Mr Burke: In doing so, I assume I can speak and close my remarks to the original motion.
Madam SPEAKER: And then I will put the amendment that has just been put and then the final.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, speaking expressly to the amendment that was first put to the motion, and confining my comments only to that, it seems to me that it is very easy to get agreement on (1), (2) and (3) of the original amendment because there is no disagreement on this side of the House with the fact that the opposition is pleased to express total confidence in the Northern Territory police force. Secondly, welcomes Commissioner Paul White to his new role and offers him the Assembly’s full support and also, as a matter of fact, notes that under the Labor government’s mini-budget of November 2001, the Northern Territory police will receive $4.9m more than it spent in 2000-01. Now, that is a matter of fact. How that money has been apportioned and affects operational aspects is another issue.
But, where it comes to supporting those three aspects of the amendment, the opposition has no concerns with that and thinks it is valuable, actually. In terms of the Deputy Chief Minister’s comments that this Assembly should show confidence in the new Police Commissioner, here is an opportunity to do so. Certainly, with those three subparagraphs, we can have bipartisan agreement and we can agree to that amendment.
Subparagraph (4), I believe, is unwarranted and unnecessary. It concerns the original motion, and the Deputy Chief Minister has adequate opportunity to vote in that context on the original motion. But, if we want to have a fruitful result from this debate, I would ask all members of the Assembly to agree with the amended motion which now deals with paragraph (1), (2) and (3) without change of the amended motion and strikes subparagraph (4).
Mr STIRLING (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, speaking to this amendment which I have not, of course, had an opportunity to do, it is all a bit too cute. For the Leader of the Opposition to come in here with a vehement anti-police motion before us: ‘notes the current low morale in the Northern Territory police force, expresses its concerns about this government’s treatment of former Deputy Police Commissioner Valentin, seeks an explanation from the government on the full extent and effects of budget savings as revealed by the Commander of the Southern Region …
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
We are confining ourselves to an amendment to an amended motion, and you should be confining your comments to that particular amendment.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, you have to speak to the amendment that has just been raised, not to the original motion.
Mr STIRLING: He comes in here with this tripe. When we amend it to: expressing total confidence; welcoming Commissioner Paul White; note the increase in the police budget; and, most importantly, note with concern the attempts of the Leader of the Opposition to create instability in the Northern Territory police force, he doesn’t want to hear it. This is a reflection on your grubby tactics of coming in here and trying to undermine the police force and the new police commissioner and then, when we shove it back down his throat, he doesn’t want to hear it. He has brought this other motion in, wants to walk away from all that, accept three of the four points of our motion, but not the fourth. You are the biggest hypocrite that ever sat in the Leader of the Opposition’s chair. You can cop this, and there will be no acceptance of this amendment. You’re a grub!
Madam SPEAKER: The question is the amendment to the amended motion be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Mr Stirling: This will be on the record to show the police clearly what you think of them.
Mr Burke: Exactly! You just knocked a good motion.
Members interjecting.
Mr Stirling: You can’t come in here and change the motion, then want to walk out from under it. You’re a coward! You don’t even have the guts to stand beside your motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business!
Mr Burke: Have a pill.
Mr Stirling: You’re a coward!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Stirling: You’re a coward! You just realised you haven’t got the numbers, you dill! You want to …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of Government Business, you are still in the House. This is a warning to you. You’ve been over the top! Just settle down. Even in Division, I don’t want to hear this debate going on across the floor.
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! A four-letter word was uttered in this House …
Madam SPEAKER: I’m afraid I didn’t hear it.
Mr Baldwin: An ‘F’ word, Madam Speaker.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: I don’t think these remarks are fruitful or helpful, and I don’t find any comedy in the behaviour of members.
Members, the question is the amendment to the amended motion be agreed to.
Ayes 10 Noes 14
Mr Baldwin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Burke Mr Ah Kit
Ms Carney Mr Bonson
Ms Carter Dr Burns
Mr Dunham Mr Henderson
Mr Elferink Mr Kiely
Dr Lim Ms Lawrie
Mr Maley Ms Martin
Mr Mills Mr McAdam
Mr Reed Ms Scrymgour
Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Mr Wood
Motion negatived.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the amended motion be agreed to. If you would like to go back to your seats, we are back to the amended motion and the Leader of the Opposition closes debate.
Before we do go on, though, Leader of Government Business, if you did use an ‘F’ word that I didn’t hear, I ask you now to withdraw it.
Mr STIRLING: Absolutely, Madam Speaker, I do withdraw.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, can I begin my closing remarks by saying that, specifically to do with the amendment to the amended motion, that the opposition, as we tried to propose before, agrees totally with points 1, 2 and 3 of that amendment. What we do not agree with is point 4 which is nothing more than political tripe that has been inserted there, and from our position for the same reasons that you would make allegations about the original motion, it is unwarranted. It could not get the opposition’s support and it won’t receive the opposition’s support.
It has been a fairly unfortunate debate in many respects, not the least being the episode which just happened in the Chamber. Notwithstanding the fact of what occurred as we divided, it would seem to me that it is a pretty unsatisfactory situation when you have a government with all of its members here and when the Leader of Government Business is not present in the Chamber, no one, not even the Chief Minister, had any idea of how to deal with an amendment to an amended motion. It was that that caused the most concern.
Ms Martin: Yes, I did. I beg your pardon.
Mr BURKE: And it’s no good - you were speechless; you did not know what to do.
Ms Martin: Because it was not printed, it was not circulated and it should not have been done like that.
Mr BURKE: It is no good then trying to get the Leader of Government Business to stand up and yell at everyone when he simply wasn’t across what was going on in the Chamber and his requirement and capacity is to be there.
If you want to talk about pieces of paper, that is an issue for the Speaker to deal with, not me. The Speaker was dealing with what was happening in this House and the fact is that the government, without the Leader of Government Business here, had no capacity to deal, it did not have a clue …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr BURKE: In terms of the motion that I put - once again, one listens to the tirade of the Leader of Government Business and the Deputy Chief Minister, personal attacks, trying to put a spin on what was a motion that deals with process in terms of a number of issues but most specifically, and something that was not addressed at all, was the process in which Mr Valentin found himself having to write to every member of the police force and to go public in the media to defend himself. That was not addressed at all in the debate. It seems to me that there were clear options for the police minister to deal with it.
There were only two options, and as I said in debate, it was either the fact that - there are now three options raised by - there is only one obvious option at the end based on the what the Deputy Chief Minister said and that is this: that Mr Valentin has lied in saying publicly that what was said to him occurred when it is clear from the police minister’s point of view that that never occurred. Because Mr Valentin is very clear that he was given instructions by the previous Police Commissioner on a number of issues with regards to his future in the police force in these terms: first, that there was no wish by the government for him to act as Commissioner in the interval between Commissioner Bates’ retirement and the arrival of Commissioner White; second, the government did not want John Valentin to continue as Deputy Commissioner; third, the government had no role for John Valentin in the Territory police force; fourth, the government would get rid of John Valentin if he tried to remain in office to see out his contract; and fifth, and the reason for this was the allegation that Deputy Commissioner Valentin was too close to the CLP.
Now, that has not been dealt with at all and the option was one of three things. Either previous Commissioner Bates acted without warrant and spoke freely and gave his own opinion without any warrant from the government when he spoke to Mr Valentin, which I doubt. That is the first issue, and the police minister, I would have thought - and I asked in this debate that if that was the case as one of the options, at the very least the present police minister should have inquired as to what actually happened, sought some discussions with Mr Valentin, perhaps written to him. Nothing has occurred at all. He has been given no response at all by this new police minister or this government based on the very serious concerns that were raised with him, and statements supposedly with authority that were said to him by the previous Police Commissioner.
The second option could only be that Police Commissioner Bates felt confident enough to act with the authority of the government and with the authority of the police minister in making those comments to Mr Valentin. If that is the case, I said in the debate it was a cowardly act by the police minister and he should have the guts to stand in this Chamber and say publicly that that was the case. You have responded to neither of those allegations in any way whatsoever which leaves only a third option, and that is it is the opinion of this government that Mr Valentin has lied in those five aspects. And if that is the end result, I find that most unfortunate because the end result is that it is the police minister’s opinion, the new Chief Minister’s opinion, and her Cabinet and her members that the previous Deputy Police Commissioner publicly and to all of the police force has lied in the things that he has said. Now, I do not believe that happened.
I have spoken to Mr Valentin on a number of occasions and he is adamant of the sequence of events that occurred and unless that man is a liar, there are only two other options. In this debate it is most unfortunate that none of those issues have been dealt with by the government. The police minister stands up holier than thou and talks about when he was the shadow police minister he acted so correctly in all of his dealings with government. A quick search of the Hansard in the little time available - a couple of examples: 19 October 2000 - a question to the CLP government police minister:
Your CLP government has done nothing to counter the ongoing incidence of vandalism and antisocial
behaviour. Can the minister please explain to Territorians why small businessmen and women are now
being forced to consider hiring a private security guards and why their police force has not provided the
resources to protect them?
Why their police force has not provided the resources to protect them. Did you write to the police minister on that issue? You said in this House that on every issue, you wrote to the police minister, you never, if you recall, never raised an issue in this House unless had previously written to the police minister. That was his modus operandi. Did he write to the police minister on this occasion? There is the Hansard. 19 October 2000. Now, either the current police minister has misled this House by that statement or he can correct the Hansard and tell us what, exactly, happened.
On 13 October 1999, the current police minister, this man who is above reproach when it comes to dealing properly on these sorts of matters and reproaches us for raising allegations in the Chamber, said this in a question:
We have real concerns about the state of the Territory police force at the present time. Fifty police officers have
resigned in the last 12 months. The current recruit training course will not cover the numbers that have left or
retired. I ask the minister: why is the resignation rates so high and what is the government doing to stem it?
In answer, the minister said:
Mr Speaker, the opposition continues the line of deceit it has been pursuing, not mentioning any figure, but
presenting as fact what they perceive, and making a statement of fact that the resignation rate is horrendous.
The situation is bad, that is all they can focus on, the negative, without anything to substantiate it and also
without, of course, any representation to me as minister to seek some advice.
Now, the question was from the member for Nhulunbuy, the question was from the shadow police minister, the question was from a man who has said in this House - a House where you are not supposed to mislead - that there was never an occasion, except one, when he was reproached by his own leader, when he was a new member of the Chamber, that he has raised an issue critical of the police without writing to the police minister first.
I submit that the police minister, on this question alone, has clearly misled this House, and in many other things that he does in this House, he sets out to present himself as being pure when, in fact, the Hansard record is adequate there to show that the man continues to mislead at every opportunity.
The classic was the fact that he said that in 1991 he raised something and he cannot quite recall what it was, that it had something to do with the Mulholland affair. And when he made a few comments, he was not only chipped by Brian Ede, and he mentioned he was chipped by someone else. It is worth reminding ourselves how this man, the current police minister, the man who says he never raised an issue without writing first to the minister, actually learnt his lesson, because in that debate - and I do not have to go through all the debate but it happened, and I assume - is this the one? - is this the one - 14 November 1991?
In this debate, I ask the police minister, was this the context that he got a chip from Brian Ede? Is this the context in which he now fully supports the police force and would deride anyone who would make any comment that would sully their reputation? Was this the comment when he said:
- It seems to me that the police in the Northern Territory either do not know that these brothels are operating
in Darwin and the suburbs, or that they do know and for some reason or other, ignore their existence.
The question that arises is whether we have a situation that is no better than that exists in Queensland, and
that is the police are being paid off or looked after not to do anything about the existence of these establishments.
What do you reckon? This is the man who looks after the police force. This is the man who looks after their reputation. This is the man who would turn and say: ‘You are terrible, you opposition, you have not learnt your lesson. You should be fully supportive of the police force. Take my example’. This is the man who said they were on the take. Now, it is one thing to raise a concern about process, which is what happened in this House. I raised a concern about process in the way Mr Valentin was dealt with, and I raised that concern of process because of direct representations to me by Mr Valentin himself. Mr Valentin himself is a man who has served in the federal police and had an honourable career in the Northern Territory Police, and it is Mr Valentin …
Mr Stirling: He spat the dummy with the AFP the same way.
Mr BURKE: I pick up that comment. We now have the police minister’s opinion. It took a while to get out, but the police minister has now put on the Hansard record Mr Valentin spat the dummy. Therefore you deny that he was ever spoken to by Commissioner Bates, as commissioner, and given that information that Mr Valentin claims he has, that he simply spat the dummy.
So the end result at this stage, and the atmosphere in which the new Police Commissioner can begin his task in the Northern Territory police force, is that the police minister now sends a very clear message to every member of the police force of the Northern Territory and that is that he reckons, it is his opinion that the previous Deputy Commissioner of Police was so unprofessional that he spat the dummy when the new commissioner was appointed.
Now, that is the situation we have ended up with, we will just see what the police force of the Northern Territory think of that., what the police force of the Northern Territory think of their police minister and how he defends the reputation of their previous Deputy Commissioner, and perhaps what they can look forward to if they ever get into a situation and they have to look to him for any sort of support.
The motion that I raised was a serious motion, it was designed to flesh out what process applied in the circumstances in which Mr Valentin felt himself dealt with, it was a motion that dealt with the fact that we should look at a review of the Northern Territory police force because they have been quite constructive in the past. I have heard garbage from the police minister and other members on the government side that suggest that, somehow, a review that is not done internally by the CEO is something untoward. Yet, in all of these parliamentary sittings so far, all we have heard is that the government is going to move on a whole range of areas and conduct reviews because they are not satisfied with the situation that might exist.
The government has no problems moving in areas such as indigenous education, indigenous health, smartening up how the health or education system works, making better processes, working smarter in a whole range of areas. But if we suggest that the government should institute a review of the Northern Territory police force, somehow that is seen as being mischievous. Now, you have to learn to deal a bit better than that. Everyone knows that the McAulay Bowe report, when it was brought down, created an atmosphere that resulted in at least 40% rise in police funding over the seven years since that report was brought down. It was done in an atmosphere of little argument because the McAulay Bowe report independently stood on its own. It got away from all this politics of we’ve got enough police, they are going to hot spots, they should go to hot spots, they should have police constables, they shouldn’t. It put the whole issue of the circumstances in which our police dealt with in the Northern Territory in context, and provided government with not only good advice but also, I can tell you from experience, it nullified argument in Cabinet from other ministers who wanted the departmental funds for their own efforts.
It put a priority on what the police needed, it put a priority and an atmosphere that was constructive and, in many respects, it was supported by the then opposition at the time. How you can dismiss such a suggestion out of hand beggars belief, and how you can deal with a motion that deals with the professional reputation, a reputation of a man who has to live with what has transpired for the rest of his life, in such a dismissive way, and suggest that he shouldn’t have raised it and by the way he spat the dummy. It’s just disgraceful. It’s just disgraceful to simply dismiss a suggestion that we should a independent review in the police force.
Madam Speaker, once again we see an example of this government, I believe, interfering in the internal processes of the police force, interfering in the reputation, the good reputation of fine officers, whether they be uniformed or not, and also in their conduct in this House in this debate acting in a disgraceful manner.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
MOTION
Violence against Aboriginal Women
Violence against Aboriginal Women
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move –
- This Assembly is of the opinion that:
(1) the issue of violence against Aboriginal women should become an urgent priority to be addressed
by the government;
(2) the implementation of the pro-arrest policy be examined with a view to strengthening its operation;
(3) a campaign backed by adequate resources be introduced to assist Aboriginal communities to respond
to the ever increasing incidence of violence;
(4) the mandatory reporting by medical staff in public hospitals of suspected assaults be introduced; and
for the protection of Aboriginal women.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise this issue because many people in Alice Springs have come to me and expressed their concern that they feel there is an increasing incidence of violence against Aboriginal women. I seek the support of both sides of the House because I am quite sure within your communities you have similar problems to what we are seeing in the Centre in particular.
It is a problem we all face every day and it’s something that we cannot keep ignoring. It won’t just go away. I raise it as a matter of urgency for this government to address and I ask them to make it a priority in their planning and programming.
There has been large amount of research and documentation done over a number of years expressing the concerns that we all know are happening within our community. We really don’t need any more research. I don’t want that. I don’t want any more papers to be written. There is a pile this high in my office that I’ve taken from the library just to get some background research on what is there. You can look at ones that have been done 10 years ago; you can look at papers that were written 12 months ago. They all seem to be saying the same thing over and over again.
Many of the papers outline the aspects of what happens about violence against Aboriginal women, the circumstances the victims are in when they occurs, the theories about why it occurs and how often violence is dealt with in Aboriginal society and by the public sector agencies of both the Territory and the Federal governments. What I need from this government are some answers, and I need some action to address this problem. I am quite sure members on both sides will be able to say that they see this problem occurring over and over again.
All you have to do is walk down the mall of any town or any city in the Territory; look and see for yourself the number of Aboriginal women who are bandaged or on crutches compared with the rest of the population. Go and visit the emergency departments of our hospitals. It’s been likened to a war zone. Night after night in Alice Springs Hospital, a number of Aboriginal people come in to be patched up, waiting and deciding whether they are going to be admitted or whether they are going to be sent out again. Recently the four beds in the intensive unit in Alice Springs Hospital were are filled with Aboriginal women all with ruptured spleens - the whole four of them at the same time and I think we all know how it happened.
Women come through that emergency department and they suffer not just from the horrific injuries that they have received, but their general health and hygiene is usually so poor that they have little strength or resistance to combat any injury so because of their health, it is very difficult to fight against their injury and many of them die.
I have been advised by a senior nurse that the number of admissions at the Alice Springs Hospital due to the injuries sustained by assault have escalated over the last 18 months, and I believe that there was a paper prepared by one of the officers in the hospital showing that the increase has been quite remarkable. It seems to me that as violence increases in our community, so we see that Aboriginal women are disproportionately represented. There is good reason to believe that not only are Aboriginal women the principal victims of these crimes, but the stats of reported crimes often understate the instances of violence against these women.
The sad part of this issue is that we are all becoming desensitized to the violence around us. We are becoming desensitized. Many of us turn the other way when we see an incident, not wanting to interfere for fear of being abused. Just last week in the Alice Springs mall I was told an Aboriginal woman was on the ground being kicked. People just kept walking by. That is not an isolated incident. That happens in all our towns around the Territory. While we tolerate this behaviour - we, the legislators - that violence will continue.
In the Northern Territory violence becomes almost an everyday experience for many of our Aboriginal women. I am repeating what Aboriginal women have said to me because they are so concerned. They are often reluctant to report violent incidents to police and the amount of violence that is occurring in the Aboriginal communities is often not recorded. Much of the violence, as we know, is alcohol and drug related, but not all of it is. The stats show in the Alice Springs Hospital that possibly something like 97% of the assaults are caused by alcohol or drug related incidents. So that is a fair indictment of what alcohol is doing to our society.
There are many other contributing factors, though, and they include a variety of elements. For instance, the lack of direction and the motivation in one’s personal life that many of these Aborigines experience. They really don’t have a purpose in life any more. It has been exacerbated by the welfare dependency trap that they are in. I think we have all heard Noel Pearson talk about the welfare dependency trap and it certainly is affecting many of these people.
We see also the loss of self esteem by Aboriginal men, and I think this has come about by the changing roles occurring in our communities. It seems that many of these Aboriginal men are now displaced and are not sure where they fit within their communities any more. It comes about through poor financial management which leads to poverty, and we all know the feast and famine syndrome: one day a fortnight they are rich, the other 13 days they are poor, and the personal displacement where many people are no longer able to go back home, are no longer wanted, are no longer welcome in their communities. So where do they go? They are lost souls out there.
It also needs to be recognised that much of the violence being perpetrated against Aboriginal women is not traditional violence. Traditional punishments apply to cases where Aboriginal law has been broken, but the violence many Aboriginal women are experiencing has nothing to do with culture, and culture should not be used as an excuse and it shouldn’t be used as a defence. Aboriginal women are clearly saying that they are sick of the violence and they want it to stop. And might I say that it has taken a long time for Aboriginal women to be brave enough to speak out.
We have seen success in the way women at Ali Curung have dealt with this issue and introduced measures that have reduced the incidence of violence considerably, but those women were strong enough to speak out, to say: ‘We have a problem’ and go searching for solutions. Aboriginal women tell me that they are adamant that much of what has happened to them is no way traditional.
Melissa Lucashanko, in her article Violence Against Indigenous Women 1996, quoted Aboriginal women saying that they are being subjected to three types of law: ‘white man’s law, traditional law and bullshit traditional law,’ the latter being used to describe a distortion of traditional law used as a justification for the violence.
I am not talking about domestic violence. ‘Domestic’ usually implies a home, a spouse. It needs to be acknowledged that much of the violence that I am referring to does not occur in the home; often is not perpetrated by a spouse or a partner and often occurs away from the home community. We see it in our river beds, in the camps, in the main streets of our town.
The motion I am asking the Assembly to support and adopt is aimed at taking some action to address this problem of how we can help eliminate - or at least reduce - violence against Aboriginal women. I have referred in my motion to the pro-arrest policy that enables police to lay charges in cases where the victim may not do so. As with the domestic violence no-drop policy, the police also use a pro-arrest policy. The domestic violence no-drop policy is an example of how this works in favour of the women, and you would be familiar with how that works: if a woman does go to the police, lays a charge and then decides she doesn’t want to give evidence, the police can still go ahead with a prosecution.
It concerns me that many cases of assault, the results of which can be seen in our regional hospitals and on our streets, are just not reported or followed up. I understand the difficulty police have when women refuse to give evidence; do not want to lay charges or often do, and then withdraw them. But these attacks that leave women so brutalised shouldn’t be ignored. There was an incident last week in the Alice Springs emergency department where an Aboriginal woman arrived with a knife embedded in her. The police, in this instance, were called. But not all cases of assault are so obvious, so the victim who turns up at an emergency department is often just patched up and let go.
I am seeking an examination of how this pro-arrest policy is being implemented and a way in which it can be utilised more. I’m not having a go at police because I think they do a tremendous job, but I am trying to seek a way for justice to occur for these women. It disturbs me that there is a perception that to investigate an assault is often put in the too-hard basket, and police are often discouraged by the end result when it does get into court. We should be out there encouraging, assisting police to be proactive and bringing the perpetrators of these horrific crimes to court.
One of the ways this policy could be implemented, is not just relying on a woman to make a complaint, but by introducing mandatory reporting of suspected assaults by medical staff. I can hear the reaction to that suggestion, but in the same way as child sex abuse is a reportable offence, in my opinion, so it should be with cases of physical abuse. I’ve been told of the frustration of doctors and nurses working in our emergency departments and, whilst it must seem to them to be a revolving door of bruised and battered women - they patch them up only to send them away to return at a later date in a similar state. As far as I am concerned, the perpetrators should be accountable and not get away with believing it’s not a crime and that they can do it over and over again without reprisal.
The latest media campaign against domestic violence, It’s Got to Stop Now, is rather disappointing in that it is very urbanised in its approach. The Chief Minister will recall that, at the launch of the media campaign, one of the Aboriginal women pointed out quite bluntly: ‘Where are the black faces?’ I’m not knocking that campaign; I think any campaign that will heighten awareness is a good thing. But that campaign will only reach a certain sector of our community. Community women don’t feature: that’s what this Aboriginal person was saying. They are not there, and yet they are the one sector of the population that really needs our protection and support. One of the comments was made to me that Aboriginal women don’t like being portrayed in advertisements such as this, that they are reluctant to participate in anything that may go across for general exhibition. So I’m suggesting to the Chief Minister that perhaps she should be looking at going into the communities, getting some Aboriginal women, strong women, and some Aboriginal men, to make an ad that can then be shown exclusively on the BRACS system.
Now, the BRACS system is not available, I know, in all communities, but the coverage is fairly widespread. In many communities, the service is used heavily to provide information as well as entertainment. It can be a useful medium to spread a message. The Broadcasting in Remote Areas Communication Services is in many communities, and I think this is a way we should be getting our message across to the Aboriginal women in those communities who have access to that. That is just one way we could actually get a message across to these people.
I also see the need not just to educate women, but to get a strong message across to Aboriginal men, particularly those who are displaced and no longer living in their communities. I think we need to say to them clearly that violent and abusive behaviour is not just unacceptable, but it’s degrading to them as well as to the woman.
Media campaigns, of course, are not sufficient on their own. There is a need for resources to be allocated to programs that will support Aboriginal communities that are prepared to respond and accept responsibility in trying to resolve their problems. It’s been said to me: ‘But we don’t have the resources to do it’. I think this is where I’m asking government to back-up any support they have for this motion with the resources to do it. We all speak of Ali Curung with pride, of how a community has taken steps to introduce measures to protect their women. But without the help of both men and women in that community, without the support of their community council, and without the support of their elders, it wouldn’t have happened. As the Ali Curung women say: ‘Alcohol outlets are still there, we are still married to the same men, but the violence has disappeared because we have a system now in place with the support of different layers of the community. That means that we’re all addressing the problem, and we’re all getting success’.
Other communities have indicated their ambition to do a similar thing, but they need not just lip service, they need government to start implementing programs and strategies. Encouragement and rhetoric are not enough; they really need, Chief Minister, money to finance programs. They must go hand in hand with any of the decisions that are made. I was told of a young Aboriginal girl living in the river bed in Alice Springs who hasn’t returned home for some time. To be honest, if she’s not helped, it’s inevitable that she will become another statistic. It was suggested to me that a halfway house be set up in towns where women who are isolated from their families can seek safety and be assisted to return to the community. This girl needs assistance; she just doesn’t know how to do it herself. She just doesn’t have the means to be able to focus enough to do it herself. So, if there was a halfway safe house established, perhaps some of those women who are living in the creek beds, in the long grass, could go there, be assisted, helped and return to their communities.
I hear of Aboriginal men who say they need a refuge where, if they were on a drinking binge, rather than return home, they can retreat, because they know if they return home in the state they’re in, a violent confrontation is likely to occur. The men at Ali Curung have said that: ‘We should also have a place that we can go so we won’t get into trouble’. I’d like to see the men’s health unit be more proactive and provide education and support to these Aboriginal men and, particularly, to assist them to recover that self-esteem that so many of them seem to have lost. We need to assist these communities to take the responsibility of seeking and implementing solutions to their own problems, and give them also a good understanding of the legal rights of women. If communities can resolve the relationship breakdowns that are occurring, then agencies also need to be there to assist the men. Many Aboriginal women say they do not want their men in gaol; there are enough there already. But if there is no alternative then gaol is the only option.
I am concerned by what we would regard as soft sentences often given. I won’t go into details of cases reported; I am sure you all know them. I just grabbed a few headlines: ‘Horror Axe Death Shocks Community’; ‘Wife Basher Cops Lecture’; ‘Woman Died After Prolonged Bashing’; ‘Barefoot Kick Killed Woman’. You know, it’s absolutely disastrous when you see over and over again these headlines highlighting what’s happening out in those communities, and you notice so many times that it’s women who are the victims of what is happening. I do wonder about the sentencing regime. Does it actually reflect the severity of the crime, particularly as we’ve heard many community members and many sectors of our community saying we need to seek protection of our Aboriginal women? I hear Aboriginal women say that they’re not getting the protection from the legal service available to them. They see CAALAS as always defending the men. Perhaps there should be another service that particularly supports Aboriginal women.
I’m asking the Attorney-General will he review the Criminal Code, perhaps with a view to introducing minimum sentences? There is the maximum sentence laid down in the Criminal Code - I know it’s the discretion of the magistrates and judges - but if there is such concern by people in the community that they do not think justice is being done, perhaps we, as legislators, should be talking about minimum sentences. Should there be more guidance from this parliament to ensure truth in sentencing and do we as legislators have a role to play in determining the best way to ensure justice for the victim? It is an area that needs to be addressed and discussed.
We should not always hide behind the separation of powers. We are not trying to get in to that debate because that often muddies the waters completely. All I am saying is let’s have a look at the sentencing regime and let’s see whether it is sufficiently strong to protect these victims. If we do consider violence against Aboriginal women is a problem, then we need to address all areas to achieve the best results we can. There is no point in just doing a patch here and a patch there. We need to have an overall plan.
I am asking this government to provide leadership and backing for Aboriginal women. The number of murder and manslaughter cases involving Aboriginal women are far too many. Who was the first person to be murdered on New Year’s Day this year? An Aboriginal woman in this town. Aboriginal families have expressed their frustration with the system that seems to find excuses for the perpetrator but fails to satisfy the victim or the family. We need to ensure that the sentencing regime reflects the severity of the crime in line with our concern for the protection of these women.
I have moved this motion to highlight the concerns raised with me by many people from different sectors of our community. It is a serious problem. Too many Aboriginal families are relying on grandmothers and great grandmothers to bring up the children. Too many mothers are at risk in the cycle of violence and the alcohol trap. At the weekend there was a swimming carnival in Alice Springs and there was a group of Aboriginal children from Warrego who came down with the teacher. There were Aboriginal grandparents and even one great grandparent with them. When I asked where their mothers were, their mothers were in town. They had almost abandoned their children so it was up to the grandmothers to bring them up. There is a whole generation out there of Aboriginal women who are at risk and if we are not careful, they will never grow to be grandmothers.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask all members from both sides of the House - and I know that you have indicated to me that you give your support to this motion - I ask you to support this motion and relay a message to Aboriginal women that we in this House do care and that government will introduce measures to help them.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the member for Braitling for bringing this important motion in to the House. I do want to make some amendments to the motion. Those amendments have been circulated and I have talked them through with the member for Braitling. Essentially, it doesn’t change the motion a lot.
I move that all words after “this Assembly is of the option that” be omitted and the following inserted in their stead:
- (1) the elimination of violence against Aboriginal women is an urgent priority to be addressed
by parliament;
strengthening of its operation;
(3) a campaign backed up by adequate resources be introduced to assist Aboriginal communities
to respond to the ever increasing incidence of violence;
(4) the establishment of routine screening for domestic and family violence in NT public hospitals be
closely monitored to ascertain its effectiveness; and
(5) the sentencing regime for such crimes of violence reflect the severity of the crime in line with its
concern for the protection of Aboriginal women.
I will be talking over the next 15 minutes or so about why I think we need those small amendments. This is a very serious issue in terms of the Territory and it is a very serious issue for this new government. We certainly support the general direction of the member for Braitling’s motion. The elimination of violence against Aboriginal women is an urgent priority. Violence against any women is not acceptable and it is an issue that all of us in this House and the community have a responsibility to tackle.
I recently launched the mass media domestic violence education campaign. The major message of the campaign is: ‘Let’s stop it now’. This message is an important one. As I travel around the Territory and meet many indigenous women and listen to their stories, they tell me: ‘We must stop it now’. And they tell me that they want to work at stopping it now in partnership with all levels of government, in partnership with their community, with their families, with other services and with their men.
I acknowledge that this is a serious problem but I also want to acknowledge the efforts of many agencies and indigenous communities who have come together, who have worked to address this serious problem and who are making gains. Examples such as Ali Curung and work being undertaken at Wadeye around a range of social issues including family violence should be recognised and applauded.
Safe houses are developed in some communities. Women are key players in night patrols on communities and innovative youth services tackle the issue of violence as part of their programs. I know that these responses are happening but I also know that more has to be done. This problem cannot be ignored. Figures from the Territory’s data collection project from 1999-2000 illustrate the seriousness of the problem. The Territory has the only jurisdiction-wide domestic violence data collection project in Australia. Relevant statistics from this project include over 8600 incidents of violence were reported by a range of services and agencies across the Territory; 76% of both victims and offenders were indigenous Territorians; and 84% of offenders were affected by alcohol or other drugs at the time of the incident.
The statistic around the involvement of alcohol and other drugs in incidents of violence against women cannot go unnoticed. Alcohol is not an excuse for violence but it must be recognised as a contributing factor. This issue only reinforces the need for a whole-of-government approach which is multifaceted and incorporates a range of strategies. While this data assists government to identify trends and assists with the development of strategies, one of the sad realities is that there is serious under reporting of assault on indigenous women. This under reporting occurs for a variety of reasons ranging from fear of reprisals, family pressure not to report, lack of infrastructure to facilitate reporting and a fear that reporting will only make the situation worse. These factors must be understood and worked with. However, they should not be used as excuses for doing nothing.
All violence is a crime and violence in close relationships or within families is no less a crime because it occurs in the domestic setting. The setting is irrelevant. Violence against indigenous women - all women - whether it happens in the family home, in a community, in the Darwin Mall or on the streets of Alice Springs, should not be accepted.
This government has adopted strong measures to combat crime and we are ensuring a whole-of-government approach with a whole-of-government structure that includes the formation of a new Office of Crime Prevention; creating and amending legislation including legislation targeting violence in the domestic setting; and piloting new programs to assess their effectiveness.
This initiative is part of my government’s commitment to working in partnership with community to prevent crime. There is also a need to review existing structures, legislation and policies and protocols to ensure that the intent and outcome of such initiatives such as the no-drop policy is being realised. The no-drop policy is designed to make sure that a prosecution is not terminated because the complainant has been convinced or coerced into withdrawing the complaint. The intent is to emphasise the protection of survivors of violence over all other considerations. In summary, it requires that once a criminal prosecution commences, the prosecution will not be terminated by the actions of NT police.
An independent consultant was engaged last year by the Department of Justice, then Attorney-General’s Department, to undertake a review of this policy. A draft report will be available shortly to guide future deliberations. The consultant has interviewed all key stakeholders to provide information that considers all aspects of the implementation of the no-drop policy. This review will report on a range of issues, including whether the no-drop policy should be modified in any way in order to operate more effectively in the Territory. I look forward to this report and to improvements being made to assist both victims and police to implement this policy in the most effective manner. I understand the need for adequate resources to assist indigenous communities to tackle these serious problems. As I’ve said before, a whole-of-government coordinated approach in partnership with the community must be seen as the most effective way to tackle the problem.
Health, education, substance abuse, employment, economic opportunities and development, access to land, housing and infrastructure needs are all issues impacting on indigenous communities and indigenous Territorians. Violence against women cannot be viewed in isolation from all these factors.
The establishment of a new Indigenous Policy Office within my department is a reflection of my government’s commitment to working towards making real changes in the life experiences and opportunities for indigenous Territorians. This new office will be responsible for tackling the complex range of economic and social issues impacting on indigenous communities. The office will provide strategic whole-of-government advice to myself and to my government.
The Office of Crime Prevention has been formed by government, and $6.7m allocated to bring about a whole-of-government approach to crime prevention. The office will be forming regional councils to bring about strong community based initiatives and that is one of the key initiatives of the Office of Crime Prevention, that there will be strong regional councils that can have strong regional solutions to the crime problems they face that are relevant to those regions. The Office of Crime Prevention will have strong leadership through this government and integrate prevention issues relating to family violence. It will have the support and guidance of a statistical unit and provide a grant program for communities and organisations wanting to address crime, including violence. It will provide an opportunity to pilot, test, monitor and evaluate programs designed by Aboriginal communities, and women as well as men in those communities.
The Northern Territory Domestic Violence Strategy has been in place since 1994, with the Aboriginal Family Violence Strategy introduced the next year, 1995. Both these strategies have been evaluated and are currently being reviewed. The government has allocated $1.08m core funding to implement key programs under the Domestic Violence Strategy. This allocation assists to provide specialist legal and counselling services, community education programs, and specifically sets aside $300 000 for a whole-of-government response to Aboriginal family violence. The office also convenes regional forums and indigenous gatherings across the Territory to engage with communities in all parts of the Territory.
The information gained assists to refine the strategy, refine policy and design new pilot projects. The Aboriginal Family Violence Strategy was based on the philosophy of a community driven and community based response. It is currently under review to determine how effective government agencies have been in implementing the goals of the strategy and what should occur in the future. The review was conducted through consultations with key stakeholders and further work is underway to take this strategy into the future. And it is important to acknowledge that there have been strategies in place dealing with domestic violence since 1995-96.
We are a new government of six months; we have to take a look at how those policies are working, how those strategies are working, and apply the focus of our government, which is that whole-of-government focus, and also a focus on tackling the problems that affect communities through the Territory, but attacking them in a whole-of-government manner. So it is important that we are assessing and reviewing the policies that are in place. That doesn’t mean that some good work hasn’t taken place, but there has to be, within the framework of this Labor government, a review of those policies.
Territory police have formed two specialised domestic violence units and established a network of Domestic Violence Liaison Officers so that there is one in every police station, including remote localities, so that police responses are appropriate and timely. The role of police in tackling this issue is paramount as they are the front line. I believe our police force is committed to working with all relevant agencies to be effective in their role.
The Victim Support Unit of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions provides information, assistance, support and advice to victims, witnesses and their families throughout each stage of the prosecution process. The support provided to women and their families is essential, and it is an important service that facilitates women through the court system.
Offender programs have been piloted with and for indigenous offenders with support for victims and children. These are being evaluated with standardised measurement tools up to 12 months after an offender attends a program to assess whether or not they have been assisted to bring about a change in an offender’s violent behaviour. This has led to the first nationally accredited training program being developed in the Territory for use by training providers throughout Australia around this issue. The Behaviour Change for Indigenous Family Violence Offenders course was a collaborative project between the Office of Women’s Policy and the Council for Aboriginal Alcohol Program Services.
Indigenous communities are currently involved in the design of new community education messages and products that are relevant and appropriate. These will assist communities dealing with sexual assault and family violence. Indigenous Territorians are the first to state that this is a highly sensitive and difficult area and that they should be fully consulted and involved in each step of the process. Highlighting resources, strategies in place, and efforts to date does not mean that there does not need to be more done. If answers were simple, they would be apparent. This is one of the most complex and demanding areas that a government has to tackle, and this government has made crime prevention a key priority. The need for all in our community to take a role in working towards the elimination of violence against women is evident. There is a range of professionals who come in to contact with both victims and perpetrators through their work. The health sector is often the front line in dealing with the effects of violence on women.
Mandatory reporting for adults has proved to be unacceptable to the professionals who have acquired the expertise and experience to make decisions with and in the best interests of clients - for example, doctors and legal practitioners. Those experienced in working in this field also relate that mandatory reporting of assaults could create barriers to women seeking assistance. The Territory has therefore put arrangements in place to pilot and, if successful, extend a more appropriate model of intervention under the Domestic Violence Strategy.
Routine screening for domestic violence will be introduced in two Territory hospital sites in 2002 and, if successful, will be extended to other Territory hospitals. The project is designed to provide domestic violence checks for clients - patients - reporting for medical assistance in accident and emergency units and antenatal and birthing suites. It will ensure that clients are not only provided with medical services in relation to the presenting injury or problem, but are also assessed to see if the injury or health problem may have come about as a result of domestic or family violence. This project involves high level strategic direction, training and retraining, the design and piloting of documents and forms, developing reliable referral information and overall evaluation. A support mechanism will be put in place for the staff involved in the hospital setting. This will include an opportunity to debrief and strategies to keep staff safe. The safety of staff is an important issue and this project will reflect this.
In looking at crimes of violence against women, the sentencing regime does take this issue seriously. The courts are bound by law to sentence in proportion to the seriousness of the assault. The courts are bound to take into account all of the variables. The seriousness of the physical harm on the victim will determine the seriousness of the charge. Under the Sentencing Act, the courts must take into account the impact on the victim. The courts themselves and various members of the judiciary have stated consistently that violence against Aboriginal women will not be tolerated. For example, Justice Kearney in Amagula v White, January 1998, in upholding a magistrate’s sentence for the assault on an Aboriginal woman, agreed that there was a need to, ‘send the correct message’, namely that Aboriginal women will be protected against personal violence. Justice Kearney went on to say:
- The courts must do what they can to see that the pervasive violence against women in Aboriginal
communities is reduced. There is a fairly wide-spread belief that it is acceptable for men to bash
their wives in some circumstances; this belief …
said the judge,
- … must be erased’.
Other work is underway around the issue of violence and its impact on all Territorians. It would be premature to make any announcements at this stage, but I assure the House that my government is serious.
I commend the member for Braitling for bringing this motion before the House. It is an issue that requires collaboration, concentrated effort, and it is an issue that my government makes a commitment to. Violence against Aboriginal women is not acceptable, and I believe that with a whole-of-government approach, a real commitment and my government’s plans to work in partnership with indigenous Territorians, we can make real progress in this priority issue that impacts on many Territorians.
I would like to add that I know that it is an issue that concerns all members in this House, and I would say, considering that we now have seven women here in the House, that I’m sure that we can get a much more concentrated effort and bipartisan support on this issue because all of us feel this issue very deeply and know that the impact that it has on the lives of Aboriginal women, particularly Aboriginal women around the Territory. We see the evidence daily, as the member for Braitling said. To be able to put in place effective strategies – I’m not saying that some of the work done already hasn’t been effective, but we need to be able to raise the effort and continue with as effective strategies as we can. So to know that I have the support in this place from all members but particularly - because it does affect us as women - the women members of this House, I think that we can achieve a lot working in partnership.
Again, I commend the member for Braitling for bringing forward this motion. It is one that is of great concern to this government and, I believe, to all Territorians. But I think that you’ll note that the amendments are not radically different and the reasons for them that I’ve outlined - particularly in terms of point four, the mandatory reporting by medical staff in the original motion, in public hospitals. The advice is that this is not the best way at this time to go, and that you might in fact, by making it mandatory - unlike the issue of child abuse which means that an adult is reporting it or that it doesn’t affect the number of people coming to a hospital - in many cases it might stop women seeking the medical advice they need.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we have that screening process in place and I believe that we’ll monitor it and make sure that we do understand whether that is the best way to proceed at this time.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Deputy Speaker, I’m struck by how similar my response will be to the Chief Minister’s. Can I say from the outset that I also thank the member for Braitling for bringing this motion to the Chamber. I was going to say that I supported the sentiments of the motion but that I had some concerns with parts of it. I’m very happy, if not a little relieved, to see the amendment and it is on that basis that I will be agreeing to it.
Of course, I support the proposition that violence against Aboriginal women is unacceptable and that it should be a priority for any government. Indeed, violence against all women must be a priority for all governments and, like the Chief Minister, I think there wouldn’t be a person inside this Chamber who doesn’t agree with that proposition. I also support that part of the motion that any campaign should be backed up by adequate resources that will assist communities dealing with violence, however any campaign or injection of funds into indigenous communities must be done in a culturally appropriate way and must be done, where appropriate, in partnership with particular communities, and others will be community-based, grass roots programs. I would urge the government to draw on the volumes of expert material published both within and outside government.
In this regard, I would urge the new government to look at the work undertaken by the Office of Women’s Policy over the years and I am again relieved to hear the Chief Minister’s comments in that respect. I would additionally, however, encourage government to increase funding to that office, rather than reducing it, so that it can extend its resources.
I support that part of the motion that states that the sentencing regime for crimes of violence should reflect the severity of the crime and, indeed, it should reflect that both for indigenous and non-indigenous violence against women. Knowing this government’s approach to the issue of sentencing generally, I won’t hold my breath in anticipation of any statutory increases in sentences nor the imposition of minimum sentences. The opposition’s view is that sentences should always reflect the severity of all crimes of violence against women and children, but I might say that the prospect of exploring minimum sentences for crimes of violence and sexual assaults against women is, in my view, arguably worth further exploration.
The concerns I had with the original motion related to the mandatory reporting by medical staff of suspected assaults being introduced. While no doubt well meaning, the fact of the matter is that the medical profession and, indeed, the legal profession would not, on the basis of inquiries I’ve made, be supportive of it. The fact of the matter is that we have mandatory reporting for child abuse by reason of the Community Welfare Act and, of course, by reason of that legislation, there is an ability to remove a child from the location of the abuse. A similar statutory scheme does not exist for adults, nor can it, and there are sound policy reasons for mandatory reporting of child abuse, not the least of which is because a child does not have legal standing and cannot bring a complaint.
I agree absolutely that Aboriginal women are tolerating outrageous levels of violence, however we must have sufficient respect for them and their capacity to run their lives, unlike children, and not to take the decision to report to police out of their hands or indeed the medical profession’s. Ultimately, violence against women will significantly reduce when women themselves report it and I applaud any attempts by any government to implement campaigns ensuring that they do so.
Further mandatory reporting raises two practical issues for the medical profession. The first one, briefly, was the issue of confidentiality. The question is whether patients are going to trust their doctors if, through their eyes as patients, they breach their confidence. The second, more practical, matter is that if every case of assault against a woman is reported, then all doctors in all hospitals will be spending all of their time at the court houses throughout the Northern Territory because they will need to give evidence in relation to each and every prosecution. Given the shortage of staff, this problem obviously could not go unmentioned.
As for the pro-arrest policy, there is a pro-arrest policy in existence already. If a complaint is made, it is investigated, and the very sensible, no-drop policy introduced by the former government applies to women who are the victims of domestic violence. So there is, in fact, no distinction between a no-drop policy and the notion of pro-arrest, but I can assure the member for Braitling that my experience is that the police and prosecutors always take violence against women very seriously. I would agree absolutely that violence against Aboriginal women has nothing to do with culture. I might add, however, that I have on occasion seen defence lawyers sail fairly close to the wind in submissions of pleas of mitigation where they just fall short of putting some submission along the lines that it was culturally appropriate for the woman to receive a beating. Obviously that is rubbish but, surprisingly, my experience has been that it has been suggested either subtly or, on occasions, not so subtly by lawyers who are employed in Aboriginal legal aid services. I am pleased to say, however, that my experience is that such nonsense is not bought for a minute by the judiciary which takes violence against women seriously.
I agree that the recently launched media campaign It’s got to stop now was disappointing because of the level of funding - $119 000 as I understand it - and it has been questioned by a number of women around the Territory on the basis that it is just not enough.
The references made by the member for Braitling, about victims attending the Alice Springs Hospital in particular put pressure on this government to improve the hospital which has so obviously slipped over the last six months, and I invite government to get on with implementing its election promises in this and other areas.
In conclusion, government does have the opportunity to pull out all stops in doing what it can to address this problem of violence against Aboriginal women. I very sincerely wish them well in tackling the challenges that exist. I also look forward to the outcomes of the routine screening programs, and I’m sure many of us in this Chamber await the results with interest.
Finally, I thank the member for Braitling for bringing this motion to the Chamber because the issue of violence against indigenous and non-indigenous women confronts us all and is of real concern. As I said, I was going to conclude by supporting the sentiments of the motion, but having difficulty with the detail. Again, I am delighted at the amendment moved by the government, and on that basis, I will happily support it.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I, too, would like to thank the member for Braitling for her motion, and the Chief Minister for her amendment. Based on the amendment, I will be delighted to support the motion.
This is an issue that has been placed in the too-hard basket for decades. I am very pleased to see that it’s coming out of it even further tonight. Twenty years ago, I came to Darwin as a new nurse. It was the first time I’d had exposure to Aboriginal people. I was working in the Accident and Emergency Department and in Orthopaedics for nearly 10 years. In the Northern Territory, the most common fracture for a woman is a bilateral fracture of the radius and ulna, and that’s an injury sustained in defence from being bashed. In Australia, the most common fracture for a women is a fractured neck of femur which is sustained in a fall as an older woman.
Every day I would nurse Aboriginal women – sorry, going back to these nursing stories cracks me up - every day I would have to nurse the victims of this assault. The fractures were disturbing enough, but what really got to me were the occasions when I would have to nurse elderly Aboriginal women who had been - as the term goes - thrown on the fire to speed their death. I found that, obviously, very upsetting, as something that was happening. At that time, there was no such thing as debriefing, and perhaps it’s a shame that it wasn’t happening.
I would like to quote a nursing story from an article by Penelope Andrews:
It was a cold and winter night in 1989 in Central Australia on an Aboriginal community. Although late, muted
sounds of fighting could still be heard coming from the camps. Suddenly, the screams of a woman rent the air
as she ran towards the nurses’ quarters and hammered desperately on the locked gate. Blood poured down her
face, and her left arm hung limp and broken. In close pursuit was a man brandishing a star picket. As the nurse
struggled to open the gate to admit the woman - at the same time excluding her attacker - she noticed the woman’s
T-shirt. Emblazoned across the front was the statement: ‘We have survived 40 000 years’. ‘Yes, but will they
survive the next 40?’, the nurse wondered.
In 1996, approximately 38% of reported DV victims in the Northern Territory were Aboriginal. In the year 2000,
it has increased to 76% who are Aboriginal women.
This is an increase of nearly 40%. Attachment 5 of the same document provides the numbers. In six years, there has been a massive deterioration of the situation in that in 1994 to 1996, the number of indigenous women reported as being the victims of domestic violence were 419. In the year 1999-2000, the number had increased to 1269. This is a huge increase. Arguably, of course, reporting may have increased also during that time. But there’s a feeling - and the statistics support it - that the incidence is increasing. We must act now, and I’m delighted to hear what the Chief Minister has had to say today on this topic.
One of the outcomes of this high rate of violence is death. Who is the perpetrator? In most cases, it’s Aboriginal men - in particular the victim’s intimate partner. A report from the Australian Institute of Criminology, No. 124, on Femicide 1989 to 1998, details how:
The proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander femicide victims that were killed by an intimate partner
was 75%. This was much higher for the Aboriginal women than for Caucasian women.
Nearly three-quarters or 75% of femicides that occurred involving Aboriginal people, both the victim and the
offender were under the influence of alcohol. In contrast, only 12% of the victims and offenders of
Caucasian appearance were both under the influence of alcohol at the time of the killing.
Alcohol is one factor, and a key factor. Alcohol, as most of us know, makes us lose our inhibitions. Unfortunately for the perpetrators of habitual violence, they often believe that it absolves them from any responsibility. The Violence in Indigenous Communities report I have already mentioned comments on page 27 that it has been argued that:
Unaccountability is a key component of a widely held construct of drunkenness amongst indigenous people.
People believe that they are not to be held responsible or accountable when they are drunk.
One of the big problems when dealing with this taboo topic is under reporting. A report to the Queensland Office of Aboriginal Women in 1990 cited one worker who commented:
I have found the majority of sexual and physical assaults against Aboriginal women are not reported. Most
women are terrified of the police interrogation where anything from a woman’s sexual history to whether she
is a fit mother or not is brought out into the open. Reporting an assault sometimes seems to be just as traumatic
as the actual assault.
This incident has been raised in a public meeting which I co-hosted looking at the issues of safety and security in the inner city area of Darwin. Police were there at that meeting. The issue was raised. What happened with this case? We have a woman who was almost gutted in public. Nothing has happened, and that article comments on it, the reason being that the victim refused to lay charges so it has just dropped. Now I am told - I don’t think the police have told me this - that the police know who the perpetrator of the crime is. This was a woman injuring another woman, still a form of violence against Aboriginal women. They know who the offender is. This is the third time she has attacked in this manner – known third time that she has stabbed somebody. She is currently lying low, and that is an allegation to me, in one of our Housing Commission blocks here in Darwin until things calm down.
Why haven’t the police pursued it? Because the victim has refused to lay any charges. Yet here we have in Raintree Park, arguably the centre of the Northern Territory - and I do use that term loosely - but, certainly, a very well populated area, middle of the day, an incident like this occurs and there is no action from the police because the victim didn’t want to press charges.
What is going to happen? Do we have to wait until the perpetrator of this crime kills somebody and then we can take action? In that case the victim is dead and, therefore, we do not have concerns about whether or not charges may or may not be laid based on the victim’s concerns. I find it very disturbing that now, of course, we probably have the perpetrator back on the streets and able to commit this crime again. It is a very unfortunate situation. I have written to the minister for police on this matter and I look forward to his comments on this concern which I and other citizens in our community have.
I acknowledge there is a lack of any quick fix solution. What is needed is a multifaceted approach which is not scared to address the issues. Political correctness, I believe, is a huge burden and I, certainly, hope that we are not going to see any of it here tonight. I feel confident that we won’t. But for a very long time the feeling has been that we don’t talk about this topic. I was delighted to see some time in the last 12 months Sunday ran a program on this very issue. Many very important Aboriginal people in our community spoke out about the issue of Aboriginal family violence and it was great to hear that coming forward in our media in such an important program as Sunday.
I believe everybody should be able to talk about this issue. It has been slid to the side in the too-hard basket for too long. All of us should be able to comment on it because we all care. I can’t imagine anybody who does not care about seeing people injured and attacked and put down in this way.
As we know from our own Northern Territory Domestic Violence Report, Aborigines do want access to justice. I suspect, and this is just hearsay, that the Aboriginal Legal Aid Service is such that it supports often men because they get there first, and I may stand to be corrected about that in the future, but I have, certainly, heard over the years concerns from women that there is not such ready access to legal aid for women.
The domestic violence program that we have here in the Northern Territory - the statistics bear it out - appears to be working for non-Aboriginal women. Why isn’t it working for the victims of family violence? Here’s hoping, from the initiatives mentioned by the Chief Minister tonight, that we are going to see those statistics turned around in the near future.
Some key steps need to be taken. There needs to be, of course, community recognition such as we have with domestic violence but family violence is not acceptable. I remember during Marshall Perron’s time as Chief Minister when launching of the domestic violence strategy here in the Northern Territory - I was not involved in women’s issues per se; I was working as a nurse educator down in Katherine - but I can distinctly remember the television ads saying that ‘it is not on’. And then the media coverage from the Chief Minister of the time saying anybody who thinks that domestic violence in the Northern Territory is appropriate better leave because it’s just not on here in the Territory. And it was a very powerful message which struck many of us. Well, this is the same sort of message which has to come through now to the Aboriginal people and to the Aboriginal women that it is no longer acceptable and you do not have to be a victim anymore.
Dr Burns: What about the non-Aboriginal perpetrators?
Ms CARTER: Indeed, the non-Aboriginal perpetrators, that is true and I will pick up on that.
Dr Burns: Let’s not put one label on it.
Ms CARTER: Absolutely. Whoever is a perpetrator, and I accept that comment absolutely.
Also we need to see programs that have a significant level of self-determination by Aboriginal communities as to how the problem should be addressed and how resources should be allocated. We need a whole-of-government approach - and I am sure that is what the Chief Minister is going to be organising - incorporating health, education, housing and employment strategies. The development of appropriate community facilities need to be provided for and these may well encompass refuges for the victims of violence.
For many, of course, the justice system has at often times been a joke with regards to the way that it deals with violence against Aboriginal women. All of us have seen the newspaper articles over our years in the Northern Territory which indicate that if you kill an Aboriginal woman, you might get three years - off in 18 months. That scenario happens time and time again. It is just not right that there should be two levels. I am quite sure that if you did a comparison between the sentences handed down to the murderers of non-Aboriginal people and the sentences handed down to the murderers of Aboriginal people, you would see a marked difference between those incarcerations.
Ms Carney: There is a PhD on exactly that issue written by a friend of mine.
Ms CARTER: Well, I am pleased to hear that.
So I think the justice system needs to look carefully and needs to punish for these crimes because that sends a message out to our community that this thing is just not on, that Aboriginal women matter just as much as anybody else and that if you should kill an Aboriginal woman then you are in deep trouble and you get that message very, very easily.
Obviously, I think that if someone murders anybody, that’s the end of it. But for people who perhaps have not been quite so offensive, there should be programs available to them and those programs to assist with coping with domestic violence or family violence could be either community or prison based depending on the circumstances. But what we need most of all is a demonstration that our community cares, that we are outraged and that we will not tolerate this situation any more. Currently Aboriginal women do not receive justice and this community fails to care enough. When Aboriginal people were felt to be dying at an unacceptable rate in prison, a Royal Commission was established. Today, Aboriginal women are suffering much greater rates of injury and death and yet, to date - and I exclude the last hour or so in here - but to date there has been very little outcry. More must be done and I am pleased to hear it will be.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am pleased with the member for Braitling’s motion. I am delighted with the Chief Minister’s amendments and I will be very pleased to support the motion with the amendments.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to applaud the member for Braitling for bringing this motion forward. There are probably a number of Aboriginal women amongst the sisterhood for whom she would probably be the champion of their cause. This is an issue that just has not come to fore in the last couple of years or over the last six months. This has been an issue that’s been around for a long, long time. And like the member for Port Darwin, I have spent about 10 years working at the coalface of health. I have actually witnessed a lot of those women coming into the health services feeling totally helpless. Yes, sitting down and talking and counselling those women, asking them if they wanted to take further action - to little avail.
There are a number of problems with why those women didn’t want to take that action. I suppose this is an issue that, for someone like myself, is difficult because I have a personal opinion about the violence and the assaults that are perpetrated on Aboriginal women. At the same time, I have to weigh up that I am the member for a huge electorate, and it is not just the women out there. I talk about this issue with the men as well, and there has been - and this is something that I have to say at the outset - there has been a major shift in a lot of the men that I am talking to out in the community. A lot of the men are saying: ‘No, it isn’t culture and we have to stop this’. So a lot of the Aboriginal men are recognising that this violence has to stop.
The member for Barkly, the member for Arnhem and the member for Millner, all Aboriginal reps in this parliament. We do want to take this issue on. I think it has gone on for too long and it has to be addressed.
In the member for Braitling’s motion, one of the areas I was going to talk on was the pro-arrest policy, and then the Chief Minister presented the amendments to that emotion - sorry, motion – which, of course, we fully support. Look, this is an emotional issue for me. For a long time I’ve had a dilemma about this issue, and sometimes you stand here and you look at issues and you have to try to separate the emotions from what the issue is. And, like the member for Port Darwin, when you’ve seen - and, look, myself having gone through violence - it is hard to separate yourself and try to look at it systematically and without any emotion because you can’t talk about this issue without emotion.
I completely agree with the need for police to protect women from continuing or threatened violence by removing the source of the violence from the place where the woman is staying. The more difficult question - and I suppose this is with a lot of the work that I’ve done in the past with communities and now with my electorate, and talking to those women and talking to those men - of when you’re looking in a remote area setting - and I’ll get to the urban centres in a minute, but I suppose the remote areas is where I am looking at first - is where is the man to be taken once he is in control of the police?
If he has already inflicted bodily harm on the victim then he should, of course, be kept in police custody pending a bail hearing before a magistrate. But if no actual violence has been inflicted, there needs to be established, in particular in remote communities, an alternative to holding the man in police custody. We need to look at establishing - and this is something I suppose when we are reviewing and looking at different programs - something that is seriously lacking in remote areas, yes, we have safe houses for women. The member for Braitling did mention establishing counterparts to women’s safe houses for men. I mean, there has to be some sort of strategy of looking at how the men can be accommodated.
There should be secure places, the supervision of which is shared between the police and the responsible male community members. Suspected offenders or men whom the police and the community fear may have inflict violence, if not temporarily removed from their domestic setting, should be granted police bail, a condition of which would be to remain at the men’s house until permitted to emerge and a further condition of which would be a prohibition on returning to where the woman is staying at least until such time as the police are satisfied that the threat to the woman has receded.
That is just one view. A lot of that with looking at the safe houses, where women have had safe houses, a lot of the men are saying maybe if - and, look, a lot of these things need radical changes, and sometimes we have to start looking beyond what have been processes or systems or policies that have been in place - and safe, safe for governments to stay within that system. Sometimes we need to look at, for the best interests of what these communities are saying, is moving outside of what is the best for governments in terms of working and being more creative on the ground.
Some of the comments that I’ve just heard in terms of the welfare dependency and Noel Pearson’s paper - yes, I was sitting in this Chamber yesterday - I carry the Noel Pearson paper around with me most of the time to read a lot of that. Although Noel Pearson, with that paper - and he makes his document quite explicit that Aboriginal people must take responsibility - certainly there is a message in there that that responsibility can only come when that responsibility is transferred from governments to the people and Aboriginal people taking that on.
The BRACS system, yes, they are in most of the communities and yes, we do have to look at ways of getting the message across, whether it is videos made by local people, so that it is out there in the community and people can watch it.
The Aboriginal legal aid services and yes, a lot of women - I worked in Katherine for a long time. I took on the Katherine Regional Aboriginal Legal Aid Service because I, too, was under the impression that this was a male dominated service and Aboriginal women were being excluded. Part of that was ignorance but, yes, the reason why a lot of the males were going there was because they were the perpetrators. And, yes, the women were being excluded because Aboriginal legal aid has a conflict of interest policy that they cannot represent Aboriginal person v Aboriginal person. So, yes, this caused a whole lot of problems for the legal aid service. Talking to them, it was a huge dilemma so, as the Health Service Director with the legal aid service Director, we looked at, okay, what can we do to try and approach either the Commonwealth government or the Northern Territory government in trying to get some funding to set up a specific legal aid service for Aboriginal women so that they could get some support.
The then federal Labor government was in power and Graham Richardson, on his famous tour to Katherine, came and I was fortunate enough to have a meeting with him. The effect of that was - I think about six months after that - there was some funding released and that was the beginning of the Top End Women’s Legal Service and also the Legal Service in Katherine. And even though they represent all women, it is not specifically Aboriginal women, but I do know that a lot of the Aboriginal women accessed both of these services. And the Top End Women’s Legal Service certainly is doing some good work with the women out at Gunbalanya, which is in my electorate, looking at this. I mean, sure, a long time ago there was this shift - you know, the legal aid services, it was perceived that it was male dominated or there was this perception that only men would be represented.
Picking up on the newspapers, there needs to be a fundamental shift in the media not just portraying stories like that. When I talk about the shift in the media, I recall an incident in Katherine. This was about a young lady who I was fortunate to have on my Board of Management. Quite a stunning young lady, had gone to school both in Darwin and over in Western Australia. She got into an argument with her partner. Anyway, she died as a consequence of the fight between her and her partner. The insensitivity of the media - and that’s something that has to certainly change - the next day and right through the week, the family of that victim - front page of the Katherine Times - reading in full, graphic detail the injuries that were sustained by this young lady. It not only affected and impacted on the family, but also everybody else who knew this young lady. Certainly, the police in Katherine I talked to were amazed at the story that had been portrayed in that newspaper. Sometimes the media - and the whole thing with these issues, especially indigenous issues, is that they’ve got to stop being used as the political football. We certainly have to get serious about it.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I could rave forever. I could stand up here and rave forever, but I won’t because I think what we need is actions speaking louder than words. We certainly have to go ahead with the actions rather than standing up and saying the words all the time.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Deputy Speaker, I also rise to make a few comments in support of everything that’s been said here tonight, but also I pick up particularly on one of the comments from the member for Arafura in relation to the problem she has with separating out a very emotional issue from a what-to-do issue or an issue of how to approach these situations logically.
I, too, could stand up here and with some 14 years of police experience trot out an absolute litany of the death that I have seen associated specifically with this problem. I can recall any number of occasions - in fact too many occasions - where I’ve seen Aboriginal women the subject of the most obscene violence and violence which led not only to grievous harm but from time to time, very sadly, to death.
I agonised and still do when I see these sorts of things happening; indeed, I had a walk down the street the other day and although it wasn’t physical violence, there were a couple of people in the street - one of them was an Aboriginal woman who was getting a mouthful of abuse from her other half. I hung around to make sure that it didn’t go any further, but at the end of the day it was very sad she even had to suffer that sort of abuse.
It brings us to the issue of policy and I don’t know if there’s anything to be achieved by dwelling on the litany or the sadness of this issue. On the issue of policy, how does one approach this problem? One of the problems that I perceive is that policy delivery from federal government, from NGOs, from the Northern Territory government, councils, come from a whole series of different directions and I’d care to make some observations in relation to that, so I ask members to bear with me while I make some fairly ranging comments.
When one looks at the state of Aboriginal affairs in Australia as a whole or more particularly in the Northern Territory, one cannot help but be struck by the desires of policy makers and the outcomes that we see unavoidably every day. Millions upon millions are spent trying to bring about improvements to the conditions and circumstances in which Aboriginal people live. Speaking personally, I despair at the things that I see happening every day in Central Australia and fail to see any real outcomes for the expenditure.
My years as a police officer in this community exposed me to so many of the living tragedies, and I know that not much has improved for a lot of traditional people who live in a world that is changing about them at an enormous pace. It is my concern that change is widening the gap between non-Aboriginal culture and traditional people rather than closing it. I do not intend to revisit the problems of Aboriginal people in Central Australia because we all know what these problems are. Indeed, the very existence of ATSIC or departments dedicated to Aboriginal issues reveals that there are specific needs that have to be addressed.
My comments and questions will be reserved more to observations as to why there are so many failures in policy generally and an overview of what I believe some of the mistakes that have been made in terms of how policy has been delivered.
The first point I wish to make is in relation to the protection of Aboriginal cultures. It is often said by commentators that it is important to protect Aboriginal culture, and this should be a central plank of policy delivery. I have a question mark over this, not because I do not believe that Aboriginal culture should not be protected, but rather that I am not qualified to speak for those cultures. The only qualified people themselves are the holders of the law for any particular culture. From time to time as a member of parliament, I have been struck by the numbers of cultures that exist in my own electorate, let alone the number of cultures that exist beyond the electorate and in the rest of the Northern Territory as well as the rest of this country.
It seems to be the nature of many of these cultures that they are identifiably different from each other, and they are cultures that have been affected to varying degrees by the influence of European culture. My concern is that if I or any person, be they Aboriginal or otherwise, makes assumptions about someone else’s culture, they are engaging in a level of conceit by making those sorts of sweeping assertions.
Speaking from my own experience, I am not an initiated man in any of these cultures, nor do I possess any of the language, stories or secrets that would make me an expert in any of these cultures that exist even in my own electorate. I believe that for me to do so would be arrogant in the extreme. I cannot determine what is good for Aboriginal culture simply because I am not qualified to do so.
As someone who had the duty of formulating Aboriginal policy in the Northern Territory for the possible return to government as the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, this appears to leave me with limited options in terms of the policy developments that are appropriate. This is not only true for me but for every policy framer, wherever they may be. I do not believe that such a apparition is necessarily the truth. As a person who believes that freedom is a central part of governance, then any policy that is constructed should reflect the ability of the participants in that society to choose their own courses in life. This being the case, then the policy that I would like to see advanced should recognise that experts in Aboriginal culture of any given place should have the right to determine what is of value to them culturally and what is not.
I do not profess expertise in Aboriginal culture, but I do believe that as a general rule, there are few areas in which Aboriginal culture is repugnant to the operation of European law. Indeed, I believe that cultural law could be of great assistance to European law when dealing with particular issues, as the issue before the House today. Land rights settlements, native title determinations are two areas where traditional law has been and will continue to be of great assistance.
Policy problems: what, then, is the role for you, me and, indeed, this nation to develop policy? To that question I answer there needs to be a yardstick by which we can, as policy makers, all turn to, to give us a system of general measurement to examine a policy as being consistent with other policies in the field. I humbly suggest to those of us present today that such a yardstick does not yet exist. Policy is developed from disparate directions with disparate objectives in mind. Where some policy is of a political nature, others are of a social nature; some seek to interfere, others seek to create space. Depending on who is framing the policy, the nature of the policy changes.
The solution of this begins then to sound like the whole-of-government approach system that we hear so often talked about but never seems to happen. The reason that such an approach fails is because the yardstick to which I have referred is never examined. When one considers policy created of a social nature and then examines that policy with one which is geared to bring responsibility back on the people who are affected, then the two policy positions will fail because they seek mutually exclusive outcomes.
The competing policy of paying welfare and generally asserting the freedom to obtain liquor is a glaring example of this dichotomy. Currently in Australia, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, CASA, is preventing regular passenger services from landing on unlicensed strips because of inherent danger of landing in such places. Accidents however, are historically rare with such landings. This certainly keeps people from danger in the aviation sector, however it does prevent dialysis patients from getting to treatment, a cause of death which is common. It is as though CASA is happy to play their part, so long as their part of the Titanic isn’t sinking.
Different policy makers will have different intentions as well. ATSIC will engage in policy development, as will land councils, federal, NT and local governments. This will occur because they have different areas of responsibility. There is also a more subtle reason for this failure: each of these organisations will have a different constituency. ATSIC’s constituency is national, where the land councils are area specific. Local government is only interested in its particular community, where a state government has a broader base, and federal approaches deal with national interests beyond the realm of ATSIC.
By way of example, when the federal government seeks to create an Aboriginal policy, it will do so with one eye on the voters who live in Sydney and Melbourne. It will seek to create policies which are not seen as excessively burdensome or harsh to people in those constituencies in an effort not to be seen to be tyrannical in any way. It is safe to suggest that the vast majority of people who live in those major cities are not people of Aboriginal descent and so the federal government of the day will create policies that, on the face of them, seem to be caring policies. Therefore, it follows that vast amounts of money will be spent on welfare approaches that will reflect well in those constituencies. Nevertheless, people who live with outcomes of such policies then reserve serious criticisms for such approaches. Indeed, the comments by Mr Noel Pearson are nothing short of scathing in terms of passive welfare. I agree with Mr Pearson. Indeed I have a copy, for those members who haven’t read it, of his address on the Dr Charles Perkins’ Memorial Oration. I seek leave to table that, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: The question arises then, from this, of what to do. Is welfare policy our primary goal? Does the taxpayer simply pay the rent to Aboriginal people and hope the problems resolve themselves? What is the yardstick that all policy makers use to measure the policy and deliver consistent outcomes? I’m not in the habit of making criticism without offering some sort of answers, and I will turn to history. I will turn briefly to the history of passive welfare, but I do direct members, in terms of a much better oration, to the comments made by Mr Pearson in the Dr Charles Perkins’ Memorial Oration. I will reserve my comments to say that welfare, in its own right, has the effect of removing dignity.
The other lesson that I gleaned from history is the human need for a meaningful existence. There is no greater destructive force to human existence than to remove a meaning from a person’s life. There is nothing unique in history about poverty to any particular place. Even today, if I want to see poverty similar to what I see in Central Australia, I may choose to visit areas like the Bronx in New York, or Brixton in London, or perhaps Sowheto in Johannesberg. Indeed, I have seen these places and discovered that when people lose meaning in their lives, they suffer from the same forces of entropy that we see working in communities in Central Australia. The drugs or abuse may be different, such as crack/cocaine in Los Angeles or petrol in Papunya, but I firmly believe that the desire to escape meaninglessness arises out of the same human condition. In some people, it is stronger than in others and therefore at an individual level, there will always be exceptions. But at a social level, the experience seems to be constant.
At the national level, our economy is seen to be robust and it has resisted enormous pressure to slip into recession and has sustained consistent growth throughout a global downturn. However, at a particular level, the economies in localised areas have never been out of a recessive phase for decades. This is true of small rural communities in many places in Australia and particularly so in Aboriginal communities. The reasons for this are manifold: health, education, ownership of land and a raft of other forces or lack of them bear down on remote Australians with crushing pressure. I find it astonishing that when I talk to older men who live in my electorate, the days of the cattle stations in missions are viewed with nostalgia. In these times, they were poorly paid and did not enjoy many of the services that they have today, and still the response amongst them is almost universally that they were the good old days.
Despite the fact that they did not have these services, they had meaningful lives, and they were providers to their families. It is, therefore, my contention that if purpose is to be gained by any people, then it should be done by constructing policies that recognise the need for meaningfulness. I further contend that the best place to develop meaning is by granting economic independence. This should be the principle that underlines all policy development. Economic self-determination is the only true form of self-determination.
So what is the yardstick we should use? If one examines education policy, the thrust of policy, generally, is to prepare the recipients of education with a means to create a productive life. An obvious statement, but when it is examined in a place such as Kintore in the Northern Territory, it becomes less obvious. When a child in Kintore attends the local school, that child is given lessons on the normal subjects of reading, writing, arithmetic and the like. The problem lies not with the education of the child, assuming that it is properly delivered. The problem lies in what happens to the education when it leaves the classroom. The child sees no meaningful application for the education. If the child visits the health clinic, they are not required to fill out any of the forms, and should the child visit the shop, the chances are that their arithmetic is done for them at the counter. There is no work that requires such an education, and it is not long before it becomes apparent that education is largely without context. It is as abstract and has no real relevance on their lives outside the classroom. It is because policies that may provide the education with contextual environment are not vigorously pursued.
A response should not be to change the education system, but perhaps to change the environment in which it operates. The education department’s responsibility unfortunately stops at the school door. Welfare policy, in the way it is delivered, is one of effective helplessness. Therefore, even the process of obtaining welfare is done for the applicant by the delivering body. There is no work available because the land management process, either locally or through a community council or generally through a land council, does not provide work in which the education has a purpose. The sad thing is that in some communities such as Hermannsburg, the community did provide work in a tannery, a local butcher’s shop, running cattle and the like. Hermannsburg once provided for its many needs and largely stood independent of outside help.
Certainly, a whole-of-government approach, which has been touted for years, is fundamental. But policy formation has to go one step further. It needs to be consistent, but there must be a clear goal in mind for all policy development across the board. Welfare policy, independent of economic development policy, will cause a nexus of failure because the intended outcomes of each are stated to be the same and have a deleterious effect on each other’s operation. It is folly to suggest to a person in a remote community that they carry part of the burden of their own development and then provide a means by which to usurp that development. The only pressure on many people to turn to themselves for their own salvation is consequently a vague sense of responsibility that they are expected to feel after having that sense of responsibility dictated to them from afar.
Therefore, I believe that a policy framework that is adhered to from the very top down should be developed that accepts the principles that are outlined here today. The framework should become the yardstick by which all policy is developed and should be consistently delivered by each organisation with carriage of policy delivery. Failure to do this will continue to mean that millions will be wasted in delivery of policies that work against each other’s operations. It is important to remember that any policy developed should be developed with the intention of making that policy redundant so that a public policy is aimed at dealing with a specific problem. In a perfect world, policies that solve problems render the policy meaningless at their final outcome. This is a lofty principle, but nevertheless, it is a rational goal to strive for. Therefore I look forward to a day that the concept of an Aboriginal bureaucracy is also redundant
The relationships between citizens in a free country is that all people engage in relationships with each other including economic relationships on a voluntary basis that is recognised under a generally accepted law. This has been the goal of the common law in the past and I believe that it should continue to be the goal of policy makers and law framers into the future. However, while the system exists where one clearly identifiable part of a society is some way dependent on another part of that society on a basis which is not voluntary, there will always be a cause for resentment.
The Mabo decision on Aboriginal land rights has gone some way to address these injustices of inequality as the have been perpetrated in the past. Nevertheless there is now an environment in which the burdens of the past must not be allowed to become shapers of policy in the future because policy developments based on guilt alone are not necessarily rational. Policy needs to be structured in such a way that the subjects of policy can be brought to a place where they can make their own decisions.
I suggest that policy should be developed that will encourage economic independence. When such policies reach their goals then the people who are the subject of those policies will be in a position to decide for themselves with whom they treat and on what terms. That is self-determination. Any other approach is little more than romance and is doomed to create division in the future. The greatest protection - Mr Deputy Speaker, I know I am running out of time, I have little more than a page to go.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would allow the member for Macdonnell to complete his presentation.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I think incorporate would be better. We are happy if he incorporates.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will take a vote to allow the extension of time. That is the motion that was put.
Mrs BRAHAM: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Could perhaps the member incorporate the rest of the paper into Hansard?
Mr ELFERINK: I am willing to do so, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is only a little more than a page.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate the rest of the speech into Hansard and I conclude by saying that I support the amended motion of the government.
Leave granted.
The greatest protection that can be offered to any cultural group is the protection that they
enjoyed prior to settlement. That is the protection of economic self-reliance.
Because it comes with an identifiable bottom line as well as immediately assessable measures
of success, it provides the real objective test for success or failure of a particular policy
delivery. Once a person or a community is self-reliant, they enjoy an esteem that will have
its own outcomes in health, community development, education and the raft of other areas I
referred to earlier.
To summarise, the thrust of my comments are twofold: first, it is necessary to decide what policy
outcome is to be achieved. This has generally been expressed in terms of self-determination as
there is never any real freedom while living under the dictates of another. Second, if that be
accepted then policy should be structured with that in mind. This approach should be consistent
and that means that a realistic acceptance should entail that will in some instances bring pressure
to bear upon the subjects of that policy.
If I should bear these responsibilities in any future government in the NT, then I will be seeking advice,
as I am doing now, to assist with the development of consistent policy approaches. This means that I
will need to talk to all the players including ATSIC, the land councils, local councils, associations
and the federal government. There will need to be a flow of communication that ensures that everybody
is singing from the same sheet. It represents an enormous challenge, especially if we burden ourselves
with the past.
Nevertheless, I have been watching the development of all players over time and all players have moved to accommodate each other. What needs to occur now is that this softening becomes coordinated and clearly directed. This is the challenge that will visit us all within the next few years. We need to put our assumptions aside and create a policy yardstick that is consistent and universally acceptable. It is a measure of our leadership as to whether or not that occurs.
In conclusion, the only measure of success for any policy organisation is the degree in which it can achieve
its own redundancy. The object of policy should be to limit the amount of interference that is required to
make sure that Aboriginal people prosper in the general common wealth of Australia. Ultimately, that limit
should be reduced to the levels of interference that are currently brought to bear on the rest of society. If
that is to be achieved then the systems that are in place now should operate with a clear and dedicated
approach that is not inconsistent with other approaches. To achieve this, there needs to be a general
agreement on desired outcomes. This has yet to be achieved and until it is, the problems will remain
insurmountable.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will be brief, unlike the previous speaker on this subject. I am speaking to add to debate, not to go over past ground. Like most of the other speakers, I congratulate the member for Braitling for bringing the motion before the House and thank her for her concern in terms of the existence of unacceptable levels of violence against Aboriginal women in our community. However, I support the amendment that the Chief Minister has brought before the House. I share the concerns that have been stated in terms of perhaps providing further barriers to women presenting themselves to our health institutions if there is mandatory reporting.
I want to identify a link between the increase in violence against women and also the positive side that I see which is the increasing empowerment of women. Throughout the ages of time and throughout various cultures there has been a strong correlation between an increase in violence against women as women’s empowerment has increased and I believe that that is also a force at play in the Territory. I believe that after decades of oppression women are feeling more and more empowered and they are starting to stand up for themselves and their rights.
An example that led me to form this opinion at a very young age was in the 1970s when a young indigenous woman from a community near Alice Springs had been betrothed - for want of a better word - to an elder in her tribe. However, this young indigenous woman had, at a very young age, the opportunity to go to school in Alice Springs. At about age 14 her tribe decided it was time for her to come back and for the marriage to proceed. While she had been in Alice Springs she saw a little bit more of life outside the tribe and, indeed, had fallen in love with a young indigenous man. She was forcibly removed from school and taken back to her tribe. She tried to run away, she was caught, she was taken back to the tribe and she was raped. She ran away again, she was caught, she was taken back and she was gang raped. She ran away again. This time she got far enough to get into the hands of someone who brought her to Darwin and put her into what, at that time, was deemed as the only safe house in the Territory for her - indeed, my family home. The view at that time was that no Aboriginal person would cross the hearth of my mother and commit any violence in recognition of the respect the indigenous community held and still holds my mother in.
So I learnt at a very young age that a young woman who became empowered through access to education and life options suffered violence as a consequence. This instance occurred in the Territory in the 1970s. Here we are in the new millennium debating in our Assembly the need to become proactive in our care and our concern and our resources to protect indigenous women. I pose the question: what has happened in those intervening decades? I question what successive governments have failed to do, and I ask members who have had roles to play in those governments to ponder what they could have done, what they should have done, what they failed to do and the costs, the very real costs that have been borne by women in our society through their failure to address absolute glaring needs.
We heard the member for Arafura talk about her experience in Katherine, how on identifying the need for a legal service to represent women specifically they were able to secure funding. This funding went to the Top End Women’s Legal Service. It is a domestic violence legal service specifically. Yet, recently in the Territory, government funding was removed from that service in terms of its domestic violence service and given to a private, white legal firm establishing fresh barriers, new barriers in a very modern context to indigenous women accessing a domestic violence service that was always intended to be there for them. That is a very modern example of the legacy that we have inherited.
I commend our Chief Minister for her amendment. It is fantastic. It has my full support and I commend the member for Braitling for bringing this issue before the House.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, could I just speak to the amendments? I am delighted that there seems to be bipartisan support for this motion and that people on both sides of the House have recognised that it is an issue and we should all be working together.
I notice the Chief Minister moved that the no-drop policy review should be carefully examined and I think that is great and I am happy to support that. The fact that you threw out my little part on the pro-arrest concerned me because the no-drop policy really relates to women who lay charges and then drop them whereas the situation that the member for Port Darwin referred to, where it was a violent crime that occurred and nothing has happened, that was what I was referring to when I talked about pro-arrest, that the police should be doing something. Now that I have raised it, I hope that you and the Attorney-General will examine that pro-arrest policy and see it is happening.
I knew that when I put in the part about mandatory reporting it would be provocative, and I guess I did it purposely because I thought I would get a reaction. If you are going to establish routine screening in hospitals – good! - can you come back to us in 12 months time and tell us what actually has happened, what you have found? It is important that we have some follow up to make sure these programs are actually working.
I will support these amendments mainly because they are in the spirit of the motion that I originally put up and it is the spirit of the motion that I get the feeling that you are all happy to agree to and all happy to support. I guess it is a long time since we have actually seen bipartisan support on an issue such as this in the parliament, and I thank members very much for what they have said.
I hear the emotion, I hear the feeling that’s coming through from speakers and, now, I am sure all of us will be saying to government: ‘Okay, you’ve made these statements. Please tell us what has happened in a few months time, what you have actually implemented’. Perhaps in 12 months time, we should revisit this issue in this parliament so we can report as a group on what we see. Have we made steps to improving this situation? Have we made steps to eliminating that violence out there? If we haven’t, then we have to really rethink again what we are actually doing. But I do thank members for their support and I will support the amendments with a little reservation.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would just like to make one comment because I couldn’t comment during the debate. I would just like to thank everybody for their bipartisan, or perhaps tripartisan, approach for this most important issue. I thank all members who have contributed to this debate.
A long-lasting memory for me as a young man was seeing an Aboriginal man holding an iron bar while an Aboriginal woman cowered on the ground before him. And another case of a woman standing outside the Daly River Church with her head split open and her face covered in blood. I hope the passing of this motion will be a real catalyst for real change so these instances will not continue to recur. I would also like to thank members for the civil manner in which this important debate took place, and I say that because of the obvious contrast between this debate and the previous debate.
MOTION
Northern Territory Tourism Industry
Northern Territory Tourism Industry
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move –
- That this Assembly condemns the Labor government for:
1. failing to provide adequate support to the Northern Territory tourism industry;
2. reducing the promotional effort of the Northern Territory Tourist Commission both
in Australia and internationally; and
3. failing to secure Virgin Blue services to Alice Springs and Yulara.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will try my utmost to ensure that this debate is as civil as the one that preceded it. This motion arises from the incompetent and blundering approach that this government has adopted in dealing with the tourism industry since taking office. Strong words, Mr Deputy Speaker, but they need to be said in any event. It is recognised by we in the opposition that the disastrous events of 11 September and the collapse of Ansett a few days later had a dramatic effect on both domestic and international tourism. But, while the opposition accepts that these events were beyond the control of government, we do not accept the lacklustre and short-sighted approach that this government has adopted in responding to the needs of the tourism industry. Industry expects that such circumstances will generate a dynamic and innovative response from the tourism minister and his government. This government, however, has had what could only be described as a comatose response to these events.
Governments must be dynamic, innovative and responsive if they are to make things happen. This government is obviously bereft of these attributes that are so critical to an industry as competitive as the tourism industry, both at the domestic and international levels. This underscores the reasoning behind this motion. Tourism is the Territory’s second largest revenue earner and largest employer in the Northern Territory. In the year 2000-01, visitors to the Northern Territory accounted for $936m in direct expenditure. Economic activity generated by tourists, known as the flow-on effect, expands this figure to $1.563bn.
As the Territory’s largest employer, the tourism industry accounts for around 8100 jobs directly and a further 3500 jobs indirectly, many of which are in remote and regional centres where employment is normally difficult to create. These figures clearly demonstrate the tourism industry’s value to the Territory economy and why so many Territorians have significant investments in it. What this government does not appear to understand is that people’s livelihoods depend on tourism and, in turn, these people need the continued support of the Northern Territory government and the Northern Territory Tourism Commission, hereafter referred to as NTTC.
This government has placed social issues high on its agenda, which has merit, but the priorities must be questioned. Is the preservation of business confidence and job creation not of higher priority than the rush to remove mandatory sentencing? Apart from skewed priorities, an overview of the government’s performance in tourism over the last six months highlights the effects its indecision and blundering have had on the industry that is well illustrated by the minister’s performance in Question Time this afternoon.
Of course, any overview cannot, nor should it, omit reference to the Chief Minister’s decision to have a ministerial reshuffle only nine weeks after first appointing her ministry. This was largely brought about by the member for Arnhem, whose incompetence obviously demanded that he be demoted, but appointing a new tourism minister to a rattled and already shattered industry trying to come to terms with 11 September and 14 September was disastrous. The new minister had to start from scratch at the time when the Territory’s tourism industry was bleeding and preoccupied with unprecedented change on top of which it had to establish relationships with the second minister in as much as nine weeks.
Apart from demonstrating incompetence and poor organisation, it showed all Territorians that the Chief Minister’s approach to tourism was and is low, very low on this government’s priorities. To make matters worse, the Chief Minister assigned the important tourism ministry to a minister with an unmanageable workload, thus removing the hands-on approach which is so critical and that has been so important to this industry over many years. Such is the minister’s workload and demands from his other portfolio responsibilities that he has been unable to give tourism the focus and attention it demands. Again, a statement well illustrated by his abysmal performance in Question Time this afternoon.
Very few people in the industry have seen him at all, let alone seen him do anything for or with the tourism industry and this is typical of the Labor government’s approach: It doesn’t matter; it’s only tourism; it will look after itself.
Compounding this, people in the industry don’t even know who the ministerial advisors are, but they do know that they, certainly, have no experience in the industry, or are not well known to key tourism operators throughout the Northern Territory. That is a sad indictment.
Moving now to the government’s talkfest of the Economic Development Summit, that produced only negative outcomes for the tourism industry, which brings me to the first two points of the motion being this government’s failure to provide adequate support and funding to the Territory’s tourism industry. This was manifested in cuts to the NTTC budget which are having and which will continue to have a negative impact on the commission and, in turn, the industry. The former manager of the commission advised regional tourist associations that they will share the impact of the budget cuts and can expect reduced financial support as a result of the cuts to the commission’s budget. This will impact on the ability of the associations to properly service their members and extend adequate services to tourists visiting the regions. The mini-budget papers show a cut of $241 000 to the NTTC budget, but this conceals the real negative effect and impact on the commission by this government’s failure to support the industry. Government has tried to conceal the real impact from the mini-budget, which was a reduction in the NTTC budget of $2.241m. This comes about through the revealed cut of $241 000 plus government’s much publicised $2m commitment to Virgin Blue to commence services to Darwin. Whilst this initiative was welcomed, the deceitful approach by government in concealing from industry the fact that the initiative was unfunded and that the $2m had to be found from within the existing NTTC budget has, certainly, not been well received.
In recent public statements, the minister has advised that funding for promotional activity in the United States has been reduced for the first time in years at the very time when we should be taking the initiative to promote the Territory in the United States as a safe travel destination. This reduction is just another manifestation of this government’s lack of understanding and support for the tourist industry. Within two months of 11 September and the Ansett collapse, the government slashed the NTTC’s funding at the very time when there should be have been more, not less.
This government was, as I understand it, the only government in the country to cut funding to its tourism industry at the time of its greatest need and when our competitors were becoming more aggressive. This appalling action clearly demonstrates that this government has a very poor understanding of the needs of the tourism industry and that the economy and job creation are poor cousins to its other social agenda priorities.
Exacerbating this, the NTTC is still without a Managing Director notwithstanding that the former holder of that position gave notice of his resignation back in November 2001. The government needs to ensure that an appointment is made quickly in order that the commission and industry can finally start getting the support and direction they need and deserve.
In short, the changes of minister, unknown ministerial staff, and still no appointment of the NTTC manager have had an unsettling and demoralising effect on the tourism industry, all of which has been made worse by the indecision which pervades this government. This slack approach by government to the tourism industry contrasts starkly with that of the former government as demonstrated in the Tourism Development Masterplan 2000-2005 - you should read it - prepared by the former government and from which I now quote:
The major role in government in determining the future direction and sustainability of the tourism
industry in the Territory will be through providing strong leadership in establishing partnerships
with industry and other stakeholders to drive the recommendations and findings of the plan through
to fruition.
I’ve actually done some leg work on this. I’ve walked the streets of Darwin and Alice Springs, spoken to people in between. They are appalled by this government’s attitude to tourism. They are similarly appalled by the minister who is known to be extremely busy - indeed, too busy to take appointments from people when they contact his office - and even if they’re the lucky winners of an appointment, they often see ministerial advisors. Not good enough, minister; not good enough.
I move now to the third point of this motion, domestic and international airline services to and from the Territory. In December, domestic flights to Darwin received a boost with the commencement of Virgin Blue services as a result of initiatives by the federal government and earlier by the Territory government which, in turn, were founded on discussions commenced by the former CLP government.
The start of Virgin Blue services to Darwin together with increased capacity by Qantas has partially offset the loss of Ansett services. However, concerns remain across industry as to the adequacy of services in terms of meeting peak season demand in the middle of the year, and I need only point to articles that have appeared in the press in recent times pointing to, for instance, a loss to the Central Australian tourism industry anticipated to be in the region of $6m this year.
Ironically, the day after the Minister for Tourism told two business gatherings in Katherine that tourism in Central Australia was going gang-busters, the Central Australian Tourism Industry Association reported in the Northern Territory News, 19 February 2002, as saying:
- The Central Australian tourism industry stands to lose $6m in this year’s peak season.
Once peak tourism season starts in July, we will need another 1000 seats to maintain the level
of last year.
Hardly gang-busters. Hardly gang-busters. These industry comments are in stark contrast to the views expressed by the tourism minister and demonstrate how out of touch he is with this industry, the needs and concerns of which have all been made much worse by the inept way he and his government has handled, or should I say omitted to handle, tourism issues. The government has obviously abandoned the needs of Central Australia by failing to take the initiative and gain Virgin Blue services for Alice Springs and Yulara.
Now, it’s worth reflecting on what has been said in this house over the last few months. It wasn’t hard to find where the government went wrong. In October in this House, the then tourism minister, the member for Nhulunbuy, said and I quote:
We are still continuing dialogue with Virgin Blue to determine the commencement of operations in the
Territory; it will mean further passenger capacity as well as an alternate service provider into and out
of the Territory.
Then, when the government apparently realised its mistake, the new tourism minister said in this House on 27 November, and I quote, he:
… met with senior management of Virgin Blue in Darwin last week to discuss these issues and implored
them to put Alice Springs on their schedule and whilst no commitments can be made at this stage, talks
are productive and ongoing.
Now, this is a sad tale of missed opportunities and botched deals in which this government has misled Territorians and those in the tourism industry by giving them false hope that Virgin Blue would fly to Central Australia. It is a damning indictment and must be remedied now. Words are not enough. Words are nowhere near enough. This government has time and time again said Virgin Blue is coming, Virgin Blue is coming. Every morning I wake up, I go outside, I look up at the sky awaiting a flight of Virgin Blue, and I can’t see one. The minister needs to realise, of course, that I’m not the only one looking up to the skies in Central Australia, keeping our eyes open for Virgin Blue flights.
People in the industry are beside themselves with rage and disgust about this minister’s conduct. It’s a damning indictment on the minister and it must be remedied now. Talk is not enough. But, of course, this really does summarise or typify the government’s approach. It talks, it workshops, it consults - or so they say - but they never actually achieve anything.
Territorians from all walks of life would actually like to see something get done. I know that that concept is a difficult one for the government but, on behalf of not only those in Central Australia, but those in the tourism industry - and I have spoken to lots of them - they want some action. Again, I repeat: this government must do something. It must stop talking or it must stop giving false hope to Territorians - do something. Almost anything will do, but you must get another airline into Central Australia. At the very least, you must stop misleading Territorians saying: ‘You’ll get it, you’ll get it, you’ll get it’, because it’s not coming.
The story, of course, in relation to Ansett #2 doesn’t get any better. Of course, there was the announcement today by Tesna that it withdrew from the Ansett #2 deal. I think, in any event, there is nothing to be lost from reflecting on the government’s inaction when considering the Ansett #2 saga.
In January, the CLP federal member for Solomon caught the Chief Minister out - he caught her out. The federal member for Solomon, showing initiative and a determined effort to do something, seeing that the government was doing nothing - although I suspect the minister was still on holidays at that time. Anyway, the federal member for Solomon went and met with Lindsay Fox and Lindsay Fox told the federal member for Solomon that the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory was the only state leader he had not heard from. Shame on this government. Shame! Only after this government was caught out by the member for Solomon did the tourism minister get on a plane to go and meet with Lindsay Fox.
Then, when she was caught out, the Chief Minister had the temerity to tell Territorians that everything was under control. It was all right because she was dealing with it. I have managed to locate an excerpt of an interview recorded on ABC radio on 16 January. When the Chief Minister was asked:
What sort of incentives are you talking about with Ansett #2?
the Chief Minister said:
- I can’t talk about the kind of incentives that we are offering because they are - you know, we are
talking about confidential negotiations at the moment.
That was a very long and very inactive moment. We didn’t hear from the Chief Minister on this subject again. She misrepresented Territorians by leading them to believe that this government had offered Ansett #2 something and she hid under the veil of it being confidential negotiations when anyone with half a brain would clearly see that it was nothing of the sort.
The tourism minister, in his response to this motion, can place on the public record precisely what negotiations have taken place, what assistance was offered to Virgin Blue and Ansett #2 to commence services to Central Australia, and why his government failed to achieve these.
People in the industry were screaming for arrangements to be struck with Ansett #2 or, in the alternative, for government to be having a go on their behalf - for this government, going in to bat not only for Territorians but for those particularly involved in the tourism industry. They wanted something to service the Centre and Darwin, and for Virgin Blue in particular to service the centre of Australia to meet the needs so adequately defined by industry.
I note with a great degree of interest that in the minister’s press statement today, he said:
- Upon learning of the Tesna Consortium withdrawal this morning, I have written to Qantas asking
them to consider expanding their services into Central Australia.
Well, if that’s all you have done with Qantas, shame on you, minister; shame on you. You did know that Tesna, even on a best-case scenario, were not contemplating flights into Central Australia for many, many months. With that knowledge, based on the comment in your dreadful press release today, you said we have written to Qantas today asking them to see what they could do for services in Central Australia. Well, too little, too late, minister. Too little, too late.
This government’s inaction over aviation in the Northern Territory is shameful. It continues to be deceitful, and its deceit is very easy to find. Again, in the press statement the minister says:
- Last week, Qantas announced further increases in seat capacity into both Darwin and the Centre
which is great news for the tourist industry.
It is misleading, and the minister knows it’s misleading, because by the Centre, the minister is actually talking about a plane that’s a little bit bigger going to Yulara, and that’s it. And some of his answers in Question Time today were equally as slippery.
The minister said in Question Time today:
- The fact that we do have Virgin in the market place here providing an additional 1000 seats
a week into the Northern Territory tourism industry has been welcomed by the tourism industry
in the Northern Territory.
I think not, minister; I think not. A thousand seats a week is misleading because they are essentially seats for Darwin and there’s a plane that’s a little bit bigger going to Yulara. Alice Springs has the Alice Springs Convention Centre. It’s the Year of the Outback. What is this government doing to address the air services into Central Australia? Nothing.
To further illustrate this minister’s absolute incompetence, he said, again in Question Time this afternoon:
- This government has provided an additional $5000 in three weeks in terms of intensive
marketing campaigns.
Mr Henderson: $500 000.
Ms CARNEY: $500 000 for three weeks of marketing. It’s been long time since 11 September. It’s been a long time since the collapse of Ansett and, in late February 2002, this government announces that it will spend $500 000 on a few ads over a three week period. Oh, how you have failed, minister.
But wait; there’s more! There’s another dismal story and that revolves around the very serious reduction in international air services in to and out of Darwin and about which we have heard very little from this government. These matters are being raised today by me on behalf of industry, and industry is expecting answers from government. Industry wants a detailed response from the tourism minister explaining the scope of discussions he has had with both domestic and international carriers regarding improved services to the Territory, the outcome of those discussions, and incentive packages offered to airline operators with whom the minister or other ministers have met.
The international services into Darwin have reduced to a level not experienced in the last decade, and the shortage of airline seat availability into Darwin for the Territory’s lucrative United Kingdom and European market is having a disastrous impact on our international marketing efforts. Qantas has reduced its Darwin-Singapore service, and Malaysian Airlines withdrew its Darwin-Kuala Lumpur service leaving a huge void in international capacity into the Northern Territory. The impact of the loss of those services was illustrated in December when Northern Territory airports released figures showing very clearly the reduction in tourist numbers arriving at Territory airports.
Our domestic holiday destination competitors moved quickly to address these issues over the Christmas period, with the Premiers of Queensland - a Labor Premier - and the Premier of Victoria - a Labor Premier - visiting Singapore Airlines and approaching Air New Zealand in an attempt to gain services for their states in support of their tourism industries. At the same time, the highest priority for this government and the Northern Territory tourism minister was a nice holiday, a lengthy holiday, leaving industry in limbo, unrepresented and still with reduced air services. What a disgrace! What an absolute disgrace. If the minister actually bothered to get out and about and talk to tourism operators, he would know how angry they are about his conduct. He is overworked; they are not getting to see him; it is abundantly clear he knows very little about his portfolio. On behalf of Territory tourism operators I implore you to get your head around these issues and to get on with doing something.
Qantas will commence international services later this year with new, low cost operator, Australian Airlines Ltd. The announcement of this operation by Qantas heralded a new opportunity for the Northern Territory government to pursue the establishment of a daily service between Singapore and Darwin using this low cost operator. Our tourism industry is eagerly awaiting advice from the Minister for Tourism about what approaches he has made, if any, to Australian Airlines to attract them to Darwin to fill the enormous void in international services and remove the restriction that this places on overseas travellers visiting the Northern Territory.
The minister’s response to this motion provides him with an excellent opportunity to report on whether or not he has initiated discussions with the airline and, if so, what the outcomes of those discussions were and an explanation as to those matters is long overdue. It will also provide an opportunity for the minister to detail for industry, and for all Territorians, the action he has taken on their behalf relating to this most important of issues.
This government’s performance in the tourism arena has been, quite frankly, appalling and has fallen far short of industry needs and expectations. This government has even failed its own Labor Party tourism policy, which states, and I quote:
To develop and promote the Territory as a tourism destination.
An objective in no way met by this government. If it wasn’t so serious, it would be funny joke. It is a sad reflection on any government when the only things it can hold up as achievements are projects put in place by a former government. Sadly, such is the case with this government. Pointing endlessly to a number of CLP initiatives, this government goes on and on and on. It is time for this government to start supporting the tourism industry with its own initiatives and in a way that industry expects and deserves. We call on the government to do so now and look forward to positive responses from the minister to the issues raised in this very important motion raised by the CLP.
Mr HENDERSON (Tourism): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, really, the start of the shadow minister’s comments about trying not to - I forget the exact words - inject some sort of vitriol into the debate does leave me moved to mirth.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to move an amendment to the motion.
Leave granted.
Mr HENDERSON: I move that all words after ‘that’ be omitted and inserted in their stead …
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! My understanding is that there should be a vote on whether or not the motion is put, and I ask that a vote be taken accordingly.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I take advice over that? My advice is that the member is on his feet and he is moving the amendment and he can continue.
Mr HENDERSON: I move that all words after ‘that’ be omitted and insert in their stead:
- … this parliament acknowledges the work of the Martin Labor government to rebuild airline capacity
into the Northern Territory following the collapse of Ansett, and the events of 11 September and:
to guarantee an additional 1000 seats per week into the Northern Territory which benefits
the whole Territory economy and notes the total failure of the then CLP government to secure
or support Virgin Blue;
(2) congratulates Qantas for its magnificent efforts in rebuilding airline capacity into the Northern
Territory following the collapse of Ansett and further congratulates Qantas on their recent
announcement of additional services in to Darwin and Ayres Rock and notes with disappointment the collapse today of the Tesna consortium’s bid for Ansett;
of 11 September and the collapse of Ansett, particularly its campaign to refocus marketing on the
domestic and drive markets;
business case for increased capacity into Alice Springs; and
for growth of the tourist industry in Central Australia.
In speaking to the amended motion, I will pick up on the statements made.
Dr Lim: Do you have a copy of that?
Mr HENDERSON: Yes, there is a copy here to be circulated.
I will pick up on the shadow minister’s comments. First, the comments about the restructuring of government after nine weeks in government. Well, I don’t know where the shadow minister has been, but the absolute necessity to restructure government was a direct legacy of the unsustainable financial position that this government found itself in, the unsustainable budget position that we inherited from the former CLP government, and the reason to reshape government was the absolute requirement that was totally hidden from us in opposition in terms of the actual fraud that was the previous budget that was handed down in this parliament, meant that government did have to be restructured. We had to consolidate 38 independent agencies and reallocate portfolio responsibility. I do not understand where you were when all of that happened, but that was the reason to restructure that.
Again, we say yes, this is not a good time for the tourism industry either in the Territory or anywhere else in the world. And this is for reasons that are well known, but mostly beyond the control of the Territory government. However, we will continue to work tirelessly to overcome the impact on this part of Australia, more dependent than any other on air travel.
The portfolio needs to be handled responsibly, and the member for Araluen has remarkably to date, in terms of her time as shadow minister, managed to demonstrate neither any responsibility in her carriage of this portfolio or an understanding of it. The member for Araluen brought to the House a statement, when my predecessor held the portfolio, regarding Flight West in terms of this mythical airline that was supposed to be around that the Northern Territory government was implored to throw buckets of money at, and the member for Araluen claimed that the Queensland government, the federal government, Nabalco, Alice Springs Town Council, every one of these organisations had put their hands in their pockets and committed money to support Flight West.
We never actually saw any business case from Flight West which was ever put to the Northern Territory government. Certainly, when we rang all of those organisations to see if there had been any business case put to them, if they had made any commitments to fund Flight West, the answer was a resounding ‘no’. But we had the shadow minister at the time running around saying how terrible it was that we were not supporting this magnificent initiative and how irresponsible we were for not throwing buckets of money about it. This is a matter of credibility, and the shadow minister was asked at the time to put these issues on the table and she was unable to substantiate any of those claims.
Moving on to talk to the amended motion., of course, the airline industry is volatile at the moment both nationally and internationally, and as well as the demise of Ansett, many other airlines around the world have had to drastically restructure their organisations. With this background the current opposition must acknowledge the importance of the Chief Minister prior to the last election approaching Virgin Blue and delivering Virgin Blue’s presence to the Northern Territory. The arrival of Virgin Blue in the NT from December last year has been great news for the NT tourism industry. I haven’t met a single operator who thinks that it was bad news that we secured this capacity. So I don’t know who the shadow minister has been talking to, that we somehow shouldn’t have made that initiative and secured that additional capacity, an additional 1000 seats a week into the Northern Territory from the beginning of December. Goodness knows where we would be without the additional capacity. The Chief Minister did demonstrate great responsibility in delivering to the Northern Territory Virgin Blue, along with my colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy, who was the minister at the time.
Unlike the CLP, we did get on the front foot and deliver the results. The Leader of the Opposition at the time accused Labor of a pre-election stunt when we announced the deal, and the former Treasurer accused us of jeopardising airline services into the Northern Territory. This was the comment: ‘No, no, we don’t want this additional capacity; it is a terrible thing bringing competition into the market place, you are going to jeopardise airline services into the Northern Territory’. If the CLP had bothered to talk with Virgin Blue, they might have been here sooner. But no, they didn’t want the competition, they didn’t want the extra capacity, they wanted the old status quo to be maintained with Ansett and Qantas, the nice comfortable duopoly that existed. But we had the vision to bring that competition into the Northern Territory to the benefit of the tourism industry.
On the ABC TV News of 24 September 2001, Richard Branson said that if the previous government had given its blessing, Virgin Blue would have been here many months earlier. If the CLP had done their job - but no, they weren’t interested in competition; they weren’t interested in additional capacity. Again, we hear from the shadow minister continued veiled criticism of securing Virgin Blue’s services to the Northern Territory.
Virgin Blue are currently looking at demand for flights from one or two key source markets interstate to Alice Springs. Now, we heard much from the member for Araluen, the shadow minister, in speaking to her motion saying: what are we doing, how absolutely incompetent and blundering we were that we didn’t secure Virgin Blue’s service immediately into Alice Springs.
Well, I’d remind the shadow minister that at the time we did secure Virgin Blue into the Northern Territory, we had Ansett flying into Alice Springs. The issue was to bring additional competition and capacity into the Northern Territory market. Since that time, obviously, we have seen Ansett collapse and Virgin Blue have, quite naturally in a competitive market environment, sought to capitalise on the failure of one of their competitors and did expand into other markets to the point where they were absolutely constrained by airline capacity. That’s the main reason that since the period of the Ansett collapse back in late September and today that, given the number of planes that Virgin Blue have, the routes that they are committed to at the moment, and the tussle that has been going on in the market place in terms of was the Tesna syndicate going to buy out Virgin Blue, or was Virgin Blue going to buy out Ansett, the issue of capacity in terms of the number of planes has certainly restricted their capability to move in to Alice Springs.
We cannot, Harry Potter-like, conjure up aeroplanes out of thin air and hand them over to Virgin Blue. So in terms of Virgin Blue and Qantas, obviously any additional flights into Alice Springs will be based on a commercial decision. So, short of the Territory government investing in an airline, and I suppose there is one for sale today, maybe they are suggesting …
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I seek a ruling and the advice of the Clerk in accordance with Standing Order 93. Today is a General Business day where the priority of business lies with the opposition. What we have had here is an amendment to the motion by the opposition, which is a substantive motion in that it amends the whole of the motion. So what we are now debating is not opposition business; we are actually debating government business and, in accordance with Standing Order 93, it seems to me that the whole principle of General Business day has been lost.
It is a day for General Business; it is a day for opposition motions to be debated, and we are now debating, not an amendment, we are debating a new motion in fact. There may be a way around it whereby the amendment can be debated in its entirety and then we can return to the original motion which is the General Business Day’s intent and the intent of the opposition. I ask for that to be clarified.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ll take advice from the Clerk. The advice is that until the motion is put on this side – this is my understanding of what he said - that the minister can continue. Based on the advice of the Clerk, I call on the minister to continue with his statement.
Mr BURKE: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the advice of the Clerk has to be transmitted to the whole of the Assembly. I understand - and correct me if I am wrong - that notwithstanding the fact that there is an amendment and an original motion, any member can speak either to the amendment or to the original motion, saving the original mover who must confine any comment that she might have to the original motion. Is that correct?
Mr Stirling: No. She gets a chance at the amendment, and she gets the reply closing debate.
Mr BURKE: I’m asking if that’s right. Both. She gets two choices?
Mr Stirling: Of course, she does. It’s a pity you didn’t know standing orders. You’ve been here long enough. You blokes did this every time. It’s pretty standard procedure in here.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, could we have silence? I’ll ask the Clerk to brief the Speaker, please.
Madam SPEAKER: Where are we up to? Okay, I think we are all comfortable again with that. Minister, you’re speaking?
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
So, we are at the point of debating that the government, from the opposition’s point of view, failed to secure Virgin Blue into Alice Springs. I believe that, as a result of today’s sad decision that the Tesna consortium are not continuing forward with their purchase of Ansett, one of the issues that has been constraining the industry in terms of making those commitments long term in to additional schedules was the total uncertainty in the market place as to what the competitive nature of the industry was going to be. Until such time as there was some certainty in terms of the viability of Ansett, the status of Virgin Blue, none of the airlines including Qantas were prepared to commit to anything other than short-term scheduling in light of understanding what the competitive nature of the industry was going to be.
Now, that has been resolved to the medium term today, and I would expect to see aggressive competition from Virgin Blue, and that will be returned by Qantas, to actually look at the market opportunities. In terms of the comments made by the Northern Territory Qantas Manager, Steve Farquhar - and he said this publicly at the launch of the new schedule at the airport last week - he was confident that Qantas would be providing that additional capacity in to Alice Springs for the peak tourism season come June-July.
So the issues in terms of the government, what are we doing? We are continuing to work - the Aviation Committee, myself as the minister - to work to build the business case. It’s not about throwing buckets of money and putting cash on the table; it’s about building the sustainable business case that will allow the airlines to actually survive long term and thrive long term. The absolute last thing that the tourism industry needs in Australia and the Northern Territory is another third airline to emerge, to last for 12 to 18 months and then to go under. We will continue to aggressively pursue Virgin Blue and Qantas into Alice Springs, but until they come to a commercial decision that they can get a return on investment in terms of moving additional capacity in there, short of the Northern Territory government purchasing Ansett #2 and flying planes ourselves, it’s not going to eventuate in a sustainable way, but I do believe with the information that we have put before both Qantas and Virgin Blue, that they will come to the acknowledgement that there is a sustainable return on investment by putting that additional capacity in to Alice Springs.
The second part of the amendment congratulates Qantas for its efforts in rebuilding airline capacity into the Northern Territory post-Ansett. Now, I know there’s been veiled criticism by the shadow minister in terms of Qantas taking advantage of its monopoly situation in the market. I say: good on Qantas in terms of actually committing to the Northern Territory. They could very easily have abandoned us and Steve Farquhar, the local manager here, certainly badgered board rooms down in Sydney and implored the Qantas Board to remember the Northern Territory - as it stands NT in the name Qantas - and Qantas have been good. Yes, of course, we would like that additional competition, but by goodness, we wanted the capacity, and that’s what we have.
In fact, with the announcement of the additional Qantas schedules last week in terms of the biggest bodied aircraft into Central Australia and Alice Springs, I am advised that the capacity into Alice Springs today exceeds that of 12 months ago. The problem is two or three months hence in to the peak season where, I agree with the shadow minister, there is that shortfall. But as of today, Qantas are delivering greater capacity into Alice Springs than they were this time last year. The shadow minister was saying that I was being misleading in the press release today in terms of saying that Qantas have put additional capacity into Central Australia. Well, if Yulara is not in Central Australia, I’d like to know where it is. It’s not in Tasmania. It’s not in Antarctica. It was - the last time I looked - smack bang in the centre of Australia. In terms of the tourism industry for Central Australia, Yulara is pretty important and as a result of the Qantas announcement last week, an additional 274 seats a week into Yulara.
So I would expect that Qantas will continue to look to improving that capacity into Alice Springs and, as I said before, I believe that the business case is there. The local Qantas management believes that the business case is there and I’m confident of seeing that additional capacity moved to Alice Springs when it’s required mid-year.
Again, doom and gloom, carping, negative criticism rather than saying: ‘Well yes, we acknowledge it’s tough in the airline industry at the moment. Qantas have come to the party.’ There might not be the discount fares available that were available 12 months ago, but those discount fares are not available to the same extent they were anywhere else in Australia at the moment. But at least we’re making the attempt and Qantas is making the attempt at servicing the market place. If we actually look at what’s been happening, and if we move to the international industry, well, again, yes, it is tragic that we have lost so much inbound capacity into Darwin, but Darwin is not the only place in the world that has lost inbound capacity; there has been a massive rationalisation of the international aviation industry since the 11 September terrorist attacks, not only confined to Darwin.
We saw SwissAir nearly go under in total and had to be bailed out by their government and only last week, I think, we had British Airways announce a further 5800 job losses. Back in September last year, they announced 7200 job losses. That is 23% of the workforce since September. We’ve seen Garuda - again, only two weeks ago now, I think - cutting back flights and services from London and Frankfurt, two of our premium source markets. Of course, that is affecting us, but this is what is happening in the international aviation industry.
Until confidence returns, until the Americans start travelling, until the Japanese economy comes back into positive growth - and only yesterday, I think, the German economy was moving into the second quarter of negative growth, moving into recession on top of 11 September - I believe we will continue to see contraction in the international aviation market.
What we are doing is working with those operators - and I would have thought that the party of private enterprise opposite would understand this - working with the international airlines in terms of building the business case, and that’s what we are doing. We’re getting the numbers, the projected forecasts, the historical forecasts out of those key international market places, the demand that’s coming through now, putting that forward in to negotiations with the international airlines, working with them on a route development strategy to develop those sustainable routes. I’m not going to stand here and say who we are negotiating with - that’s commercial-in-confidence - because we’re working with a number of international players.
I am disappointed with the announcement today from Ansett because the previous Ansett partners on the international routes were really looking forward and believed that there was a business case for Darwin there. But in light of that third carrier, there are opportunities, I think, for Virgin Blue to team up with the international aviation partners. I know that they’re talking to people at the moment, but I’m going to flag who they’re talking to. That is a commercial interest for them.
So, to put it simply for members opposite, the international and the local aviation market place at the moment is high cost and high risk. It is an industry where new players are seeking to enter and established players are leaving and alternatively reducing services and focussing on cost reductions and maximising the use of those assets.
What we are doing is working with these airlines to work up the business case, and if and when an ask is put on the table of the Northern Territory government in terms of assistance, then it will be considered, but I can honestly say here today that no such ask has been put on the table in terms of a proposition for the Northern Territory government from either an international airline operator or a domestic airline operator at present. So the government is doing everything it can apart from, as I said, purchasing our own airline and flying the planes ourselves, in terms of building that capacity into the Northern Territory and certainly Qantas have delivered to date. We would love the additional competition, but we have Alan Fels from the ACCC on the news again tonight predicting that again, given the 80% market share or greater than that, that domestic prices are likely to go up, and I’m sure that the ACCC will keep an eye on that, but hardly something that the Northern Territory government can influence to any great extent. I would like to know given the spend, spend, spend philosophy of the previous government, how big an offering you believe should be put onto the table.
So, point three of our amended motion congratulates the Tourist Commission on its efforts to respond to the events of 11 September. Again, disparaging comments made by the shadow minister in terms of the NTTC’s efforts there. I can say, quite categorically - and I would like the member for Araluen to present any evidence of the fact - that there have been no cuts to the marketing budget, either at the global level or for the Regional Tourism Associations. The advice I have is that, in the budget last year, the RTA’s received $1.87m guaranteed. This year, it’s $2m guaranteed. So no cuts there; and a direct requirement from me that those savings had to be found back of house. Of course, we didn’t want to impose savings but the alternative was to continue down the spend, spend, spend path. The one certain thing that investors look for in terms of investing in any economy is the fiscal base of the government and its requirements medium - to long-term to raise taxes and charges.
Under your profligate ways, any analysis of your Northern Territory government’s previous fiscal position would scare off potential investors because there is only one way to repay debt, and that is to raise taxes or to cut services and jobs. That is something that members opposite have not outlined since 18 August - how they were going to address that $120m unfunded black hole, if Territorians had had the misfortune to re-elect those members opposite. So, in regards to the Tourist Commission’s budget, there have been no cuts to the marketing and promotion budget. Again, the disparaging remarks about the initiative from the Tourist Commission, who have got some very, very bright people working in there who are absolute experts in terms of marketing, I couldn’t even begin to counter some of their advice. Their advice was to hold fire post-11 September. There was no point spending big buckets of money advertising the Northern Territory as a destination in the immediate aftermath post-11 September, over the Christmas intervening period with the uncertainties in terms of what was happening with the Coalition response to terrorism.
The time is right now to actually put that investment in, to bolster up the shoulder season leading into the peak season, to create that demand to get the season off to a really great start. And $500 000 over four weeks, I correct the record in terms of my comments this morning - $500 000 in four weeks. For the members opposite who understand the cost of advertising - and if they have been involved in political campaigns, they know how much TV advertising and print advertising costs - that buys you a hell of a lot of advertising. We certainly expect to see a return on that investment. It’s been strategically placed to bolster the shoulder period. The criticism from the shadow in terms of that decision as to when to make that commitment really does her credibility and understanding no good.
In terms of the drive market, again another particular focus effort. We are starting to see a return on that investment already. As a local operator said in Tennant Creek recently, in terms of accommodation, it’s as good as if better than ever, and the only way it could get better would be if Qantas fell over as well.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I would ask that the member’s time be extended in the light of the contest about the rules that took five minutes.
Leave granted.
Mr HENDERSON: Five minutes, I think, Madam Speaker.
Getting back to the comments about the industry hasn’t seen me, well, my goodness, I have done a heck of a lot of travel and I have spoken to a lot of people. I think I have met with CATIA on at least four occasions; Katherine last week when a number of tourism operators walked in off the street; Gove the week before - they didn’t have much to say about the previous government’s efforts in terms of promoting Arnhem Land as a destination; they were quite disparaging about your efforts there, and certainly many, many industry associations here in the Top End. So I take the member for Araluen’s comments with a grain of salt. I am out there talking to people, and people do understand the state of the industry at the moment.
The great thing about being Minister for Tourism is the optimism that’s there in the tourist industry. They know we are going through a tough time at the moment, that everything that can be done is being done realistically, and they are positioning themselves to move forward. The confidence in the medium- to long-term is there. They are realistic that the short-term is going to be difficult, but absolutely committed to the fact that we have a great product here in the Northern Territory and a great industry that is going to capitalise on that.
In terms of the shadow minister talking about this great piece of work which was the Tourism Masterplan – well, what a great piece of work. One of the first things, in terms of the incoming ministerial brief, the first question I asked the commission was: ‘Where’s the implementation plan given that these were drawn up two years ago? Where’s the budget? Where’s the funding plan to implement these initiatives?’ The answer was: ‘There is none’. They had been sat on the shelf for two years - another exercise from the previous government in getting out there on the ground leading people to expectations, producing the glossy documents, and then putting them on the shelf and ignoring them for two years. There was no implementation strategy, no budget strategy to fund the implementation of that masterplan or the regional plans.
If the shadow minister had any idea and had been reading the ads in the NT News - we are sacking thousands of public servants; there seems to be plenty of ads in Saturday’s paper for public servants - there was one in there a couple of weeks ago for a senior person at a senior level to put an implementation strategy together. We will implement those master plans and they will be funded and they will be prioritised, unlike members opposite who created a glossy document, put it on a shelf, very much like dithering with the Territory, what was the thing called? Foundations for Our Future, that’s right! Just like those documents, would have sat on the shelf forever.
This government is absolutely committed to an implementation strategy on those plans. I have spoken to industry. We don’t have to rewrite them, we don’t have to go out and consult. Those plans were put together by industry, not by government. Don’t let the member for Katherine stand up here and say they were all his good work because they were put together by industry. They are very pleased, I can tell members opposite, that there is a commitment from this government that we will implement those.
Moving back to Question Time this morning, in regards to the AFTA conference. This is a good one and, again, it would be good for members to do a bit more research before they lead with their chins. The Northern Territory Tourist Commission hasn’t been present at an AFTA conference for three years. The Tourist Commission has made the decision that you get better bang for your buck elsewhere. So, in terms of: ‘Oh,, we’re going to set up the minister here’ - bit of a long shot here. What we have done is put $500 000 into the electronic media, into the print media, rather than sending people to a conference that the previous government had given up on three years ago. Certainly, that information has gone back to the Regional Tourist Association in Katherine there that the previous minister and the local member had given up on AFTA three years ago.
The last point was noting the impressive forward bookings for the Alice Springs Convention Centre. Again, talking to the Convention Centre and to CATIA as well as Qantas - Qantas is absolutely committed that when those bookings come through, they will make those seats available. There is a great deal of excitement in Alice Springs. I would have to say that the Alice Springs tourism industry if anything - yes, it is going through a bit of a slow time at the moment, but it is actually going through growing pains. It’s going through growing pains in terms of lack of accommodation, lack of staff for the industry, training for the industry, the cost of accommodation and they are pretty buoyant. It was a good initiative from the previous government, I am going to acknowledge that. But to come in here and say it’s doom and gloom for the Alice Springs tourism industry – well, I don’t know what planet you are one, because when I speak to the people down, there they are not all about doom and gloom.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The minister’s time has expired.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about the tourism industry. I have had a lot to do with over the last few years. I will start with the minister’s comments about the AFTA roadshow, the travel show. It’s taken him over a week to find out what the AFTA Travel Show was. He was asked in Katherine last Monday, yesterday week, about this and his eyes glazed over …
Mr Henderson: Why didn’t you fund it for three years?
Mr REED: … and he had clearly no idea about what the AFTA Travel Show was at all. And the point of it not being attended over the last few years is beside the point. The issue is this: he was at a tourism industry function and an industry member asked the minister what the circumstances were in relation to the AFTA Travel Show and why the Territory wasn’t represented and the commission wasn’t there. Nothing to do with me. I today was the messenger on behalf of industry because in answering, first of all the minister didn’t know what the AFTA Travel Show was, his eyes glazed over, and worst of all he undertook and gave a public commitment - and if he can’t stand by his own commitments that he makes publicly and is going to ignore industry, he is going to get nowhere with industry - he made a public commitment to get back to that industry member with the advice as to what AFTA was, that he understood it and why the commission wasn’t there.
It is his commitment that he made to industry. Doesn’t worry me, but it is simply a demonstration of the fact that this minister really does not care about the industry and he is prepared to ignore the industry members when they ask a question and when he walks out the door from the meeting, he forgets the substance of the meeting and the commitments that he makes at it. That is the crux of that issue.
Mr Henderson interjecting.
Mr REED: The other point that I would make in relation to the AFTA Travel Show is - notwithstanding that if he listened, he might learn a bit of something - if he looked at the AFTA Travel Show this year in the context of what is happening this year, there has been a dramatic reduction in international visitors to the Northern Territory; every effort has to be made in terms of attracting every possible visitor to the Northern Territory from southern Australia to offset the drop in international numbers.
Mr Henderson: $0.5m!
Mr REED: And the honourable member says: ‘$0.5m’, and he earlier commented that that’s a hell of lot of advertising. In the southern press it is very little advertising in terms of television, even the print media and the advertising cost, half a million dollars gets you very little advertising. It is better than nothing, but it is not a hell of a lot of money in terms of advertising and anyone in the industry will tell the minister that if he cares to ask them.
Let’s look at the AFTA Travel Show and the reports from Territory industry members who attended it that the big winners out of AFTA Travel Show in Adelaide - and Adelaide is a big market for the Northern Territory, the drive market. The big winners out of it this year have been New Zealand and Tasmania because they had good attendance there. They promoted heavily and they did that in the face of the increased competition that the travel market is currently experiencing because of things like 11 September. Look then at what the Tourist Commission, through the reduced funding that has resulted from the cut backs from this government, they have cut back…
Mr Henderson: From your black hole.
Mr REED: Well, we will get to that in a minute They have cut back the promotion in the US and Japan, and it was interesting to hear some of the comments of industry members in Katherine last week. The minister at a Chamber of Commerce luncheon last Monday said: ‘We have increased tourism promotion,’ and then immediately stepped to: ‘We have cut it back in US and Japan’. So, one minute he states that they have increased tourism promotion and by the way, we have reduced it in Japan and the US.
The argument that the minister now puts in relation to the reasons for cutting back in the US, and that is because people have stopped travelling, when the going gets tough the tough should get on the move and take advantage of a situation. Internationally, Australia is recognised as the safest country in the world and it is recognised as that in the US. So there is in fact an opportunity for the Tourist Commission, if they have the resources provided to them by this government, to perhaps market more strongly at the moment. Rather than withdrawing from the US, take advantage of the fact that the US market recognises Australia as a safe destination, also recognises from the Tourism Commission’s point of view and this government’s point of view that Americans aren’t going to stop going on holidays; they have for a while but they are going to start to looking back to the market place. And from that point of view, you might be better off instead of withdrawing from the market in terms of promoting Australia to become more active rather than less active.
This government has taken the easy way out and reduced the marketing activity in the US and that, I expect, is going to have a down side in relation to where we go. What, of course, the minister carefully avoided tonight also in talking about Virgin Airlines - and he avoided a couple of points in relation to Virgin Airlines - one was that the $2m that it is going to cost to attract Virgin Airlines to the Northern Territory and I think that is $2m well spent, but it is not funded. It has to come out of the resources of the Tourist Commission. They have to find it from within and that then is equal to a $2m cut. The government went out and made the commitment: ‘Aren’t we great folks, we’re going to give $2m to Virgin Blue to get them to establish a service to the Northern Territory,’ but what they haven’t told the industry, what they haven’t said, and what they have not revealed quite purposefully is the fact that $2m comes from the hide of the Tourist Commission and that is effectively a cut. That is why there is in fact a $2.241m cut to the tourism budget, because they took $241 000 away in the mini-budget.
So let’s be totally honest - if that’s what you espouse yourselves to be: an open, honest and accountable government - and demonstrate to the tourism industry that in fact that is a non-funded initiative, the $2m for Virgin Airlines.
The other point that the honourable minister carefully avoided this evening and, indeed, in Question Time today was: what are they going to do, in providing the financial support to Virgin Blue, if Virgin Blue continue to cancel flights and buy tickets on a Qantas flight for those passengers who were previously booked on Virgin Blue? Are they going to tolerate that when the tax payer is subsidising Virgin Blue services on a daily basis to the Northern Territory? The tourism industry will want to know that as well as Territorians generally. It’s not a criticism of the package that the government has put together for Virgin Blue.
Can I just revisit the issue of what the CLP did when we were in government and put the facts on the table again in relation to our position with Virgin Blue. The reason we did not sign up with Virgin Blue was that they were still over the top in terms of the amount of money they wanted. Our message to them was: we have certain limits ourselves; you are beyond them. Indeed, what happened in the end was that they came down to about the arena that we were talking about when the government changed. That is why I support what you did with Virgin Blue. It was in the ball park of what we were looking at, and from that point of view I think it was a good deal.
The minister very carefully avoided another issue and that was anything about Australian Airlines and that does worry me. It is the new Qantas subsidiary to be commencing services later this year. It offers the potential to re-establish better international services in to Darwin and the industry doesn’t care too much that airline services internationally are being withdrawn from other cities. What they care about is City Darwin and that argument that the minister puts forward doesn’t wash with them. It is interesting that, by virtue of the fact that he avoided any mention of Australian, I think he has clearly indicated that he has not yet been to talk to them. Had he, of course, we would have heard about it. That he hasn’t been to talk to Australian Airlines and put the Territory’s case in relation to attempting to get services established by them when they commence is a derogation of his duties in terms of servicing the tourism industry.
It is not so much what this minister says, it is what he doesn’t say, and we had a demonstration of that today in Question Time when he clearly avoided the question in terms of answering it, and the industry will be made aware of that - in fact already have been - and we will likely also advise them in relation to Australian that he has taken no action, shown no initiative in making sure that that be the case as well.
Another area where he has been slack - and the big sufferers in this are the Tourist Commission themselves which is a very hardworking and dedicated organisation and, of course, the tourism industry itself. To have a minister in control of an industry as important as the tourism industry - it employs something like one in ten Territorians; it is the biggest employing industry in the Northern Territory - who can sit back for four months and see, unguided, the Tourist Commission proceeding with no permanent head at a time when we are leading into the tourism season, he was advised in November that the then Managing Director would be resigning. It was a month before he put an ad in the paper to fill that position. That is a scandalous circumstance. You can only assume that it was part of their penny pinching and the corralling of dollars to be able to have a big spend up in the last two years of their term. And that gets me…
Mr Henderson: No. People were acting on higher duties. No savings, Mike.
Mr REED: Well, they may act on higher duties, that’s fine, but the fact is you have to have a permanent Managing Director so that that person can steer the ship and ensure that both the organisation and the industry are going in the direction that we’d like to see them go in.
Mr Henderson: Yep, be here very soon.
Mr REED: Well, very soon isn’t soon enough. You’ve been slack and it is a great shame that the industry has had to suffer because of the inaction of the minister.
In terms of tourist association funding, it is a great concern to the tourist associations across the Territory that this matter is still unresolved.
Mr Henderson: It is not unresolved.
Mr REED: Well, it is unresolved because the tourist associations have not received official advice as to what their funding will be. Now, if you want to resolve it, get a letter drafted and sign it tomorrow and send it to the tourist associations confirming precisely what their funding will be. That will resolve it, and that will enable the tourist associations to settle down, to target quite squarely the forthcoming tourist season, and to be able to provide the services to their members in industry that we would expect them to do. But they will not and cannot be expected to make commitments unless they get formal advice as to what the funding is, and they are all currently waiting to see whether or not the advice from the former Managing Director of the Tourist Commission that their budgets would be cut, is correct or not, and it can be overcome by a simple letter advising them precisely what the circumstances are.
I also make this point - I’ve made it many times and I will continue to do it while the minister tells the incorrect story - the black hole was originally $107m. It then grew to $120m. Good figures, they came to mind, but, of course, it is not escaping the attention of Territorians that the amount that this government is raising in the name of the black hole is $160m from the cuts to government agencies, through the $90 that everyone is being stung each time they register the car and other associated costs that have been put up in relation to the registration and operation of vehicles. It all adds up to $160m and people are now aware of the fact that it is just an excuse to corral money, to be able to put it aside, have a tight couple of years, people will forget about it when we go to the polls because they’ll be so happy with the last two years of increased expenditure and the introduction of the Labor party’s policies that they will forgive the Labor party and re-elect the government. Now, if that is your modus operandi, I haven’t got a problem with it. But be honest enough to tell Territorians what you are on about. They can see through this black hole business. They are entirely sick of it and they are expecting you to start governing and making decisions that government should make on their behalf. So don’t - when you are raising $160m - say that you have got a $120m problem and try to expect that Territorians will believe what you have to say.
The tourism industry in the Northern Territory is a wonderful industry. It is made up of a very diverse group of individuals in their own tourist operations who might only be one person shows up to, of course, the large investors and the enterprises that they run. From the point of view of that diversity, the fact that the industry can come together in the Northern Territory like it does nowhere else in Australia, to be so cohesive and to work together under the umbrella of the hard working staff in the Tourist Commission and, of course, the regional tourist organisations who similarly work very hard …
Mr Henderson: Which you have denigrated here today in terms of their marketing strategy, the appointment of the CEO.
Mr REED: I’ll pick up that interjection. I don’t denigrate the Tourist Commission or the $500 000 they are spending on their marketing campaign because the reason they’ve only got $500 000 to spend is that you took $2.241m off them! If an agency has $2.241m taken off them and they are still expected to generate additional marketing activity of $500 000, they would - and I know their budget - be having extreme difficulty corralling those dollars to be able to achieve those expectations of the government. It ill behoves the minister to blame us, to blame other people, or to suggest that I’m blaming the Tourist Commission.
The fault lies with the minister. The buck stops with you, and if you don’t understand, after months of being the minister, what an AFTA Travel Show is, whether or not your organisation for which you are responsible is participating in it or not, that is an answer that you should have been able to give on the floor of that meeting last Monday.
Mr Henderson: Which you hadn’t attended for three years! You did not know you hadn’t been there for three years.
Mr REED: For a minister for Tourism, who says that he is so aware of the tourism industry’s issues and the promotional activity that the government …
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: I would ask, Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr REED: So, for a minister to be so proud of the promotional activity that he says is being undertaken and, at a tourism industry meeting, for him not to be able to first of all say: ‘Oh, yes, the AFTA Travel Show. Now, this is the situation with it …’ that is, demonstrate that he understood what it was, which he was incapable of doing, and then to be able to say: ‘No, the commission is not participating in it this year for these reasons …’ demonstrates that he has got no idea what is happening in relation to promotional activity for the tourism industry as we lead up to this tourist season. It demonstrates also the appalling ignorance that he is prepared to apply to the industry in making a public commitment to get an answer to an investor and a participant in the tourism industry: ‘I will investigate that and get an answer back to you’.
Over a week later, at Question Time today, he still didn’t know what the AFTA Travel Show was, and he still didn’t know whether the Tourism Commission participated in it or not. He came in here tonight with the temerity to try and plaster over that and say: ‘Oh, the AFTA Travel Show. We haven’t been in it for three years.’ I knew that. I knew that because I have been to AFTA Travel Shows and I’m more familiar with the industry than he is and I would not lie to an industry member like this minister did and that news will get around like a raging fire to the whole of the industry.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I rise to support the amendment by the Minister for Tourism. May I just say that, having listened to the comments of the shadow minister for tourism, I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition change her shadow portfolio title to shadow minister for tourism in Central Australia because that’s all we ever actually get to hear from the shadow: what’s happening in Central Australia. Whinge and whine about Central Australia. I’m really pleased to say that our Tourism Minister has gone to great lengths to deal with tourism in the context of the whole Territory. He’s travelled around the Territory, met with groups, spoken to people, listened to them.
But, you know, go ahead and keep focussing on Central Australia which we’ve heard has increased capacity into Yulara. But, no, that’s not going to satisfy the shadow. The shadow wants us to own our own airline and pilot it ourselves, paying absolutely no attention to market reality, to what’s occurred post-11 September in the aviation industry, not even recognising or finding it in herself to commend the efforts of this government in terms of the deals we’ve stuck with Virgin Blue, the deals that have delivered a crucial second carrier to the Territory at a time when we lost a major carrier. In terms of the issue of Virgin Blue cancelling some flights, it may come as a surprise to you, but airlines cancel flights when they have technical problems with airplanes. That’s a requirement of CASA. That is a requirement of CASA, okay? So Virgin Blue have cancelled some flights due to technical problems with the airplanes.
Mr Dunham: They’ve got a shoddy fleet. Now here’s a new one.
Ms LAWRIE: No, they don’t have a shoddy fleet.
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: They meet all CASA requirements in terms of safety and security.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Members, don’t have discussions across the floor!
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, the whingeing, whining opposition just doesn’t get it, that our tourism minister is heeding the advice of the tourist commission. They advised him post-11 September: don’t waste a lot of money; hold your fire. Hold your fire and market in the shoulder season leading into the peak season, and that is exactly - the House has heard today on a number of occasions from the tourism minister that is exactly what the tourist commission is doing. That is wise use of the Territory taxpayer’s dollar. Taxpayers have been looking for that for a long time, hence voting in a Labor government.
It’s really good to hear that the member for Katherine has come out of hiding, that he’s attending meetings again, because people have been saying: ‘Where is he? We haven’t seen him. Is he all right? What’s happened to him? Is there going to be a by-election?’ We’ve been saying: ‘We haven’t seen him’. So it’s really gratifying to hear that the member for Katherine has come out of hiding. It’s terrific. I’m not too surprised that he attended a meeting that discussed the AFTA Travel Show and never once bothered to admit that for three years, his government didn’t send a representative to the show. That’s the duplicity that people are used to from the member for Katherine. Didn’t want to send anyone, didn’t want to say anything about not sending anyone. Forthcoming with information yet again, but many of us who’ve been in the Territory for a long time are used to that from the member for Katherine.
Again, the opposition raises: ‘What about the US? What about Tokyo in terms of marketing and promotion?’ Clearly, we have a smarter minister. We have a smarter government. What the Territory is doing in terms of marketing is working in partnership with the Australian Tourism Commission who are targeting their efforts into the United States market on behalf of the states and territories in Australia. We are benefiting from a combined campaign that is highlighting the Australian tourism market. That is a very smart way of ensuring that our taxpayer dollars aren’t being thrown against competing large dollars from the Australian Tourism Commission. We’re part of an Australian campaign that will help us deliver the crucial tourist visitors we need to the Territory. Now, in terms of Tokyo - glad you mentioned it.
It was the CLP government that closed the Tokyo tourism office. Oh, we’re shocked. They talk about: ‘Why aren’t you targeting Tokyo?’, but they’ve failed to mention that they closed the Tokyo office. I suggest that the shadow minister do some reading up on just what her party did and failed to do when they had the opportunity. Instead, we’re going about it in a very smart, efficient, strategic fashion. I know they’re words that you’re not used to over there. Get a grip; you’ll get used to it.
I find it curious to hear complaints from the other side of the Chamber about the drive market when the tourism minister has advised the Chamber of a $500 000 strategy that is going to attract the drive market here, but I have to say, as most Territorians would know, we have the worst roads in Australia. We’ve got the worst roads in Australia after successive years of seeing Commonwealth road funding come in to the budget and then dissipate somewhere.
Mr Burke: You’d be the only Territorian that thinks that. You’d be the only one I reckon that thinks that, and plus if we did a poll around Australia, I reckon you’d be one of the few that thought that, too.
Ms LAWRIE: Well, you know, try driving. Try driving. Try going across to the Western Australia border now. You’ll find the roads are closed. We have a real issue with the roads and that issue our government will tackle. We will bring Territory roads up to standards that are expected and enjoyed and seen elsewhere in Australia, and I say that having visited every state and territory in Australia, having driven around.
Mr Dunham: In a car or a plane?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, in a car. Yes, in a car. I know you’re used to flying first class but, member for Drysdale, I drive. I enjoy driving. So I’ve driven in every state and territory in Australia and I can assure you that I’m impressed at the quality of roads and I’ve been saddened - saddened - by the lack of attention successive CLP governments have shown to our roads, particularly our wonderful outback. In this Year of the Outback, it would be wonderful to be able to go out there and enjoy it, but for those of us who don’t have a four-wheel drive, that’s a difficult task.
Now, it was really interesting to hear the former Minister for Tourism in the Chamber tonight giving advice to our tourism minister which is completely contrary to the expert specialist advice he has been getting from the tourist commission. It’s quite incredible. I’ve got to say I’m delighted to confirm that on behalf of the minister, the tourism minister has been actively negotiating with Australian Airlines and is very hopeful of getting a Singapore to Darwin connection. Now, unlike the previous government, we don’t do our negotiations through the front page of the NT News. We’ve learnt that that actually causes greater problems; it cuts across commercial sensitivity. So instead, what we do is undertake commercially sensitive negotiations in private and then we deliver.
Mr Dunham: Like you did with Virgin Blue.
Ms LAWRIE: I’m glad the member for Drysdale has mentioned Virgin Blue because Virgin Blue is exactly an example of how we do deliver, how we go in, we do the work, we get the negotiations nailed down, and then we deliver.
Mr Burke: Is that how you got the railway, is it? East Arm port? Is that how you did it?
Ms LAWRIE: You’ve taken decades. You have taken decades to get anywhere near there; if there’d been a Labor government in the Territory all this time we would have been on that train for years. It’s interesting in terms of the railway. A CLP government knocked back massive funding from the Hawke Labor government. 60:40 deal. Now, if the CLP government of the time had accepted that fantastic deal - as it turns out in hindsight - by a Labor federal government, we would have been on the train already, rest assured. Don’t you pretend that you’ve done the right thing in terms of the railway for Territorians. You knocked back a lucrative deal years ago and some of us have been around long enough to remember that.
The other curious aspect of tourism that seems to escape the shadow tourism spokesperson is that people like things to see when they get to that destination. I have to say that one of the things that my visitors to Darwin have really enjoyed in the past was the Hotel Darwin. What can they see now? What will they see now on that CBD site? A dirt carpark!
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: I have to say the member for Daly sat on his hands and watched an historic tourist attraction demolished, razed. He’s gone!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Government members, give the member a chance.
Ms LAWRIE: We can’t get over the fact that the shadow tourism spokesperson is completely forgetting the community outrage in having seen historic sites in the Territory - and not just in Darwin - demolished under previous CLP governments.
It would have been really nice if they had left something for our visitors to enjoy which reflected the Territory of years gone by, but they had to knock it down. I really liked the excuses the CLP came out with at the time. The building had cement cancer. I’ve got to say: I spent years working in a building with cement cancer. It was owned by the government of Nauru. It’s called Nauru House, in Melbourne. They put up scaffolding and they fixed it. Hey, bingo! Cement cancer was not the excuse for knocking down a building but, hey, it suited the CLP at the time to allow an historic building, a building that meant a lot to Territorians, that really was greatly enjoyed by tourists, by visitors. Cement cancer was the excuse, though. Went though to the keeper, bulldozers in at midnight, it’s gone. I don’t want to show my visitors to Darwin that vacant dirt block of land; it’s pathetic. Perhaps I should and say: ‘This is the legacy of the CLP. Aren’t we glad we’ve got a Labor government?’.
What we are doing is we’re putting in a water theme park in our northern suburbs at Lake Leanyer so that our tourists in Darwin have yet another place to visit and enjoy, to then head back to their original homes and say: ‘Darwin’s a great place. I went to Crocodylus Park and saw some crocodiles. Just down from there, the kids and I, we had a lovely swim at a water theme park. It was fantastic fun. Every tropical city needs one of those. And on to the Casuarina retail shopping complex’, boosting the retail dollars into the economy. We have a nice little plan of Crocodylus Park, the water theme park and down to the shopping centre all in a strip. So we are about encouraging tourism because we encourage development - but sensible development, development that fits with needs. We know we have a lot of needs out there, because we’ve had far too many years of CLP government.
In closing, I would like to commend the Minister for Tourism for his amendment here. It makes a lot of sense. The amendment is congratulating our government for securing a deal with Virgin Airlines, guaranteeing an additional 1000 seats per week into the Northern Territory.
It’s congratulating Qantas. We don’t talk down the private enterprise players out there who are working with our government. We acknowledge their magnificent efforts in rebuilding airline capacity into the Northern Territory. We are congratulating the Northern Territory Tourist Commission on its efforts to respond to the events of 11 September and the collapse of Ansett and, particularly, its campaign to refocus marketing on the domestic and drive markets.
Madam Speaker, we are noting the continuing work for the Northern Territory Aviation Committee in working with the Virgin Blue to build the business case for increased capacity into Alice Springs. We are noting the impressive forward bookings for the Alice Springs Convention Centre and the opportunities for growth for the tourism industry in Central Australia.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I can’t help but to join this debate. This piece of paper that the member for Karama just read out …
Ms Carney: The Karama Drama.
Dr LIM: Yes, the Karama Drama. What a lot of rubbish! It says nothing here. It is a government that does nothing and this paper demonstrates very clearly it’s from a government that does nothing.
It congratulates, it congratulates one, it congratulates two, it congratulates three. It notes four and it notes five. Anybody can do that. What concrete actions have they done? Absolutely nothing! At a time when the Territory needs all the stimulus that we can possibly get for tourism, where we should have been building on how the CLP government had capitalised on the Sydney Olympics, they have left the Territory in a big hole. That is the tragedy of it all. Central Australia has missed out so much in the last six months.
When the country was all arguing and fighting for more flights, trying to convince Virgin Blue to come into every state and territory, this government did absolutely nothing. Had it not been for the federal government and the lobbying that our federal members did on our behalf even before the federal election, our federal candidates had been lobbying very hard with the Deputy Prime Minister to ensure that the money is provided by the federal government to Virgin Blue to come into the Territory. Thank God, it came to Darwin. But I wish, from a Central Australian point of view, that Virgin Blue came to Alice Springs also. Alice Springs has missed out completely from all these flights since the 11 September event and the Ansett collapse. Alice Springs has missed out tremendously on the number of flights that have come into the town.
You know, if you travel as much as I have, that to get out of Alice Springs, even to Darwin, is quite difficult. Many a day you have to be waitlisted to get up here to do a job. If it is difficult enough for business people to travel, what is it like for tourists who try to get the cheapest air fares possible at a time when it will also suit them in the distant future. It makes it very hard for tourism to be promoted easily in Central Australia because people can’t get in.
We have heard that over the next 12 months or so, many significant events are going to take place in Alice Springs. We have the Central Australian Masters Games. That normally brings in 4000 to 5000 competitors and all their entourage. We have the Lasseter’s Casino Convention Centre and we’ve been told that the Convention Centre has been over-subscribed over the next 12 months. So, we need seats on planes to get people into the town to capitalise on the services we can deliver, and to allow our economy to continue to grow.
The Year of the Outback which was recently launched by the Acting Prime Minister in Alice Springs, that again is going to bring a lot of people into town. These are major events that the business community of Alice Springs - and everybody else in Alice Springs - want to enjoy, to capitalise on from the economic point of view. Without seats on planes, that cannot happen. This government can’t do that.
Mr Ah Kit: Backsides on planes. You’ve got seats. The planes fly with seats. You’re talking about backsides.
Dr LIM: Well, let’s not talk about your backside. Let’s not talk about your backside, eh? I’ll be generous and give you two seats, that will probably be enough.
It was around December last year we were complaining about the lack of action by this government and the minister has the audacity to come up with this piece of paper that proves beyond any doubt to me that he has done absolutely nothing. Platitudes, congratulations, congratulations, congratulations and we will note the things that we are going to do. I have spoken to tourism operators. They have expressed their concerns. CATIA has expressed its concerns. Its representative of the tourism industry in town in Alice Springs, Greg Catchlove has been quoted in the newspapers, and he said that to me himself, that the 1000 seat shortfall into Alice Springs is going to cost our community significantly. In the papers just recently they are talking about a $6m tourism loss because of fewer airline seats coming into Alice Springs. Sure, there are some increased seats into Yulara, but that does not translate into all of those people travelling to Yulara coming in to Alice Springs.
I quote from this newspaper article. It says:
Central Australia tourism stands to lose up to $6m in this year’s peak season which starts in July.
The warning comes from the Central Australian Tourism Industry Association and is based on a
1000 seat per week deficit on planes.
If the minister does not take note of a warning from a significant industry group, then who else does he consult with? His own crystal ball? I have talked to tourism operators operating motels, operating caravan parks. They say that their business is doing well in the self-drive market. But Alice Springs being so far away from any major centre in Australia needs the facility of flights. Without it, many international tourists can’t reach Alice Springs. It is easy enough to get a plane and get to Alice Springs in two to three or four hours. To drive a car, if you tow a caravan, it is going to take you days. At best you might do a car trip in a day, but with a caravan behind you, you cannot do that.
So it is important for this government to recognise that Central Australia has been hurting and hurting badly. They have, in the last six months, not done much in Central Australia. There are other issues and other matters in Central Australia that this government has not taken much notice of. I said very early in the piece that had there been a Berrimah Line previously, today it is a Berrimah Wall, cemented and reinforced very strongly by this government, this very centralist government, and it is very typical of a Labor government…
Dr Burns: With its social agenda.
Dr LIM: With its social agenda - or socialist agenda would be more the right word to use. It is a very centralist government.
Madam Speaker, you know as well as I do living in Alice Springs that seating capacity for our region is getting very critical. The minister must do something about it. He must ensure that he goes down there, speaks to the industry, ensures that not only Qantas but another competitor enters the Alice Springs market. Otherwise what happens then is the prices within - because Qantas has a monopoly, there will be a reduction in the number of discount seats available and hence, the average traveller will have to pay more. That then discourages travelling, discourages people coming in to Central Australia. Likewise, people living in Alice Springs who would like to get out of the town every so often for a holiday find that they cannot do that either.
I support the shadow minister’s comments about how she has tried to convince the minister to - I was going to say pull his finger out – but, you know, get working but unfortunately he has been rather deaf about the whole thing. To listen to the member for Karama and how she carries on about what the CLP government has done in the past, this government has had six months and it has done nothing in that six months. I think it is a tragedy that they have had a great opportunity. The 11 September event and Ansett crash were as if suddenly everything was clear and we could start over again from a zero base. It is a pity that this government did not capitalise on that and competed aggressively with everybody else.
Another matter about the tourism in Central Australia that I have heard - I have no facts to back it up, but it is gossip among the tourism operators - is that there was a threat that the tourism centre in Alice Springs may be closed by the government in the not so distant future. Now, I say again that I don’t have any facts to back that up but that is the rumour that I have heard. What I would like to hear from the minister is a guarantee that the tourism centre does not close. We fought desperately during the CLP government years to ensure that the tourism centre stays in Alice Springs and it stayed there since the year dot, as far as I can remember. If that closes, that will be the strongest nail in the coffin for tourism in Alice Springs. I would like to hear from the minister his guarantee that the tourism centre will not close its doors at any time in the future. If he does that, then at least I will be assured and I can assure tourism operators that their future will be guaranteed.
Madam Speaker, I support the motion by my colleague, the member for Araluen, and I look forward to supporting the motion.
Madam SPEAKER: We are putting the amendments. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
Amendments agreed to.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, referring to the amended motion, all five paragraphs of it, I will deal with them reasonably briefly. The first part of the amended motion is a self-congratulatory motion for the government re-securing its deal with Virgin Airlines. I simply repeat that it was the federal government that injected $7m into getting Virgin Blue up and running before Christmas and to now. As I understand comments made by the minister in this House and elsewhere, the $2m allocated for Virgin Blue does not in fact take effect or does not kick in until March. So the very proposition contained in paragraph one is flawed. The fact of the matter is that Virgin Blue would not even been here now had it not been for the federal government.
In terms of the second part of the motion relating to Qantas, the opposition acknowledges the work of Qantas. Without Qantas all of us here in the Northern Territory would have been impossible positions. However, the motion refers to a recent announcement of additional services. Well, it is a little bit misleading. Recent - it was very recent; it was only days ago and, again, parts of the Northern Territory are only accessing one airline. That remains a disgrace. So, whilst the opposition joins in congratulating and, indeed, thanking Qantas, the rest of paragraph two is just nonsense.
Paragraph three, in terms of the Northern Territory Tourist Commission, the people at the Northern Territory Tourist Commission do a great job. I have met with some of them. I know others on a personal level. The fact of the matter is, though, that any organisation needs leadership and I feel very sorry for the people at the Northern Territory Tourist Commission because if there is one thing they don’t have, it’s leadership. I know that certainly they are concerned about that unfortunate fact.
Paragraph four notes the continuing work of the NT Aviation Committee. Well, it is a hollow statement. The government has been talking about the work being done and various committees being formed. They have been talking about lots of things from just after they’d got into government, since October, I think it was, when the minister at that time talked about what Labor was doing, how hard it was working. Well, the results just aren’t there. So, again, paragraph four has difficulties which are almost so obvious as not to mention them.
In respect of paragraph five, the forward bookings for the Alice Springs Convention Centre and the opportunities for growth of the tourist industry in Central Australia, I simply say that, yes, the Convention Centre is very well booked up; it was a marvellous CLP initiative. The difficulty that this government needs to deal with, needs to get its head around - certainly the minister does – is: how are they going to get there? Some of them will drive on very excellent Northern Territory roads, others will fly, but they will be compelled to fly with only one airline. Whilst people always enjoy flying with Qantas, the fact of the matter is there is one airline nevertheless. This is an issue that the government needs to not just work on, but it needs to deliver some results.
So if ministers are going to be at the Alice Springs Convention Centre in the next couple of months cutting ribbons and opening curtains for plaques, be well armed because people in Central Australia are also wondering - indeed all Territorians are wondering how people are going to get there.
As to other matters generally, I note that the minister in his reply meandered, filibustered, procrastinated - although that is something he does on a fairly frequent basis. He went back to why it was, that there was a change in the ministry after nine weeks, something about reshaping the public service - gutting the public service might be a better way of putting it. It is extraordinary, isn’t it, that a government takes nine weeks to do something in the public service but actually forgets about all of its other responsibilities. So be it. If that is the best explanation the minister can provide to people in the tourism industry, well they’ll just need to draw their own conclusions as to the previous minister’s abilities. I know that they are certainly forming their own conclusions on this minister’s abilities.
The minister said that the government must act responsibly. Well we in the opposition, on behalf of the tourism industry, simply want the government to act. We say that would be a good start and if the government could get on to it, we would be very grateful. He dredged up things, even what Labor promised prior to the election. It is all nonsense. Don’t dwell on the past; get into the future, anticipate the future, you must go forward and you must take Territorians with you because at present there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that you are leaving them all far behind. I need not go again to the federal government’s wonderful efforts in securing Virgin Blue and the political spin adopted by this party, the Labor government trying to take credit for something. Well, no one believes you. You have said too many times inside this House and elsewhere that the $2m allocated for Virgin Blue won’t kick in until March so, for what it is worth, no one actually takes you seriously.
I think the minister said something about Central Australia has greater capacity now than it did at the same time last year. I’m not really sure where to start on that one, only to suggest that the minister get in touch with one of the RTAs - and by RTAs I hope he knows what I am talking about; that is a Regional Tourism Association. There are four of them in the Northern Territory. The Executive Officer of one, Mr Craig Catchlove - you should give him a call, minister, because he will tell you that the Central Australian tourism industry stands to lose up to $6m this year once the peak tourist season starts in July. I do invite the minister to contact him. Mr Catchlove is quoted as saying:
- Once the peak tourism season starts in July, we will need another 1000 seats.
That’s the bottom line, and I do wish the minister would get his head around his portfolio and his responsibilities thereto.
The minister also referred, somewhat curiously in my view, to a number of cuts or non-cuts made to the Tourist Commission’s budget. It seemed, as I understood him, that he was in absolute denial about the cuts. Let me give you a summary of those cuts to refresh the minister’s memory. The budget papers clearly show that there was a cut of $241 000. When one takes into account the $2m for Virgin Blue - and noting that the $2m is not allocated for anywhere else in the budget paper - that means that in real terms the Tourist Commission is cut by $2.41m.
Furthermore, in the budget paper - and we were able to read them well - this government cut $191 000 off the market focus budget of the Tourism Commission. It is there in black and white and perhaps the minister should read it.
Furthermore, the Treasurer cut $67 000 from the commission’s Destination Image Market budget. Well, how very extraordinary. After Ansett, after 11 September, cut, cut, cut, It’s a barber shop over there, make no mistake. Click go the shears, boys, click, click, click. And to make matters worse, there is another cut of $59 000 to Territory Discoveries. Now, the minister probably doesn’t know this. I suspect he hasn’t spoken to anyone about it, but Territory Discoveries develops tourism products for sale to consumers in the domestic markets. So it is extraordinary, is it not, that this government, the only one as I understand it, the only Labor government in the country, that after 11 September, after 14 September, the shears start clicking.
Over and above those matters, the minister made some reference, I thought in fairly derogatory terms, to the Northern Territory Tourist Commission’s masterplan. He questioned whether or not it was implemented. He asked the question, I think, why wasn’t it implemented and suggested that there was some problem the former government had with implementing the masterplan. Put simply, the fact is that tourism is the second largest revenue earner for the Northern Territory. Was the masterplan implemented? Of course, it was implemented.
Let me give the minister a few figures. In 1998-99 statistics quoted by the Northern Territory Tourist Commission in its annual report, as I understand it - I’ve just got a summary here; I don’t in fact, have the actual report. This summary tells me that visitor expenditure in those years grew by 8% to, at that stage, $792. So the masterplan, the roadmap for tourism in the Northern Territory, growth, growth, growth. International visitors not only spent more nights in the Territory, but generated more money in expenditure. In that year it grew up to 16%. In that financial year as well, 273 000 self-drive visitors came to the Northern Territory. That was in 1999, 10% more than 1998. It still continues to grow. Backpackers increased by 53%. Growth was experienced in visitor numbers to the Top End, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Central Australia. Was the masterplan implemented? Of course, it was implemented.
The strategies in that masterplan - clearly you haven’t read it - have been implemented. It has underpinned the former government’s approach to tourism, and one need only look at the marvellous results for the Territory from the tourism industry before this government came to power to clearly know that the masterplan was implemented.
On to the member for Karama. The member for Karama suggested that, as shadow minister for tourism, I was placing a bit too much emphasis on Central Australia. Well let me say this: as the member for Araluen, as a member from the deep south, I will never apologise for putting too much effort into Central Australia. That’s my job. However, there is a twist. It so happens that the statistics clearly reveal that in the last few years, visitors, both international and domestic, to Central Australia outstripped those who came to Darwin. Furthermore, this year - in case the government hasn’t realised it, and I suspect it hasn’t - is the Year of the Outback. Now, it occurs to me and a few other people in the tourism industry and a few other people who are not in the tourism industry that as it is the Year of the Outback a few people might be wanting to come to Alice Springs. In fact, we would hope that a lot of people come to Alice Springs and we would further hope that they get on those excellent Territory roads and continue to drive all the way to the Top End. However, the fact is that as this is the Year of the Outback, it is certainly the case that this government needs to put energy and resources in to ensuring that we as Territorians do our very best for the Year of the Outback, particularly given that tourist numbers are down. It is imperative, is it not, that we pull out all stops to get as many people to our wonderful Northern Territory, in particular to the outback of Australia, as we possibly can.
There is one further thing and that is the Convention Centre, that marvellous CLP initiative which no doubt one of the ministers will open in the next month or so. Again, the fact of the matter is that it has about 10 000 bookings as I understand it for the next year or so. Now, the member for Karama is obviously not – well, not very smart I could say, but perhaps not well versed on tourism matters. There is no reason why she should know that there are 10 000 people booked to come to Alice Springs to experience conferences at the marvellous Convention Centre, but the fact of the matter is that since they’re coming, we think it would be really good if a second airline was to come in to Alice Springs.
What none of the speakers for the government touched upon or sought to explain in any way, shape or form was why it was that when the deal was finally done with Virgin Blue that they forgot about the southern part of the Territory. Now, apart from some of us being a bit insulted and inconvenienced about that, there are broader issues and given the Year of the Outback, the Convention Centre and so on, people must get to Alice Springs and Yulara. There is only one airline. Think about it, minister and your colleagues. I don’t know about you, but $1600 or $1800 for a return airfare for me is a lot of money. It is a lot of money for both Territorians and potential visitors from interstate.
So I think that is all, really, I can say on the member of Karama, but I accept obviously that she doesn’t know much about tourism. I wonder how many tourism operators she has spoken to. When she has spoken to some tourism representatives or, alternatively, when she does develop an understanding of the tourism industry, I will begin to take her seriously, but certainly not until then.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, the amended motion is bunkum. The fact of this matter is that Territorians understand well the lethargy, incompetence and inability demonstrated by this government so far. This motion tonight will be lost, but Territorians will continue to ask what is this government doing. They are smarter than the minister thinks. They do not accept that working and workshopping and just having a chat is going to get results. They want results. For my part, I will certainly encourage the tourism associations and members of the industry to, if possible, get through to the minister’s office, although I know that it notoriously difficult. Obviously, I will also encourage them to write to the minister but as the member for Nhulunbuy said on ABC radio not so long ago, he conceded the delay. He conceded that six weeks was not acceptable - nine weeks, I think it was, for a response to a letter. Nevertheless, the member for Nhulunbuy assured Territorians that he would do his best to ensure that his colleagues could answer correspondence inside four weeks.
So for my part, I will encourage people to put pressure on the minister. The minister could do well to take notes and I really hope he has, Madam Speaker. I hope he has taken some notes. He may have picked up a couple of things. At the end of the day, we all have a common interest. We accept that there are some matters beyond our control: 11 September, the collapse of Ansett. No one could have predicted those events, but what we want is a proactive, dynamic, innovative response and I am very, very sad to say that we do not get that response from this atrocious government.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
MOTION
Recreational Anglers and Commercial Fishing
Recreational Anglers and Commercial Fishing
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker I move –
That this Assembly -
- (a) notes the concerns expressed by recreational anglers in the Northern Territory
regarding the delay by the Labor government to close the McArthur River
system to commercial Barramundi fishing;
(b) calls on the Labor government to close the McArthur River to commercial fishing;
(c) calls on the Labor government to move immediately on its election promise to Territorians
to close the Adelaide River and Bynoe Harbour to commercial fishing;
fishing strategy for the Northern Territory and that such a strategy will:
- (i) be developed in close consultation with AFANT, the Seafood Industry Council
and all interested parties;
- (ii) address the principal issues of concern to Territorians including:
resources for infrastructure, research and development;
public education and access;
by-catch policies;
indigenous participation;
marketing; and
- (e) calls on the Labor government to implement such a strategy in the immediate future to ensure that
the Northern Territory consolidates and advances its position as a pre-eminent, world class
recreational fishing destination.
So I’ve started off with the preface and then will take it from there.
The motion that I’ve brought on today has been, as in the first component of the motion, brought on because there is great concern in the community, particularly amongst recreational anglers…
Mr Henderson: They looked pretty happy on Saturday.
Mr BALDWIN: Well, I’ll get to Saturday. Saturday or Sunday?
Mr Henderson: Sunday, whatever day.
Mr BALDWIN: Sunday, yes, the AGM. I’ll get to Sunday as well.
That is the reason for bringing this on because there is great concern in the community and that’s why the (a) paragraph in this motion has been put there. I want this Assembly to note that great concern out there, and it’s concern not only by the community, it’s concern by those dedicated anglers out there that mean so much to the Northern Territory’s way of life. There is a lot of concern from AFANT and other peak bodies including the Seafood Industry Council, and there is certainly concern from the tourism sector which relies very heavily on some of the fishing aspects of the Northern Territory for the sale of its products.
I believe sincerely that some of the concern, particularly in the tourism sector, is actually is starting to get tourists to change their minds. For tourists who come here, particularly to the McArthur River, for their winter holiday –our Dry Season and their winter holidays down there - the uncertainty of what’s going on in the McArthur is causing them to look elsewhere. Certainly, with changes going on in other states, they are probably looking at going elsewhere as well.
I mentioned there is uncertainty in the commercial industry as well. If you just look at what’s happened, there was an announcement some many, many months ago leading up to the election, about the closure of McArthur River. The announcement was made, the commercials couldn’t come back in while that restriction was there. Then on 1 February, when the fishing season starts for the commercial licensees, there was a decision leading up to that date - I think it might have been just about one that date while you were in Bali – that: ‘We’re going to delay making a decision for a few weeks’, and I’ll get to that. So, for six weeks we are going to delay making a decision. The commercials were allowed back in as from 1 February. It took them a few days after that to come back in.
What’s the message to them? One minute they are being told: ‘No, you can’t have McArthur River on your agenda for the fishing season’. Then leading up to the commercial fishing season, 1 February, there was going to be a delay - there is a delay - in making any definite announcement; then you are allowed back in. Then: ‘We are going to make a decision on or before …’ - and I am quoting the minister here from the AFANT meeting last Sunday – ‘… on or before the 15th, and we might decide to toss you out again. But we might not. We are not sure’. The message that you are sending, minister, is a very confused message. It’s a confused message to all of the stakeholders, particularly in the McArthur River issue, but not only the McArthur River issue, all of the other issues that surround the Barramundi fishery itself. That’s why the motion goes a lot further a bit later on in its components.
I express the concerns on behalf of all of those sectors of our community. A lot of those people have come to me personally and expressed their concern, their disappointment at the delays. I have written press releases about the concerns and about the delays. I have written to the minister pointing out those concerns. This issue actually came up last Sunday at the AFANT meeting when the minister was asked to address the meeting. He stood up and gave a pretty good speech. It was pretty good; I thought he was pretty good on his feet. But, basically, he talked a lot to the members about: ‘Can’t do anything at this point in time because we are still doing a lot of talking’. One of the things he also said was - and I think this shows where he’s not in touch with the whole industry – that the comment - and don’t take me verbatim - but it went something like: ‘I am very surprised that the McArthur River is such an issue compared to the Adelaide River’. That’s an unusual statement for a minister to make. After all of the media publicity, in front of 200 AFANT members, he was surprised that the McArthur River caused so much interest compared to the Adelaide River.
How far out of touch are you? I know you put the media release out about the delay while you were in Bali, but boy, oh, boy, just get out and about a bit. Have a look at what’s written in the paper by all of the various individuals, all of the groups. I was glad, though, that a member got up and straightened the minister out and said: ‘Minister, the McArthur is important to us, the members of AFANT, because we represent the fishing interests - recreational fishing interests - of Territorians all over the Territory, and it is important because of the tourism factor that’s involved’. At least one of the members had the good grace to put the minister on the track.
The minister was asked also about the delay and why there wasn’t a decision made, and why it needed to be delayed for another six weeks. The answer was along the lines of: ‘That locals didn’t have time to contribute. They had less opportunity to do so and hence, the need for the delay to go back and consult …’ These are your words and I’m quoting them from memory so don’t try and hold me to them. That was the effect of the answer you gave.
Mr Kiely: Don’t say them if you’re not sure.
Mr BALDWIN: I’m sure enough to quote them in this House, picking up on the interjection, Mr Deputy Speaker - sure enough to quote them in this House. I’m sure there are 200 members and two of my colleagues who were at the meeting, who can back this up: ‘Locals didn’t have enough opportunity to contribute and therefore, we have to have more time to talk to them’. Hence, from that there is a meeting on 1 March.
Mr Henderson: Yes.
Mr BALDWIN: True. I find this pretty strange. After all of the time allowed, with the discussion paper going out, with all of the submissions that came in - 141 or thereabouts. Included in those submissions, I am sure, were submissions from locals as well as from …
Mr Henderson: Not many.
Mr BALDWIN: Oh, there were some from locals, we have had that confirmed. So, the locals did put in submissions. But I am sure, too, that there was submissions from all of those peak bodies that have a concern about this issue and about fishing in general. I know, for sure, that the Seafood Industry Council put in a submissions. I know for sure that AFANT put in a submission. I am not so sure that the NLC put in a submission. I assume they did on behalf of one of the licensees down there, Mabunji. All of those submissions would have put their respective positions very clearly and articulately, I would have thought, like the AFANT one. I have a copy of it here, and it’s a very succinct document.
If the minister says that he needed to delay this to go and consult with the locals, why then would you invite back to that meeting all of those groups that have put in these very comprehensive submissions and already stated their cases? They’ve stated it in the submissions, they have stated it in correspondence to the minister, they have stated it in the press. Over the last three weeks I have read numerous articles. They have stated it on the radio. I have heard spokespeople from AFANT, from the Seafood Industry Council, from one of the licensees operating in that area himself on the radio. They all stated their position very clearly and they have stated it clearly face to face with the minister. They have stated it in public meetings, like AFANT, at the AGM.
Now, they have been asked to go back again on 1 March to – what? - repeat themselves? Repeat their positions, put forward their position again? It is very confusing. What - are they going to get into an argy-bargy between all of the proponents and the fors and the againsts? The licensee will be there – I know what his position is. Well, I think it is pretty clear what his position is from everything that’s been said in these last six or eight months, from the representations made on his behalf by the Seafood Industry Council. I know the position of AFANT; I have read their submission.
I can’t see the sense in, on one hand saying the locals haven’t had enough opportunity when everyone had ideal opportunity, and then bring all these parties back together for another ‘public meeting’ to put forward their case all over again. I think people are getting a bit sick of talking and talking and talking. That’s why this motion talks about the concerns out there in the community about the delays. The minister also said at the AGM of AFANT the other day that he would like to take the politics out of this whole fishing debate. Well, I don’t know whether someone on that side should tell him, but at the end of the day, what this is all about is making a political decision. That is what politicians do. That is what ministers in government do. They make political decisions. They make political decisions, and that’s what …
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: Well, I could stand here all night and rattle off all of the decisions that I made, some very big ones.
Mr Kiely: Please do.
Mr BALDWIN: Sale of the TAB for the gaming minister, industry funding for the racing industry, picking up on the interjection. All sorts of things.
Mr Stirling: Don’t mention the Work Health Act.
Mr BALDWIN: That is typical of the member for Nhulunbuy, interjecting when somebody has a succinct argument. They don’t like it, and that’s why I prefaced it right up front that this will be changed. I am happy with that because people are going to get to read this debate.
So, yes, minister, it is all about making political decisions. It is all about being political. It is about having the spine to get out there and make a decision.
Look, you are not going to make everybody happy with whatever decision you make; it doesn’t matter. On the one hand, there is going to be either the commercials that aren’t happy or the recs that aren’t happy, but you have to make a decision. You cannot just keep delaying. You can’t keep putting off that big decision because sooner or later, you have to make it. So that’s what this is all about. It’s all about getting on with it. Don’t delay any further. Get on with it, and make the decision to close the McArthur River to the commercials.
The last two announcements you made, they were political decisions to some extent. The first one to delay - that was a political decision, not a really hard one because it delays the big one. The next announcement that you made was just plain stupid. That announcement that the commercial operator could go back into the McArthur River from 1 February was just plain and utterly stupid. And when asked at the AFANT AGM, your reply about why you allowed this to happen, the commercials back in prior to making the final decision regarding …
Mr Henderson: He had a legal right.
Mr BALDWIN: Ah, so you repeat it.
Mr Henderson?: What did you do to close the river? You did nothing. Enacted no legislation, no regulations.
Mr BALDWIN: Okay, I’ll pick up on that because that was the answer I was going to relay on behalf of the people who were at the meeting, that he had to do this because the commercial licensee had a legal right to be there and to fish that river, is that right?
Mr Henderson: Until we make a decision, yes.
Mr BALDWIN: That’s right?
Mr Henderson: Yes.
Mr BALDWIN: What if you kept the restriction in place? Would he have a legal right to be there?
Mr Henderson: They resolved the issue with dugongs. There was a management plan in place.
Mr BALDWIN: This is the point. Not only did you have the option of leaving the restriction in place in the McArthur River, you could leave the restriction in place until you made a decision. So he could have left the restriction in place and tell them on or before the 15th of next month, but that would not alter the legal rights of that fisherman. Barramundi fishing licences are for territorial waters, all around the Territory, is that not correct?
Mr Henderson: Absolutely.
Mr BALDWIN: So if you left the restriction in place, that particular licensee who operates in the McArthur River could operate anywhere else other than restricted waters in the Northern Territory, is that correct?
Mr Henderson: What was the reason for the restriction?
Mr BALDWIN: Is that correct?
Mr Henderson: Absolutely, but what was the reason for the restriction?
Mr BALDWIN: The minister confirms that had the restriction been left in place on the McArthur River, the licensee who wanted to start on 1 February could have fished anywhere else in territorial waters other than where there was a restriction. Now, that is not usurping his legal rights to fish, and that is the way it could work. Instead, he let them back in. The terrible thing about all of this, apart from the uncertainty that it has created amongst the commercial industry and amongst the recreational industry, is that he has created another problem.
What now if we have the issue of huge by-catch waste or big dugong kills because the commercials have gone back in there early? It will be on the minister’s head. I mean, that is one of the problems you’ve created for yourself. I know that you were loath to let them back in there until they got together their Code of Practice, if that’s the right word for it. They had to develop a Code of Practice about how to deal with these issues, and I know the Seafood Industry Council worked on doing that, and that’s commendable, but that won’t necessarily stop the issues. And it was a Code of Practice that I’m sure the minister will confirm was done in a fairly rushed way with the assistance of the department, and I applaud their great help in this matter in resolving at least that issue, in helping the Seafood Industry Council develop this Code of Practice. It was very rushed, I am told by those who were involved in it, not particularly those from the department, but other people who were involved in it. That’s a shame because there was no need to rush it if the restriction had been left in place for another six weeks.
That is why I raise this here today and I do call on the government to close the McArthur River. It can be whenever the minister decides, but there is growing concern about the delays. I might just pick up on one other point that I heard at the AFANT AGM. The minister was talking about infrastructure that the government’s going to look at putting in place in the coming year and years.
Mr Henderson: Not look at; we are.
Mr BALDWIN: Great, commendable, I am all for it.
And he said, ‘Yes, I know about infrastructure. I’ve got the Buff in my electorate …’ and I thought to myself …
Mr Dunham: What’s ‘the Buff’?
Mr BALDWIN: Well, that’s what I thought. I have lived here for 45 years, and I’ve never heard of ‘the Buff’ but I assumed …
Mr Dunham: Buff Club.
Mr Henderson: Buffalo Creek.
Mr BALDWIN: Ah! That’s what I assumed, that it was Buffalo Creek. I have never heard it called ‘the Buff’. I’ve heard it called ‘Buff Creek’, but normally it’s called Buffalo Creek.
It occurred to me that perhaps something had moved - while I’ve been living in Katherine for the last eight or nine years - up in this region where I used to knock around. So I had a look at the electorate map and for the minister’s interest, and I am sure he has one of these in his office. Just to let you know, and just to show how really out of touch you are, Buffalo Creek is in the member for Drysdale’s electorate, not in Wanguri. So get it right, get it right. If you are going to stand up in public and give these throwaway lines, at least tell the truth and get a grip on at least your own electorate.
Just on those points regarding the McArthur River, I draw the minister’s, and members in the House, attention to the submission by the Amateur Fishing Association of the Northern Territory on the discussion paper. Without going through every word of it, have a look at the summary. It is only a page-and-a-half roughly, and it goes through very succinctly - he’s not a bad writer, I guess, John Harrison, he’s very good at writing these things. I’ll lose too much of my time if I read it all. It goes through the long term benefits and all the rest of it and how, over the years, the catch effort hasn’t changed in the commercial sector, and ends with one sentence.
- There is only one choice for this decision: the McArthur River must be closed to commercial
Barramundi fishing.
Yours sincerely,
John Harrison.
Mr Henderson: According to AFANT.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, according to AFANT, and according to 4500 members of AFANT.
Mr Henderson: They have only got 2000.
Mr BALDWIN: Count the affiliates. 2500 of their own and their affiliates. See? Another thing you know. I’m sure that you will confirm that, seeing that you’re on the executive.
So, that’s that. Now, part (c) of the motion is all about closing the Adelaide River and Bynoe Harbour to commercial fishermen which was a promise made by Labor leading up to the election. I won’t dwell on this fact, because it is all about river closures and we’ve just been through the McArthur in particular, but it comes down to a political decision. That’s all. You don’t have to wait until the end of the term, you don’t have to wait. You can come out with an announcement tomorrow.
Mr Henderson: So why didn’t you close it? That easy? Why didn’t you close it? You had 26 years to close the Adelaide River.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, yes. Now I’m talking about you. You can come out tomorrow.
Madam Speaker, they could come out tomorrow with a press release and say: ‘McArthur’s closing, Adelaide River’s closing, Bynoe’s closing’. But, I am even more interested - I would like to see those rivers closed to commercial fishermen, but I think they should be given an opportunity to sit around the table and put their case - and that can be done very quickly - and agree on a number of principles, and that’s why I’m calling for a 10 year strategy. And I noted at the AFANT AGM that the minister’s now starting to - not too loudly, but - talk about a 10 year strategy.
Ten year strategy and in our submission, so all of the members know, to the McArthur River closure proposal, we talked, I talked, we talked about the McArthur River, but we went a lot further, and in this submission we laid out what could be done on a 10-year strategy. I have talked to some of the Seafood Industry Council members, and I’ve talked to AFANT, and I have talked to individual anglers about that sort of a strategy, and they are very keen to sit down and develop that. There are a number of things you can address in there. River closures, we have talked about. You know you’re going to do this. You know you’re going to do this and that’s why that is great. So I want to see you put on the record tonight, for the people who are going to read this, that you want to develop a 10-year strategy because you should be. You should be talking about the reduction of commercial Barramundi licences, and that’s something that could be done very easily over a 10-year period.
Twenty years ago we had 108 licences and today we have 26 licences, but they are the 21.4 equivalent of a 1000 metres net. So we are at 21.4 or 26 - let’s take 26, its easier. You could reduce those by half over the next 10 years. You can sit down tomorrow with the commercials and start working that out. Now, in that time that we have gone from 108 to 26, the commercial effort has remained at about 1000 tonnes. It hasn’t dwindled. There are people out there, in the commercial sector, who say that that effort could be maintained. There are plenty of statistics around, and I won’t have time to go into all those statistics, but statistics that have been generated by good management over the last 26 years by a department that has been on the ball, and a fishery that’s been very healthily maintained because we had a system in place for river closures, and has now paid off.
We can move a lot further because what we should be doing is moving to a point where the Northern Territory, particularly the Top End of the Northern Territory unfortunately, is the most pre-eminent recreational fishing spot in the world, and we can do that by moving on these things now. What a great thing it would be to be able to announce this at the World Fishing Conference that is being held here in Darwin in May. What an excellent idea to tell the world that this is where you come to fish for sports fishing. One of the best fighting fish in the world, the Barramundi. And it can be done.
I’ll just put down a few of the ideas. These aren’t all the ideas. I don’t want to own this thing, but I want to see some action on it. Everybody else that I’ve talked to in this industry wants to see some action on it now, too, and they are waiting to see what move will be made on the McArthur, because that’s the catalyst of what happens now for the rest of this industry. It will be on this minister’s head if he makes the wrong one.
Madam Speaker, I’ll pull up there because I know it is going to be amended, and I’ll get two more opportunities.
Mr HENDERSON (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, the shadow minister is very perceptive about the amendment. I’d like to say in terms of foreshadowing the amendment that I will pick up on all of the issues that the shadow minister has raised and he will obviously have a chance to respond to those.
Madam Speaker, I wish to move an amendment to the motion, and in doing that by omitting all words …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, can I just interrupt you here. It seems to me that we have a motion on the floor at the moment. It would be a good opportunity to have full debate of that motion before you actually moved your amendment. I am going to talk further about this, but so that we can have full debate on the motion, I suggest you move your amendment later. Does that makes sense to you?
Mr HENDERSON: Either way. We still get to the same response. So I’m happy to move the amendment at the end of my comments. I suppose the thrust of the member’s comments were really in regard to the McArthur River issue and the delays to the Fishing Management Strategy which we will pick up.
The issue in terms of the shadow minister’s comments in this debate have been solely focussed on one section of our fishing community, one stakeholder group and that’s the recreational fishing community. A very important group. A very important group indeed in terms of the lifestyle issues, the tourism related issues, but they are not the only stakeholders in this industry. The commercial industry is a significant and important Territory exporter. The previous government had one strategy for recreational fishing and a completely separate strategy for commercial fishing, and it didn’t work.
We saw constant conflict and very polarised positions in terms of the allocation of this resource and the management of this resource, and this was reaffirmed by the President of AFANT in his comments at the AGM on Sunday. He said that he wanted to take the conflict out of this debate. And, as I commented at the time, I, as the new minister want to get some maturity back into this debate as opposed to the previous CLP government who again played winners and losers, backing one stakeholder group to the total exclusion of another stakeholder group, and this government, and myself as a minister, is not going to play that game.
We are going to have a much more consultative approach, a mature approach, decisions not made in isolation without consultation. If the opposition doesn’t like it, well, they’ll just have to get used to it. When in opposition, we consistently called for a much more considered approach to fisheries management. The development of an overall long term management plan for the fisheries resources in the Northern Territory is a priority for government and my department. The plan will be based on properly researched scientific data on the sustainability of our fishery. The plan will cover all key stakeholders, including recreational and commercial fishermen, fishing tour operators, traditional owners and pastoralists. In addition, fisheries resource allocation decisions will be taken with regional development in mind. A cornerstone of this government is the economic development of the entire Northern Territory which does include our regional economies. Throughout the Territory, rivers are often prime resources for local communities. Helping the local community make the most of their resource will be a key factor in this McArthur River decision, any further decisions, and will be a key part of the long term management plan.
Now this, despite the failure of the opposition to ever come up with such a plan. It’s absolutely amazing that after 26 years in government, the current opposition spokesman on fisheries can waltz in here with this submission in terms of: ‘We have a great vision for developing this Barramundi management plan for the Northern Territory’. They had 26 years and all of a sudden, this plan wishes a closure of all of the rivers and reallocation of resources and the money to buy back another two dozen commercial licences. This wasn’t a plan that was put to the Territory electorate prior to 18 August; this is something that has emerged since 18 August. It must be the most miraculous development of a post-election policy. If they think that they are on such a winner with this plan - it was an absolute gold mine in terms of the support that it would have in the community in terms of the return on investment through the ballot box - why on earth wasn’t this plan put before the community prior to the Territory election? Why on earth wasn’t it?
It seems to me that in terms of a political strategy, we are so certain that we have the plan to take the allocation of our fisheries resource into the future in the Northern Territory and this is what government has to do and the member standing up and imploring me to swallow this management plan. If it was such rolled gold, why didn’t you trot it out? Why didn’t you trot out this strategy? Why did you not trot out this strategy prior to the election?
They have suggested that the strategy be developed in close consultation. Again, these are wonderful new concepts that the opposition is picking up since it’s come to move to the other side of the Chamber: consultation. There was certainly that they ever did in consultation in terms of making decisions on resource allocation issues for fisheries in government. Perhaps in opposition they have learnt the importance of that word.
Mr Dunham: Rubbish!
Mr HENDERSON: Certainly, it was never demonstrated in government with AFANT or the Seafood Industry Council and all interested parties. How rich is this?
Mr Dunham: Rubbish!
Mr HENDERSON: I’ll come to this. I’ll come to this. The member for Drysdale is sitting back rubbish, rubbish. Well, let’s go no further than the current CLP Senator Nigel Scullion, past President of the Seafood Industry Council. To get an appreciation - let’s get some quotes here; you won’t like this - of how little consultation was performed by the previous government in this area. The current CLP Senator Nigel Scullion. On 21 August on ABC radio when discussing the previous government’s decision to phase out commercial Barramundi fishing, he said, and I quote:
… it was an act of I guess a very desperate government.
The current CLP Senator for the Northern Territory: ‘a very desperate government’. The fact that you could make such an important policy position, an important policy statement from government that you are going to phase out the entire commercial Barramundi industry without even talking to the peak body, without even consulting the peak body. All of a sudden from opposition, you have learnt this word ‘consultation’ and your very own senator said it was an act of a desperate government knowing it was in trouble politically.
Mr Baldwin: No, no. So what are you going to do? Let’s get on to what you’re going to do.
Mr HENDERSON: In the same interview, he was asked by the reporter - no, you don’t like this: In the same interview, he was asked by the reporter: ‘You must have been amazed at the fact that there was simply no consultation’.
Mr Baldwin: Good on him. That’s great. He’s got his own opinions. That’s good.
Mr HENDERSON: Nigel Scullion? There’s the quote.
Mr Baldwin: Yes.
Mr HENDERSON: What did he say?
Mr Baldwin: No, that’s good. Whatever he said, whatever he said.
Mr HENDERSON: Absolutely stunned. Absolutely stunned was the current CLP Senator. So, for the opposition to come in here now and say: ‘We have got this great strategy and what you need to do is sit down and bring the parties together and consult’. Well, really, you are just picking up on the policy that we took to the election which convinced people it really was time to throw out this absolutely moribund and arrogant government that made very sensitive policy decisions without consulting with anybody, let alone members of their own party who are now sitting on the red leather in Canberra.
Madam Speaker, from the motion the opposition has put up, it’s clear they still don’t get it. On the one hand, they call for a 10-year barramundi strategy. So this is a strategy; they want a 10-year strategy. But they also call for the immediate closure – so, you know, a strategy is something that you have to develop, take people along with you, try and get consensus. So are you saying we need to consult, we need to develop a strategy, but in the same breath they say: ‘Tomorrow you could issue a press release and close the Adelaide River and Bynoe Harbour to commercial fishing’. Have they learnt nothing?
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: They are real weasel words on the other side. We come in here, we are going to consult, we love everybody, but in the same breath put out a press release tomorrow and say you are going to close the Adelaide River and Bynoe Harbour. Well, we are not going to immediately close them. We are not going to immediately close them, and we will consult whether the opposition likes it or not. But I think if you really were to trawl through the reason for the election defeat, it was that moribund, arrogant government, we know best we are going to do what’s in the interests, we are going to divide and rule the community. Well, I think the community have got past that now. And this government understands how important these waterways are to the recreational fishing community in Darwin and the Top End and we will certainly be making a decision on these issues within our first term. But, we will consult with the community and put in place a strategy to achieve an optimization of the allocation of resources that is going to develop our regional economies and ensure the survival of the commercial fishing industry as opposed to the previous government’s policy which was to absolutely totally phase out the commercial fishing industry in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the very favourable response that the government has received from recreational fishermen in response to our commitment to provide an additional $1.5m for new fishing infrastructure, the best deal that the recreational fishing community has ever had from government in terms of an upfront commitment over an entire term. This infrastructure will include new and improved boat ramps and increased lighting and security.
Mr Baldwin: Security at the Buff, or what?
Mr HENDERSON: Well, you say I said ‘the Buff’. You know, you can put words into people’s mouths but, you know, I’ve been around here for 20 years and I wouldn’t have said that.
I enjoyed addressing the AFANT AGM. I think that that was a constituency that the CLP thought that they’d got nicely stitched up; we’ve got nice and cosy with this constituency over the years and certainly believe that throwing a few bones to AFANT just prior to the election would secure this mass of 4000 votes across the northern suburbs in particular which would ensure …
Mr Dunham: Get it right. Is it 4000 or 2000?
Mr HENDERSON: Well, it was 4000, you know, with the affiliates. But the previous CLP government really did believe that they had this entire recreational fishing community stitched up in those back pockets and those votes were secure. It was a great opportunity to talk to AFANT, and they were very pleased with the new government’s commitment to $1.5m to improve infrastructure and a total commitment from this government to work with AFANT in terms of identifying priorities for the allocation of this infrastructure effort that we are going to be putting in place.
I suppose the other significant issue that came out, and McArthur River was discussed, and I gave the reasons for why I had extended the period of consultation - you could say delayed, but we extended the period of consultation. The other major issue that did come out, and I don’t know whether the member for Daly was listening, but there was significant concern amongst the recreational fishing community about the perceived lack and probably the real lack - we could always do more with more - in terms of fisheries enforcement, in terms of actually policing our regulations in regards to the fisheries resource. I have committed that we will get together with AFANT, we will assess our current enforcement program and look to developing better strategies to ensure that both recreational and commercial fishermen actually do abide by the regulations that were in place. I am surprised that the shadow minister did not pick this up because I think it was the primary concern that came out from that meeting.
I would like to provide the house with some history on the McArthur River closure issue. Ten years ago the previous government removed the closure to commercial fishing from the mouth of the river and moved the commercial line to 10 km up the river. They didn’t consult with anybody, of course, let alone the local community. It was just announced that we were going to do this.
In May of last year, the CLP government announced, again without any consultation - this new word that they’ve learnt from opposition; you know, an election defeat does wonderful things in sharpening up the political instinct - the closure of the McArthur River to commercial Barramundi fishing. There was an outcry from the community over this complete lack of stakeholder consultation. The airwaves ran hot, I recall. I sat back and thought: ‘Gee, what sort of political strategy is this in the lead-up to the election, to have all of this bad media?’ Regardless of the issue, but a government that again would make a significant policy decision without consultation. After 26 years, any government would be perceived as being tired and arrogant and out of touch. And here they were, reinforcing this. Regardless of what the issue was, the perception in the community, was: ‘Well, here goes the CLP again, another decision without any consultation’.
One of the primary reasons the government was thrown out of office was their arrogance and refusal to consult. The decision-making process they undertook in making the McArthur River decision was perhaps one of the best illustrations of this. My department - and the member for Daly waxed lyrical about the wonderful people we’ve got in the department, and we do. We have very specialist people with great knowledge in this area and they constantly amaze me with the amount of knowledge that they have - the scientific, the biological knowledge, the resource allocation issues, how our fishery compares with other fisheries around Australia and around the world. Great expertise in this area, absolutely first class, as the shadow minister enunciated. But, did they consult with these experts before they made this decision, essentially a resource allocation issue decision? What would it do in terms of the effort, in terms of the catch for the commercial as opposed to the recreational fishers, cost benefit analysis in terms of the potential to the tourism industry? Did they consult with the experts? No!
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: The first that the department heard about this policy decision on the run by desperate government in trouble, looking to shore up 4000 votes in the northern suburbs, was when it was announced on the radio. Absolutely gobsmacked were the departmental officers. They couldn’t believe that such a decision had been made. So again …
Dr Burns: What about Mr Scullion? What did he say about it?
Mr HENDERSON: Well, we’ve been through the Senator’s comments. But again, I suppose a defeat has sharpened their political antennae and we’ve learned this word ‘consultation’.
The government recognises and greatly values and appreciates the expertise in the department. They have done an excellent job in coordinating the consultation process we’re currently undertaking. I congratulate them for their efforts, expertise and guidance, to the minister. I take their advice on board and very seriously.
There were 141 submissions received from a variety of people and organisations, a number that supersedes all previous levels in such response to a discussion paper. It just goes to show the amount of community interest …
Mr Baldwin: How many were in favour of closure? What percentage? 80%? 90%?
Mr HENDERSON: It is in the realms of 80%, but it does go to show that the community wanted to be consulted; they were concerned. The 20% that don’t support the closure, 20% of our community who have bothered to respond have put forward a large number of options for government to consider in terms of balancing this resource allocation issue.
Additional initiatives, apart from a black and white closure that have been suggested, include river closure rotation systems, alternative closure lines, by-catch guidelines, a potential look at net sizes, and mechanisms to avoid interaction with wildlife such as dugong and turtle. A range of options for government to consider as opposed to a black and white issue. Even the opposition, in its submission - and it was good to see the opposition take an interest in this issue and decide that consultation was now a word. I will table the opposition’s submission. I don’t suppose that they are going to have any problem with that. They state, in the concluding paragraph, that:
If early agreement to these concepts …
which is this 10-year management plan and strategy that they failed to implement when they were in government, or even announce in the lead-up to the election:
If early agreement to these concepts could be reached between all stakeholders with implementation beginning in late 2002…
not in February, in late 2002:
- … then a phased closure of the McArthur River system to commercial Barramundi licences
could be considered.
Okay? So, here we are running the public line that we should close this river immediately, how awful it has been that we have …
Mr Baldwin: No! Remember I wrote to you?
Mr HENDERSON: Yes. Have you got my response yet?
Mr Baldwin: No.
Mr HENDERSON: I think I signed off on it last night. I’ll get it down to you.
Mr Baldwin: Yes, well, you’re slow on writing letters, remember? Now, hang on. Read the letter that I wrote to you.
Mr HENDERSON: No, no. I have read it.
Madam Speaker, this is black and white, and I table this submission from Territorians. We have the opposition coming in here today saying it is absolutely reprehensible, and the sky’s going to fall in and people are up in arms everywhere demanding where we stand because we dared to extend their consultation period for six weeks. Dared to extend it for six weeks, to consider further the 141 submissions that were received and seek further consultation with traditional owners and the local community. Yet, their very own submission says that we could have a phased closure …
Mr Baldwin: Staged, staged.
Mr HENDERSON: … system in place, that would take over a year – a staged closure process. Really, what they put in and say in their submission, they totally refute by the public comment. Again, being politically too cute, too smart by half, their submission’s there for everybody who wants to read it.
The government appreciates the time and effort that all respondents undertook in providing their advice to government. We felt it was incumbent upon us to properly consider this advice. You don’t go to the effort of asking people to put in detailed submissions, only to have a predetermined decision, which the opposition accused members on this side of the House today - accused us of having predetermined positions in terms of the Public Accounts Committee. But no, no, again, we have this word ‘consultation’ that we’re now committed to. But, you know, you can have a consultation process but it doesn’t matter, because we’ve prejudged the outcome. Certainly, our consultation processes aren’t like that.
Given the record number of submissions and the variety of suggestions, we decided to extend the consultation period for a period of six weeks so that we could do justice to the time and effort of the respondents. Considering the advice of 141 submissions and organisations takes longer than considering the advice of none which is where the previous government was at. The opposition still doesn’t understand this, although they are starting to mouth this word ‘consultation’ from opposition.
Today, I’m pleased to say, one of the groups that was missing from the original submission process - and I suppose cultural issues and traditional owners not having the time or the understanding of the importance of putting in written submissions. So what we did today - myself and the member for Barkly, a very good local member, and really the local member for Barkly has said: ‘Minister, we really do need to consider the views of the traditional owners’, people that the opposition never cared two hoots about in terms of consulting Aboriginal people about any policy decision they made once they were in government.
Today at lunch time, I had the absolute privilege of meeting with probably 15 to 20 senior traditional owners from the Borroloola region who came to Parliament House on my invitation to actually put their views to government. I stand here and acknowledge those people as traditional owners in that region, and absolutely am committed to taking their views on board and to developing partnerships with the Borroloola community, the traditional owners, in terms of regional economic management plans that we’re going to put in place in that region. They were overwhelmed and so appreciative of the opportunity to actually sit down and talk to the minister and have their views put and considered, and to know that those views are going to be respected, are going to be considered in the ultimate decision. Those views were missing from the formal written submission process.
On 1 March, we are again going to consult with the Borroloola community. The final decision on this issue, as well as being a resource allocation decision, will be based on the wishes and the aspirations of the regional community in terms of how they see the economic future of that community being developed.
Although in the lead-up to the previous election the then government announced the closure of the river, they never actually bothered to do anything about it. Now they had a period - I forget how long the period was, what was it? It was about, I don’t know, six or eight weeks, it was about two months out, I think, from the election date. Again, they went out and announced: ‘We’re going to close it’. Didn’t move any regulatory motion, did absolutely nothing. They never took any of the necessary administrative and regulatory steps to close the river.
Mr Baldwin: The licensee had to go out because the fishing season closed.
Mr HENDERSON: No, no. Now, let’s get back to this. Here’s the fatal flaw in the member for Daly’s arguments. In terms of the restrictions that were placed on the operator who managed to get dugongs caught up in his nets, the restrictions were not placed on the river; the restrictions were placed on the operator. He was not allowed to utilise his commercial Barramundi licence until such time as those self-management plans were put in place in terms of dealing with interaction with dugongs and working with the Seafood Industry Council to put those processes in place and to get the crew on his boats through a training program. So there was no closure put on the river. It was put on the operator.
As the member for Daly quite rightly stated, any other of the 25 or 26 remaining commercial fishermen in the Northern Territory could have seen an opportunity then: we have this pristine resource; Mr Wildcard’s been given a yellow card for a time, and we’re going to come in there and take our share of the catch. Well, nobody did that, but for the member for Daly to run the line that we have closed the river and all of a sudden now because we’ve extended this period of consultation for six weeks that somehow we’ve reversed a decision that you took in government is a blatant furphy. There was never any administrative action or regulatory steps taken to close the McArthur River to commercial fishing. One operator was yellow-carded for catching dugongs and basically fishing in an inappropriate manner.
So in terms of the decision that we took, Wildcard and the Seafood Industry Council have abided by the code of conduct and there was no capacity for me to make a unilateral decision without the formal decision making process. I think the member for Daly should stop being so disingenuous and actually acknowledge that, again, his government was all talk. The McArthur River decision and the lead-up to the election was the act of a desperate government enunciated by their very own senator in the lead-up to an election when you knew you were in trouble and you were fishing for 4000 votes in the northern suburbs, and it didn’t work.
This is an issue about resource allocation and it’s an issue of regional development, as I’ve said before. There are several very important stakeholders and the river is important to the recreational fishing community in the Territory and commercial fishers alike. However, the most important stakeholders are the traditional owners and they have been overlooked in this debate until today.
The fish stocks in the McArthur River are high. The decision is about how the Territory and particularly the local residents can make the most of their valuable resource, and this is the crux of the matter. We are a government about regional development, about utilising the resources in the Northern Territory - our natural resources, our mineral resources, our people - to the best economic return to the people of the Northern Territory. And with those guiding principles in light, we will be making the decision on the McArthur River, and I give this parliament an absolute guarantee that that decision will be made prior to 15 March or on 15 March and there will be no further delays.
In responding to the member for Daly’s motion, I think I have addressed all of his concerns. I wish to move the following amendment.
Mr Dunham: No, Adelaide River and Bynoe.
Mr HENDERSON: No, you were falling asleep there.
Mr Baldwin: No, when are you going to close them?
Mr HENDERSON: That the motion be amended by omitting all words after ‘that’ and inserting in their place:
this parliament acknowledges the Martin Labor government’s strong commitment to recreational
fishing in the Northern Territory and
(1) congratulates the government for committing to a development of a long term
management plan for the fisheries resources in the Northern Territory based
on properly researched scientific data on the sustainability of our fish stocks
and in full consultation with all stakeholders, including recreational and
commercial fishermen, fishing tour operators, traditional owners and pastoralists;
(2) congratulates the Martin Labor government for its commitment of an additional
$1.5m over three years for new fishing infrastructure such as boat ramps and
approved lighting and security;
Mr Baldwin: It’s called self-flagellation, I think, isn’t it?
Mr HENDERSON: You never promised that in the lead-up to the election.
(3) congratulates the government on its decision to properly consult all affected persons
on the potential closure of the McArthur River and notes the government’s commitment
to finalise a decision on the future of the McArthur River by 15 March; and
(4) notes with concern the total failure of the former CLP government to consult at all on the
closure of the McArthur River, and notes that despite the announcement by the member for
Katherine of the decision to close the McArthur River in the absence of then Minister for
Fisheries and without even discussing the issue with the fisheries department, the CLP failed
to take any of the necessary administrative and regulatory steps to close the McArthur River.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, the member for Daly has touched upon many of the details which I was going to take the Chamber to in the course of this address, but there are a couple of matters which I think need to be emphasised, and if I can just briefly take honourable members to these two points. The term AFANT is, of course, the Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the Northern Territory, a great organisation, a grass-roots organisation made up of people living across the Northern Territory and there are a number of affiliate organisations. Under the guidance of the Executive Officer John Harrison - and, indeed, the member for Wanguri is correct, there are about 2000 technically formal members, but there are a large number of affiliate members and family members and the like which make up the large number of amateur fishermen which come under this umbrella.
Really, to make any realistic observations about the conduct of a government, you have to look at what they’ve done as opposed to the words they utter. If you look at what the Labor government has done both in the lead up to and since the election, then really the facts will speak for themselves. The Labor government showed really very little interest in amateur fishermen or their welfare or the idea of maintaining their lifestyle until about a year or so prior to today when one of their paid staffers, a young fellow called Travis Dowling, turned up and joined AFANT and got voted onto the executive.
A member: Are you on the executive?
Mr MALEY: He went to a number of meetings and for a moment it looked like the Labor party …
Mr Ah Kit: Shouldn’t he be declaring his interest?
Mr Baldwin: The minister was at the meeting!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MALEY: I can declare an interest. I am also on that committee.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, both sides! The member for Goyder is trying to speak.
Mr MALEY: That’s a fact, of course, of which the member for Wanguri is aware, and I am surprised to hear from the member for Sanderson that he hasn’t heard of that since I know that the name of the executive appear in all the newsletters which we send out, and if he is been a member and is a keen interested member, he would have read that.
In any event, I can assure the Chamber that what occurred is that a paid staffer of the Martin Labor opposition joined the committee, which is to be commended, showing an interest.
Members interjecting.
Mr MALEY: And then what occurred is that about six months after the election, only recently, there was a letter sent to AFANT saying that he has resigned and gone interstate. So there was this positive conduct, we have got some real interest in AFANT that suddenly came to an abrupt end shortly after the election.
In the lead up to the election, there was a great deal of talk about fishing issues - and this is trying to give an objective critique of what occurred. In the lead up to the election - and I am indeed, as a result of being an officeholder and a keen amateur fisherman, we take as much care as we can and listen to the issues that affect fishermen through AFANT and the like, do our best to put the views of amateur fishermen. In any event, in the lead up to the election, much was made of the interests of fishermen and the effort that the political parties were making to maintain the Territory lifestyle, and all the other type of motherhood comments, and one of the things which occurred is that there was a - and I will be very careful in describing this document - there was an undated, it seems, pamphlet and it was certainly distributed in the rural area, and I will read it out before I table it. It says:
- We’re fighting for better recreational fishing in the Adelaide River.
And it’s got a picture of a fellow called Bob Hare, candidate for Nelson, and another fellow, Alan Smith, a candidate for Goyder. I will read it out:
- Most of us in the rural area love nothing more than to spend the weekend chasing a Barra.
Unfortunately, many of us are having to travel off to the East or South Alligator to get a feed.
Mr Dunham: What about the Buff? Do they go to the Buff?
Mr MALEY: Or they go to the Buff, yes.
- The Adelaide River is in our back yard and has the potential to again provide the great recreational
fishing opportunities it once did. The major success of recreational fishing in areas such as the Mary,
the Daly, the South and East Alligator Rivers demonstrates the benefits of separating completely
professional and recreational fishing interests.
And then there is a big headline:
- Labor supports the removal of commercial fishing from the Adelaide River. It is hoped that without
Barramundi and salmon netting in the river, rural residents will make the short drive to this great river
for a good feed.
The Adelaide has the capacity to become a great tourist river with people enjoying the fishing, the crocs
and the day out with easy access from Darwin. This would not only provide a boost for the rural
economy, but greatly improve the fishing opportunities for rural residents.
And it’s got the part of Clare’s team building a better Territory stuff. I seek leave to table that, though I wouldn’t mind a photocopy of it back when you get a chance.
Leave granted.
Mr MALEY: So, we’ve got this document which is floating about prior to the election. It’s created a reasonable expectation amongst rural people and amateur fishermen across the Northern Territory. The election comes or goes and the amateur fisherman, along with the all other people who live in the Northern Territory, generally speaking, endorse the Labor government and they put their trust in a new government.
Dr Toyne: Excellent decision.
Mr MALEY: I respect the decision that the people of the Northern Territory made, and on 18 August they dutifully exercised their rights and certainly put their trust in the hands of the Labor government.
Now, there was a bit of a silence, it seems, for a period in time in relation to this very important promise that was made, and there was an article which appeared in the Litchfield Times.
Can I just go back a step. There is one other thing that was said by the Labor party prior to the election. It was under the headline - it appeared in the Litchfield Times on 6 June 2001 - ‘Commercial fishing ban pressure’. I’ll read a portion of it and, with leave, I can table the document, Madam Speaker.
Leave granted.
Mr MALEY: Madam Speaker, I quote:
- Pressure to ban commercial fishing on the Adelaide River continued this week with shadow primary industry and fisheries spokesman Peter Toyne lending his support to AFANT calls for an immediate moratorium.
And then it goes on to - there are a whole heap of quotes here:
- A renewed push comes as the Northern Territory government moves to stop commercial fishing in the
McArthur River next year.
And there are a couple of direct quotes here from Dr Toyne, and assuming that they are accurate, I am relying on what’s contained in this newspaper. It says:
- Dr Toyne claimed that while the CLP has moved on fishing in the McArthur River, they have totally
ignored requests from amateur fishermen for the promotion of recreational fishing elsewhere.
And he goes on to say:
- The Adelaide River is the largest waterway within close proximity to Darwin and could become a great
river for locals and tourists alike to fish with success, but it continues to be ignored by the CLP.
So, really, the thrust of it is that there certainly looks to be a fairly solid intent, or a commitment it seems, raising the expectation amongst potential voters that the government …
Dr Toyne: Perhaps you’d better put it in context. I said provided that the evidence justified the closure. And I said that on a dozen occasions.
Members interjecting.
Mr MALEY: That document - I can read the whole lot out, but I’ll just paraphrase it for the sake of time.
Members interjecting
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MALEY: So the election occurred and there has been this deathly silence. We have heard a few excuses and the odd death rattle of: ‘We’ll stick to our commitments, we’ll undertake and carry out every promise that we made’, and that rekindled some of the fading hope that amateur fishermen were experiencing since the election. And then the next public statement I heard was from the new, still wet behind the ears, non-fishing minister, the member for Wanguri, at the AFANT Annual General Meeting on 24 February 2002. There was a speech made and there was confirmation that a decision would be made in respect of the McArthur River sometime in March, I think the 13th or the 16th, anyway sometime in March, and that was generally appreciated in terms of there was a finite time a decision would be made. There is certainly a view that the decision should have been made, and what’s the problem with making it sooner rather than later? But, okay, you put something on the table, here’s the agenda, here is the time line, the decision is going to be made by this date.
Dr Burns: An agenda, or minutes?
Mr MALEY: Yes, that’s right. Yes.
Certainly, amateur fishermen have been made aware of the commitments re the Adelaide River. The next thing we hear is that we are not going to deal with - and I’m paraphrasing what he said; he can certainly correct me and no doubt he will - we are not going to deal with it river by river; we want an overall approach.
An overall plan, but you have got to remember this template he is talking about is in light of the fact he has already – well, his party - have already made a fairly serious commitment to closing the Adelaide River which they should be commended for if they have, in fact, done it.
So, really, that is the situation we find ourselves in. They are the objective facts. That is what has occurred.
Dr Toyne: They’re half of them – the half you choose to use.
Mr MALEY: There is really an opportunity here - and I am trying to be constructive.
Dr Toyne: No, you’re trying to be selective. That’s what you’re trying to be.
Mr MALEY: I can be a lot more destructive, don’t worry.
Mr Kiely: Disingenuous, perhaps.
Mr Baldwin: Ingenuous.
Mr MALEY: No, no, no. I won’t lower myself. Give me strength, I enjoy this. It keeps me going.
The government could restore the faith and the trust which people gave them if they stand up and now start making some of the decisions they talked about prior to the election. So I am really calling upon the government to stop dilly dallying and start making the decisions, the decisions they said they were going to make prior to the election.
Now, it looks like a fairly basic decision: we either close the river or we leave it open, and there it is: ‘Labor supports the removal of commercial fishing from the Adelaide River’. Well, that’s great, that’s to be commended. Okay, now close the river.
Now, in closing there is one other thing. The member for Wanguri touched upon this and, really, I am offended by what he said. Anyone who has lived here longer than five minutes, which is certainly not the member for Wanguri and most of the Labor party, but for the people who have lived here for any period of time, they would realise that there actually were elections and people voted and when people voted, they got the government of their choice. So, it is an insult to Northern Territory people, and an insult to any families who have been here longer than four years, of course, to insult the government which they chose to represent them.
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Mr MALEY: I’m quite happy to, and I’ve said …
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Mr MALEY: Madam Speaker, the point I am wishing to make is that …
Madam SPEAKER: I am trying to hear the point that the member for Goyder is making. Come on, settle down. It would be nice if we could get on with the debates and get them over and done with.
Mr MALEY: Indeed, Madam Speaker.
The point I am making is that it is an insult to the people of the Northern Territory to criticise the choice of government they made over the past 27 years just like the respect which I have for the government of the day that people on the 18 August last year made a decision. They, on 18 August, demonstrated they had some faith and trust in the new government. My real concern is that that trust has been abused and that trust has been broken, the trust which the people gave them. I suspect in a little over 36 months time, it will be judgment day for the new government.
So, in all the circumstances, the motion and the amended motion as they appear, I support unconditionally the motion from the member for Daly. But the amendments, albeit poorly drafted and with the typos, it contains, of course, some commitment which I think amateur fishermen across the Territory would appreciate and that is the commitment for $1.5m over three years.
The problem is not what’s in the document; it’s what’s missing. The fact that we have already had commitments by the Labor Party to close the Adelaide River and I understand - not that I could find the documents - to close Bynoe Harbour as well. There is absolutely no reference to these important election promises in this document. It would be an ideal opportunity for the member for Wanguri to demonstrate that he actually has a bit of steel and a bit of commitment and can restore some of the faith which has been lost. I must say it was amusing to hear him refer to Buffalo Creek as ‘the Buff’ as tourists do, I suppose. It was also amusing to find out that it’s not even in his electorate and here he is saying: ‘My electorate, I’m one of the boys’ in his, you know, in his toffy way. So, you know, it’s a disgrace. I support the …
Mr Kiely: I bet you he’s never wrestled a pig in the bush.
Mr MALEY: He hasn’t been bush.
Madam Speaker, I am urging the honourable members of this House to support the motion in its unamended context and as moved by the member for Daly.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in respect of the amendments as proposed by the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries. Before I actually commence in detail, it is my understanding that the member for Goyder is on the executive of AFANT, and I congratulate you for that because it is indeed a wonderful organisation. It is something that I support and I understand that the membership is around about 2000 or thereabouts?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The member for Barkly has the floor. He has a soft voice and we would like to hear him, so I suggest interjections and conversations across the floor cease. Give the member for Barkly a chance.
Mr McADAM: As I was about to say, Madam Speaker, with membership of about 2000 people, a very credible organisation that over a period of time has slowly worked towards the interest of a large number of Territorians. But having said that, just let me say to the member for Goyder that the people who actually reside in the McArthur River area number around 2500 to 3000 people. And, just to let you know where I am coming from, I want you to know that I am representing those 2500 to 3000 people.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr McADAM: To begin with, let me make it very clear that I’m puzzled by the ad hoc, arrogant decisions by the CLP to unilaterally close the McArthur River to commercial Barramundi fishing in May of last year. A very simple answer is required, and I do hope that the shadow minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries will take the opportunity to respond or if, indeed, the member for Katherine should appear, I’d invite him to respond as well because it was the Deputy Chief Minister, the member for Katherine, who made a decision without consultation with any stakeholders in Borroloola or its surrounds to close the river.
Mr Ah Kit: It was another CLP initiative.
Mr McADAM: Well, absolutely. It was, too.
Members interjecting.
Mr McADAM: The point I am trying to make is that I think it is very important for the people of Borroloola and the Barkly to understand why you chose to take that decision at that time. I think you would find it very difficult to come up with a plausible explanation because it was clearly for political purposes. If it wasn’t, it was at best a very clumsy, inept, she’ll-be-right-mate decision. I would have thought that a little common decency would have prevailed, perhaps a little consultation. It wouldn’t have taken much to consult with the fisheries department who, after all, are the experts and had access to all the scientific data as well as the expertise in respect of fisheries management and fish resource allocation.
Madam Speaker, you will recognise that the department of Fisheries has built a very enviable reputation over time and is staffed by some very dedicated professionals. But, no, they were advised by the media in respect of the closure. You didn’t have the decency to talk to them. All of a sudden, one day in May, the Deputy Chief Minister got up and said: ‘Oh yes, there is an election coming up on 18 August. What will I do? Aha! I might make a decision. Yep! Let’s close the McArthur River’. It was as scientific and stupid as that.
Members interjecting.
Mr McADAM: It is for this reason that this government has chosen to undertake a very comprehensive consultation process. As the minister indicated, some 140-odd submissions have been received which is indicative of the unprecedented interest expressed by various people, organisations and industry bodies. Many of the submissions were constructive and canvassed a range of suggestions from the preservation of the dugong to the control of boat speed limits, allocation of dedicated fishing zones, and the protection of sites of importance to the local indigenous people notwithstanding, of course, the pros and cons in respect of the actual closure itself.
Allow me to go back a little in time to late 2000 when the member for Stuart and I attended a full day meeting in Borroloola. Participants included traditional owners, Mabunji Aboriginal Corporation, the Walalibi Fishing Committee, the Northern Land Council, AFANT, commercial fishers and numerous members of the community. The purpose of this meeting was to look at a regional framework agreement in the context of the fishing industry. A range of issues were explored including additional recreational fishing camps, tourism opportunities, the need to involve the business and the indigenous sector in joint partnership and/or ventures, thus enhancing economic opportunities for the Gulf.
The closure of the McArthur River was debated robustly, and the views at that time were wide and varied. However, no clear decision emerged. But the then opposition shadow minister made it very clear that a consultation process would occur before any decision would be made to close the McArthur River for whatever reason, and I applaud the member for Stuart for his foresight. At that time, as it is now, it was a right and proper thing to do. It remains the right and proper thing to do as we in government continue the consultation process which will give rise to a decision in the not too distant future in the interests of all stakeholders in the Territory. Hear that? All stakeholders.
As further evidence of our commitment to resolve this matter, as the minister indicated earlier, we met during the lunch break with a number of traditional owners from the Gulf, and on Friday I’ll be attending a public forum in Borroloola on behalf of the minister, again to seek the views of local people. As indicated by the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries, we will not be stampeded by the opposition into making hasty decisions in respect of the closure of other rivers, but will embark on a transparent process of developing a strategy on which future fishery resource allocations will be based.
The fisheries industry is important in the Gulf, as it is in other parts of the Territory, and it is critical to get the decision right particularly in the interests of small business, the indigenous community and the industry itself. I believe that we can achieve that mix. To this extent, I am heartened by the preparedness of the community at King Ash Bay and the traditional owners to discuss options of mutual interest. Just be aware, this would never, ever have occurred under the CLP because that was a bastion of the politics of division, and you blokes loved every minute of it. You promoted it and you blew yourselves up.
Mr Dunham: Rubbish!
Mr McADAM: Don’t you talk!
Mr Dunham: Rubbish, mate. We didn’t run the One Nation crap, you did.
Mr McADAM: Don’t you talk!
Mr Dunham: Wedge politics, and you can live with it. You can live with it; it’s your heritage. He got in on it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr McADAM: We know about you and your mates at King Ash Bay; we know all about them …
Mr Dunham: Wrong, wrong. Wedge politics.
Mr McADAM: Yes, we know all about them, and we’ll find out.
Mr Dunham: Wedge politics.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Drysdale!
Mr McADAM: The Mabunji Aboriginal organisation presently have a Barramundi fishing licence which they lease out, as does Steve Johnson on Vanderlin Island. We’re also going to take into consideration their views, and so must the views of the Seafood Industry Council and AFANT and, of course, the two commercial barramundi fishers Roy Wright and Bruce Davies who respectively lease licences from Steve Johnson and Mabunji. Again, as indicated by the minister, we will not please everyone in respect of the government’s decision but, as the minister indicated, clearly the decision will be based on regional imperatives, and it’s important that this government provides a solid foundation upon which all parties can build a secure economic opportunity. I mean this, Tim …
Mr Baldwin: Member for Daly, let’s get it right!
Mr McADAM: I beg your pardon, the member for Daly. I say this to the member for Daly: join in this process as espoused by the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries. You and I both represent an electorate similar in many ways. Let’s be constructive in the interests of all sectors of the fishing industry and in the interests of the long-term future of the community in the Territory.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, a lot has been said about consulting everyone, and that’s great, that’s really good. The minister for fisheries said that we on this side are solely focussed on one sector, that’s the recreational fishing sector. That’s not true, I’ll say that straight up front. We’re interested, too, in the commercial Barramundi fishing sector as well. But let’s just put it in context
The commercial Barramundi fishery - and I haven’t got all the latest figures - was estimated at approximately $4.5m in 1999 - $4.5m for the commercial Barramundi - and the value of the Northern Territory of recreational fishing estimated at $50m in 2000. So, that’s $4.5m against $50m. The direct benefits from the recreational sector is growing at approximately 7% per year and is expected to have a value to the Northern Territory in excess of $60m in 2005 based on the anticipated annual growth rates, and they are Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries Annual Report figures 1999-2000. So, that’s the context of what we’re talking about: the worth.
You talk about regional imperatives and what it means to the economy of the Northern Territory. Well, that speaks volumes about what it means to regional economies as well as the overall economy of the Northern Territory - volumes in places like Borroloola, for the member for Barkly to pick up on. Very significant income to local businesses is derived from the recreational fishing industry. Also from the commercial as well, but $4.5m against $50m-odd.
In the McArthur alone, I think the catch there is approximately 27 tonnes of barra in the McArthur River - this is by one operator who’s operating a number of licences including, I believe, Mabunji’s licence as well as his own. That’s Bruce Davies; he has a big ship that operates 24 hours a day. Most operators going back over the last 20 years were daylight hour operators in smaller vessels, but this one operates very efficiently with a big mother ship. The by-catch that we’re talking about is somewhere in the vicinity - this is by-catch of fish alone - of 13 tonne of by-catch. Who knows what the unknown by-catch discard rate is? In that total region down there, 49 tonnes of barra is caught with 19 tonne of by-catch. You have to weigh up all of those figures. There’s some waste, there’s some income from the commercial, and there’s significant income from the recreational fishing sector. We’ve put it into context in that way.
The AFANT submission has some very interesting bits of information, and I just want to read a few bits:
- Whilst in King Ash Bay in September, we had …
… a number of conversations with several groups of people who’ve been coming to the area for varying times, some for 10 years or more. All, without exception, were gravely concerned over the steep decline of the fishing stocks in the McArthur River and, in their view, attributable to the commercial netting of the river system. Most of these people indicated strongly that they would be looking for alternate (sic) locations, as the McArthur River has lots its appeal. See the attached letter in this document for one example.
That should be weighed up as a factor for the regional economy as well, Madam Speaker, and I believe you have a close association with this particular river. One of the members of your family likes to visit this area. And if those people don’t keep coming to that area, imagine the decline in the local economy. It would be very, very significant.
The minister said that I just waltzed in here tonight with a plan, a plan that I want blueprinted. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. I didn’t waltz in here tonight with a plan. I wrote a submission to the discussion paper on the proposal to close the McArthur River to commercial fishing, and that submission was in by 30 December, the closing date for submissions. In that submission, I called for the development of a strategy. I don’t have the wherewithal to make the plan. I don’t think you have the wherewithal to make the plan.
The whole point of the motion is what everyone else is calling for and that I heard the minister talk about very quietly at the AGM - a 10-year strategy, or 20-year or whatever you want to come up with. Do what you like. But that’s the point. I haven’t just dreamed up a plan. This is calling for a strategy to be developed with all of the stakeholders, and that is what the issue is. I am a bit confused here tonight with regards to the Adelaide River and Bynoe Harbour. I think the minister in what he has had to say about Bynoe and Adelaide River is that they might not close them to commercial fishing and I am not going to try and get him to confirm it.
On the one hand we have got the previous shadow minister who says in the paper that he is calling on the immediate closure of the Adelaide River. Who did you consult, former shadow minister, on that regard? You talk about us not consulting - and I will come back to that because there is a whole wealth of information over the last 20 years regarding the closure of rivers, well documented by the department, well documented in fish studies, well documented by tag and release programs in all of the rivers that have been closed - but on the point of consultation, who did the former shadow minister for fisheries consult when he called for an immediate closure of the Adelaide River? The department? I don’t think so. AFANT? Probably, but that would be about it.
So for the minister to get up tonight and say that I can’t call for the immediate closure is a little bit ironic in regard to their previous record in this matter. I am still confused and I am sure a lot of people out there are confused about what’s going …
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: We’ve got all night. I’m happy. The minister hasn’t confirmed tonight that they will close - well even the McArthur, but certainly the Adelaide River and Bynoe to commercial fishing and that’s a shame. I wonder myself whether the minister has ever been fishing.
Mr Henderson: Yes.
Mr BALDWIN: Where? In England for trout?
Mr Henderson: No.
Mr BALDWIN: No, you never went for trout fishing? Anyway, that’s beside the point. But if he would like to go fishing I’m sure he is going to get an invite to the Barra Classic this year and the Barra Nationals. They told me the other night that there will be …
Mr Henderson: Yes. Had one. I’ll be there.
A member interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: No, he doesn’t like fishing, I am told.
Mr Henderson: No, no, no. Not true.
Mr BALDWIN: Can I encourage the minister, Madam Speaker, to take up that invitation that he will get to go to the Barra Classics more than likely, and the Barra Nationals, and come down to the Daly River - great spot - and try his hand at a little fishing and talk to the people about what it’s all about.
The minister also reminded me of the enforcement issues that were raised at the AFANT meeting. I’m glad he did because I would have thought that the minister would have talked about the role of police in enforcement on fisheries matters but he never did. It seems to be missing from everything that he talks about when it comes to enforcement. The police, I have to say, and I will put it on the record, do a fantastic job in that regard all over the Northern Territory. All over the Northern Territory, whether it’s the Daly River police station or the police at Port Keats. They are outfitted in those areas with boats and do a great job as far as fishery enforcement goes, and I welcome any further enforcement measures that the government wants to look at.
The McArthur River is a catalyst for this whole issue of what to do with the Barramundi fishery. I just believe it’s timely, that the minister gets on and makes a decision that will mark a point to move forward and sit down and work out an overall encompassing strategy for the whole fishery. The minister has talked at length about the 141 submissions that came in. I didn’t quite pick up what he said about those submissions that were in the affirmative for closure of the McArthur River. I think he said 80%-odd of those submissions supported closure of the McArthur which, when they make their decision, will really reinforce that the right decision that was made by the CLP in the first place.
I think this delay is all about trying to distance themselves from a decision we made that will turn out to be the right decision based on all the historic knowledge going back over 20 years, and it’s all there in all the documents. He can put his hands on them tomorrow. Just put a little bit of distance so that they can come out and say: ‘We’re going to close the McArthur River. What a great decision. We have just gone through this process’. But I think the submissions that they have will vindicate the decisions that we did take last year.
You have to understand the amount of information that is around about what has happened since the closure of the Roper and the Daly and the others, the Mary, to commercial fishing and what has happened since that time. There are reams and reams and reams of information, technical information on it. But I will just pick up one paragraph here in the AFANT submission when they talk about this particular side of it. First off, I will just quote this:
The Northern Territory has been more than 10 years in front of other states in providing for recreational fishing by selective closures of rivers/harbours to commercial fishing. We must maintain and strengthen that advantage.
Mr Dunham: Good plan. 26 years, eh? Pretty good!
Mr BALDWIN: Good plan. So it goes on:
- Simple studies of the catch of the commercial sector outside the rivers that have been closed to commercial
fishing tell the real story. Since the closure of the Mary, Daly and Roper Rivers, the catch per unit effort
(CPUE) for commercial fishing in the Barramundi industry has increased.
Since the closure of these rivers, Madam Speaker, has increased.
This is a very clear and definitive point. It is obvious that once the gill nets are removed from the river
systems, the Barramundi and the other species are allowed to build in numbers and increase the stocks
of fish. Once this has occurred, the fish naturally move throughout the river both upstream and outside
the system to seek food or to engage in their natural breeding cycles
There is a lot of information, a lot of technical information that has shown that the policy of river closure is a good policy and the effect on the commercials has been negligible. In fact, the commercial effort has increased over that time. The catch for recreational anglers who contribute far and away more money, and that doesn’t mean that they should be solely looked after, but far and away more money into the Territory economy - and not just into Darwin; a lot of these folk live in Darwin, they live in Alice Springs, they live in Katherine but they put their money into places like Daly River, Borroloola and all over the Top End of the Territory, Timber Creek - I shouldn’t forget Timber Creek - into those small regional towns where we are looking for extra effort.
So the information is there. As I said before, I think this is just a delaying tactic to get a little bit of distance between those 80% of the 141 submissions that want closure, to try and distance it from the CLP. They were doing the right thing, but we can’t follow them, so we’ll distance ourselves, delay this and then we’ll put the closure on. I hope that’s what you do because I’ll come out with a media release, if it is a full closure or a staged closure - and I should just touch on that staged closure that I wrote to the minister about. In my submission, what I said was if you could sit down and agree on the principles to a strategy, then there may be some room for a staged closure.
First and foremost, the CLP wants closure of McArthur River, no doubt about that in the submission, no doubt whatsoever, to the proposed closure lines in the discussion paper which were our closure lines as announced prior to the election. No problem with that. But if you could sit down and work out the principles of this strategy by the end of this year, say, and that is where the end of the year comes in, then there may be room for a phased closure or a staged closure of the McArthur River to allow the commercial element in that area to make some adaptations to their operations and as a good will gesture that they’d agree to do other things that were some of the principles of a greater strategy like reducing their Barramundi licences, like defining no-go areas around the Top End, and all of those things that I have mentioned, both in the submission and in the motion.
That is where the staged closure comes in. When I heard the minister, on the radio on 4 February, talk about how even the CLP wants a staged closure, I thought I’d better write to him and put it in clear writing for him - because I know how busy you can get as a minister, sometimes you don’t have time to read everyone’s submission fully - so I included a copy of the submission for him and clearly articulated what I meant by staged closure and when you would implement it if you could get agreement by all stakeholders. If you couldn’t, I said very definitively, close the McArthur River now to the closure lines proposed by the CLP and that have been proposed - the very same lines - in the discussion paper. So I will never walk away from that, and I made it very clear to the minister so that he doesn’t misrepresent it.
Whilst this amended motion is all about self congratulations, or self-flagellation or whatever you call it for the Labor party, we are not going to support these. We know that we haven’t got the numbers to …
Mr Henderson: Not going to support the $1.5m? All right. I’ll let them know.
Mr BALDWIN: Well, we can’t break up the motion, and just for those that are going to read this, there are a number of paragraphs that are all about self-congratulations to the Labor party, blah, blah, blah, and notes with concern the failure of CLP …
Mr Dunham: We could change it and then you’d get a chance to speak again.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, I suppose I could move an amendment but then we haven’t got the numbers, so that is why I prefaced my debate with the fact that this sort of amendment was going to come in.
But at the end of the day, the principles still remain. It doesn’t matter what you change here tonight, it doesn’t matter what occurs in terms of this motion, the principles still remain. The minister has to make a decision, and he is going to upset some people. You can’t have win, win, win, win all the time. He’ll have to make that decision, and I hope for the sake of all of the stakeholders, whether it is the Mabunji, the traditional owners, the commercials, the recreational, that the minister makes the decision to close the river fully to commercial fishing. And then he should make another announcement, as the previous shadow minister for fisheries asked for: the closure of the Adelaide River and then Bynoe as well.
At that point, I bet you, all of the stakeholders would want to sit down and really, really quickly work out the strategy for the next 10 years, and what a great thing that would be. That’s the intent of this motion, to focus on that so that the Northern Territory enhances its position as the pre-eminent place in the world to come to catch a game fish called the Barramundi. We should always have that as our major focus, and all of the material is there to support the way of doing that because it has been done by the CLP government over the last 20 years.
Madam Speaker, that’s what I hope is the outcome of tonight, and I look forward with great interest to the decision on or before the 15th as the minister said. I will leave it at that.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is the amendment be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 14 Noes 9
Mrs Aagaard Mr Baldwin
Mr Ah Kit Mr Burke
Mr Bonson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Ms Carter
Mr Henderson Mr Dunham
Mr Kiely Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Dr Lim
Ms Martin Mr Maley
Mr McAdam Mr Reed
Ms Scrymgour
Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Mr Wood
Amendment agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the amended motion be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 14 Noes 9
Mrs Aagaard Mr Baldwin
Mr Ah Kit Mr Burke
Mr Bonson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Ms Carter
Mr Henderson Mr Dunham
Mr Kiely Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Dr Lim
Ms Martin Mr Maley
Mr McAdam Mr Reed
Ms Scrymgour
Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Mr Wood
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Can I just say to the government members that was a great example of how you are not supporting your motions by default. It was a rather weak answer to the question when it was your motion. Now, technically, it should have been resolved in the affirmative because you do have the numbers, but when voices are so obviously stronger against you, that the only way you can resolve it is to go to a Division. I know I have mentioned this to you before, but when it is your motion –and I shouldn’t be telling you how to do it - you have to speak up. You saw exactly what happened then and it was a pretty low response to your minister’s amended motion.
MOTION
Health and Community Services -
Promises by Government
Health and Community Services -
Promises by Government
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I move –
- That this Assembly call on the Minister for Health and Community Services to:
(1) outline in a concise, fully-costed and transparent manner the various health and
community services initiatives promised by the government;
(2) in the absence of fulsome reporting on these matters during this debate, provide
detailed position papers and briefings by departmental officers to the Public Accounts
Committee for investigation this financial year;
(3) give the Public Accounts Committee a reference to report to parliament on the fiscal
integrity and transparency of the government promises by August 2002; and
(4) brief the Assembly on her efforts in this important portfolio to date, as the necessity to do
this now is urgent, given plummeting levels of confidence in the minister’s capacity to
undertake the level of effort required.
Madam Speaker, I say at the outset that I suspect that this will be amended, and that suspicion seems founded on an unsigned amendment that is been circulated that is backwards looking.
I would ask that the minister take this motion on board with both hands because in effect it is something she should be happy to shout from the rooftops. The motion is not talking about anything we’ve done; the motion is talking about the things that have been promised by the government in the mini-budget. So I would have hoped that the minister would have seen these as very important issues; I would have hoped that the minister had a full knowledge of them given that they had appeared in election manifestos, they have been fully costed, we’ve been told, by Access Economics. They’ve now appeared in an independent Treasury document which is at arm’s length from government. So she has at least three source documents to go to, and in the event that this discussion is able to outline some of those various government initiatives and it gives her an opportunity to strut her stuff, to parade for the benefit of the members the wonderful things that are being done in her portfolio area. If it does that, the motion cascades.
So what I’ve said at paragraph (2) is that if we have a debate here and the minister is able to satisfy all of us in this House that the initiatives that the Labor Party have taken to the electorate and they appear in the budget documents are good and costed and transparent, there will be no need for the subsequent paragraphs.
I would caution also the seeming common practice of talking about what’s behind us in the 26 years because this motion is actually forward looking. This motion says that we would like to look at the initiatives as they go forward and I think this is something that has been demanded of us by our constituents. Our constituents, I’m sure, would be asking all of us to be looking forward, particularly in the health and community services sector and particularly if you did believe some of the garbage that is trotted about how terrible things have been over the last 26 years. This is indeed the time to put your stamp on it.
I would like to canvass several important areas and I know that some of my colleagues may like to canvass others. Particularly, I’d like to talk to the issue of the promise for a birthing suite and an oncology unit and a hospice. I put those three together because if you go to the budget documents, you’ll see that they all have a similar link. I go to Budget Paper No 3 of the mini-budget 2001-02. Starting at page 39, we have a promise for an increase to hospital nurses by 75 over the next two years. That increase starts this year with 10 nurses, then 30, 50 and 75. This is something that has been looked at with great interest by nurses, and I’m sure it’s something that in the course of this debate there will be significant data to give the nurses to either put some of their alarm to rest or, if the minister is unable to divulge in adequate detail what’s happening, I’m sure it is something she is going to have to get work on. That is another ulterior motive, I have to tell you.
So at page 39 we have a promise of 75 nurses. The very next page talks about an oncology and radiotherapy unit at RDH, a pretty good initiative. There are some risks associated with it, particularly in terms of attracting staff and some of those issues. But the capital cost only is included and if you realise that this is a significant building, a building that is going to have quite significant utility services connected to it and also quite significant staff, you read there that additional nursing staff will be met from the 75 additional nursing staff that have been promised.
So first we promise hospital staff, then we have an oncology unit that bids on some of the 75 and then, if we go across a couple more pages, we find at page 45 another two promises: the construction of a hospice at RDH. The hospice will also be staffed from the increase in nurses included out of the 75. The next item is the construction of a birthing centre that will also be staffed from the nurses out of the 75.
I’ve done some quick and dirty maths, and I think that the minister may be able to provide better figures, but the figures I have aren’t too bad and certainly they are sourced. In terms of the oncology facility, I suspect that the ongoing costs will be in the vicinity of $1.27m per annum. The hospice …
Mr Stirling: Well, we’d really trust your figures, wouldn’t we?
Mr DUNHAM: I’m happy for you to provide alternative figures.
Mr Stirling: Who would trust your figures? Discredited!
Mr DUNHAM: Picking up the interjection, the figures may well have a plus or minus factor on them that the minister can clarify for us. But I’d be very surprised …
Mr Stirling: Who cares what figures you put down here? No one would believe them. You might.
Mr DUNHAM: Who cares? We do care, because there is a recurrent factor in here of zero. The reason we care is that, if you want to run this facility, it’s not just a matter of machines and edifices, you actually need recurrent costs. We care because the people who use it will be people suffering …
Mr Stirling: You simply lied in the last budget.
Mr DUNHAM: You’ll have to withdraw that, I’m afraid.
Mr STIRLING: I withdraw that.
Mr DUNHAM: The other reason we care is the people who use this facility are suffering from cancer, and we think it’s important that they have a very clear opinion of a government promise that affects people with this terrible condition. That’s why we care. I was very happy for the interjection.
We think $1.27m is about the recurrent. The hospice, we think $1.5m, and that’s based on the fact that in ACT, I understand a 17-bed facility is about $2.5m. A facility here, you’re probably looking at about half that size but with oncosts, I’d say about $1.5m. The birthing centre - and don’t forget these aren’t in the hospital because the people in the palliative care groups, the people in the birthing centre groups and the midwifery groups do not want a hospital-based service. So, while the government promises to have it on the campus - and there is a very good, sound reason for that - these are not hospital services. In fact, if the hospital is a hospice service, I’m sure that there would be many people out there in the palliative care associations who would have some concerns about that. The three services we’re talking about are coming out of the promise for 75 hospital nurses, and are three services that sit outside the hospital.
The birthing centre, obviously, I would assume would be 24-hours, and obviously it would have qualified midwives and obviously it would have more than one or two of them. The figures here are hard to estimate and I suspect it would cost probably as much as the hospice in terms of its staffing and maybe more. So, I’ve conservatively estimated about another $1.5m. So, we get to $4.27m that is already taken out of the nursing promise.
We also find there has been a sleight of hand in the sense that there has been a figure plucked from the air to say: ‘We think that in the next four years, nurses and medically qualified people will be so happy to live here that we’ll reduce the necessity to recruit them, and we’ll reduce that turnover so much that we’ll be able to find a million bucks worth of savings. In the fourth year, we’ll have a $1m recurrent in not having to recruit those people’. What they are saying is: 75 nurses in the hospital; there’s three services outside the hospital; plus we’re factoring out another $1m that we won’t need because we think that people will be so happy here that we won’t have the same levels of turnover. That’s over $5m.
In year four, we’re talking $5m worth of recurrent coming out of the promise for 75 nurses. The promise for 75 nurses is budgeted for; it’s in the paper at - in the fourth year - $11m per annum. Half of that has disappeared, so the nurses in the hospital who have heard a promise of 75 additional nursing staff in the hospital have been diddled out of half of them. Half of those nurses will not be able to be funded or, alternatively, the three very important services I mentioned, will not be able to run because there’s no recurrent for them.
I would see that this is a very significant issue because the clientele of these services is, as I said, people suffering from cancer, people who are terminally ill, and expectant mothers. I would think that this is a very serious matter for the government to address. None of these clientele should have their emotions toyed with. I believe that if the government is very serious about these problems, and if they’re very serious about solving them with the initiatives that are in these papers here, they should do the sums and they should portray to the people what the circumstances are.
That’s those three, and I would be very keen to hear from the minister her costings and her data about it because the lack of any recurrent defies belief. I would submit that there is absolutely nothing in the health and community services sector that can be done merely by machines and buildings without human services because the big cost, the big intervention, is human services. We’d like to see where they came from. We would like to see where the $5.2m-plus being pinched out of the hospital nurses will go.
We would also like to talk about - and I’m posing these not as solutions, but as questions because none of this data is ours. This data sits with the government. It is not historical data; it sits as promises. The information I’ve been able to garner has come from some other documents that are on the public record and I’m sure they’d be well and truly available to the minister.
Extensions to dialysis treatment - we heard in this current sittings of the Assembly that $400 000 has been provided for Tennant Creek and certainly, that appears to be brought forward because in the budget papers it was for next year. Unfortunately, the papers that I’ve seen - and the minister did talk about the necessity for some reports on this matter. There are some significant reports that are available but specifically address options for development of renal dialysis services in the Barkly. There was some good work done by the Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal and Tropical Health on the prevention and treatment options for renal disease in the Northern Territory with particular reference to the Barkly. I think there are source documents that would give us some indicators there.
Those source documents talk about the necessity for a Commonwealth grant of $555 000 and, in the absence of that grant, those services would be $835 000. That amount grows annually, so it appears that we have half the money in this year’s budget or, alternatively, the Commonwealth government has generously given us significant amount of money to make the service available to us.
I’m not arguing against the service necessarily, but I think that, again, as with the three cohorts of clientele in the other three services, there has been a significant amount of emotion attached to this particular argument. The argument has been such that it has been a censure motion in this House where some outlandish language was used, as one can do in a censure motion, that talked about blood on the hands and people dying while they were waiting for treatment and that sort of stuff. It is now an issue for the government to resolve, and it is an issue for the government to resolve in the sense that often the prognosis for people with end stage renal failure is not good, and they don’t have a long time to survive once they have that particular problem, and they have very few treatment options.
So if the government, having gone to the media, having run this on the TV and locally with people, gone to some small communities were some of these people originate from, cannot describe to us how they are going to facilitate this service within that amount of quantum funding available, they have to do some very hard work to either get the additional money and tell us where that comes from, be very transparent about the origins of the money, and describe the service, including to those people who will use it.
The other one we’d like some more data on is the youth night patrol. The youth night patrol has been costed at $310 000 though I don’t know why, because it appears that the government haven’t been able to describe the service. Certainly, the Minister for Justice appeared incapable of describing the parameters of the service. We do know that it will be 24-hours, articulating with the school-based service. Twenty-four hour services are notoriously expensive, and the reason for that is that, for some reason, people like to be paid more if they work in the middle of the night than if they work in the day. There are such things, with the good work done often by the union movement, people get a thing called penalties. We’re talking about the potential for a fairly expensive service here. We also don’t know how they are going to coerce, cajole, attract these young people into the vehicles to transport them to the shelter or home, whatever this thing is.
Given that there are people in vehicles, as a street intervention, given that somehow there is a legislative or social, or other means of cajoling people into the backs of these vehicles - and I hope they won’t be like night patrol vehicles, but let’s assume that is the name they’ve given them, they’ll be something similar - and that they are not boiled lollies or whatever and that they get these young people to these facilities which are perhaps shelters - I don’t know - I would imagine that they’d have to be very careful about the custodial arrangements that attend on those facilities. It is often the case that a young person who would be roaming the streets late at night, might have some other problems, not just the necessity for a bed. I would suggest that they would have to be very careful about some of the issues attending on those young people’s psychological state, for instance, and they would have to be very mindful, being a government institution, of some of the issues relating to youth suicide.
I would hope that having brought people to this place - we don’t know if it is against their will or not - I assume there would be some monitoring methodology that would be available so that people could monitor the state of these young people and so that you could make sure that some other emergency interventions were readily available in the case that there was a calamity on your hands. We need to know more about this, but in the first place, I would suspect that $310 000 for a 24-hour service that is mobile on the streets of Darwin and Palmerston is petty cash. That is my suggestion, and I would like the minister when she talks to this particular thing, particularly now that it has been announced, to describe the service. I would like to know the target group, I’d like to know their ages, I’d like to know just how this street intercept is going to work in terms of transporting those young people to a different place. I would like to know whether there is to be a legislative base to this, and I’d like to know whether the estimates for the $310 000 are reasonable and if they are, what they are based on.
We would like to also look at the initiatives to tackle illicit drugs, and it should be said at the outset that the opposition would support initiatives of this type.
Mr Stirling: What? Didn’t want to know about it for the years you were health minister! You denied it. Pretended it wasn’t happening. You hypocrite. Absolute hypocrite.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I will say that the word ‘hypocrite’ was objected to by a previous member of this parliament, the previous member for Karama actually, and it was found by Mr Speaker McCarthy at the time to be acceptable, and it got such common use that it was later withdrawn as a word for acceptable use in this parliament.
It is now gaining high level currency again. So if the word ‘hypocrite’ is acceptable, I don’t mind because it is a word I don’t mind using either, particularly in connection with those opposite because the hypocrisy that is shown in terms of the difficulty they have had accepting a service which I would have not only readily accepted, had I been the health minister, but which was in pretty good nick, and now we see it as being the source of a great series of excuses for why things can’t be done, why things have to be curtailed, and cut. I think that those are matters that should be put on the public record and they should be put on the public record in a way that is scientific, that is empirical and that has the basis for, dare I say it, some fiscal integrity and transparency. All of these issues we are talking about here are well and truly on the public record. They exist in figures and descriptions, in budget papers. They exist in press releases. They exist in …
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: You are a very noisy person, aren’t you? You are a very noisy person, and I tell you something: there is a theory that your noise was something you could turn off and on because we used to see it a lot. We now feel that this is possibly something you can no longer control and we are worried about you. The member for Nhulunbuy has obviously been consuming too much bauxite or something because his predecessor, just before he left this parliament, had a similar problem, an irrational rage, a screaming, a ranting, a vein would pop out of the side of his neck. We think that if you are able to control that rage, you should exhibit some of that control. If you are not able to control it, you should probably leave the House for a short time and have a rest.
What we are trying to say here is that these are initiatives that the government was proud enough of to take to the people for an election. They are issues that the government is proud enough of to have included in budget papers, so we know they exist. They are not decisions that have to be made, like we talked about river closures and whatever; these are post factum issues. They are issues that exist in these papers. We are saying to government: we are giving you an opportunity to shout from the rooftops just how good these initiatives are and with many of them, you will be surprised how we will come on board. I mean, it would be a very rare person today who wouldn’t want better service for cancer sufferers. It’s a rare person who wouldn’t want better services for the terminally ill or for expectant mothers.
So this is not something where you should be cowering and trying to gag the debate and have amendments that go back to the past. This is something where you should be setting your direction, and you should be saying to us: Look at this wonderful thing that we are doing for the terminally ill. You would be aware, and certainly a very short perusal of recent Hansards will show that my colleague the member for Port Darwin is heavily involved in this stuff. So we are not doing this as some sort of a tricky thing to say that we don’t support these initiatives. We are merely asking you to do what it is you say in your rhetoric. That is, be open, be consultative, be transparent, and to show - stakeholders, there’s another one - what it is you’re doing. We would see ourselves as stakeholders and we would see ourselves also as supporters with many of these things, so please don’t try and portray this as the opposition trying to embarrass the government because these are your promises. These are your numbers. We didn’t write any of these numbers in here. These numbers have come from the heads and the pens and the calculus of people on your side of politics.
So, returning to illicit drugs. The initiatives to tackle illicit drugs in all probability will be supported by this side of the House with very few exceptions. But we think it is important to look at them, we think it is important to debate them in a wider environment, we think it is important that differences of opinion - and there will be differences of opinion - should be explored because I can tell you that if all 13 of you sitting over there have the same opinion on drugs, you are probably telling porky pies, because this is a human behaviour, it is an illicit behaviour …
Mr Stirling: Which you refused to acknowledge. Didn’t exist!
Mr DUNHAM: That’s an interjection I’ll pick up. ‘You refused to acknowledge.’ This was debated in this House on many occasions, and independent analyses of this government’s efforts in drugs were done by groups outside the Northern Territory, and they rank this jurisdiction as the best in Australia. I’m quite happy to have the debate about history, I’m quite happy to parade our record, and it goes to the point I’m trying to make here. The point I’m trying to make is there will be different views on how effective your strategies are. We want to know about your strategies. We want to know about it. We are vitally keen to talk about it. There is a very strong expectation that a methadone maintenance program will be introduced. They were introduced in other places in Australia, the world won’t come to an end and people will receive methadone maintenance as, I would say, a very poor attempt to treat their addiction.
But the issue for the Labor Party is not to say, you know, we believe in methadone maintenance, you don’t, you’re wrong, we’re right. I think the issue is to explore it from an outcomes point of view. I think the issue for us is to say: ‘Well, let’s describe some end points and not journey points’. Because if all you are doing is describing the meandering path you are taking to get somewhere, it could well be we are actually going to the same place. I would suspect that on some occasions we are on the freeway and you are on the back lanes, but it could well be we both have the same end point in mind. It could well be we debate around this place, but our end points are exactly the same. Then I think some of the issues about how you get there are moot and they are moot to the extent - is it an economic imperative? Is it something that causes some collateral damage in other areas? Is there something that could be more efficiently done? That’s where the debate goes.
I am appealing to this minister to take the debate in that direction, to talk about she has a committee in place. Good idea. My own belief is that some of the issues have been decided and it’s possible that this committee is a charade parading as a consultative device, and it’s parading as consultative device to give some credibility to a decision that’s already been made. Now, if you stood up in this place tonight and you said: ‘Look, we are going to introduce a methadone maintenance program’, we would say: ‘Okay, it’s your call. You’re the government. Do it’. I think there would be an opportunity to debate the pros and cons of it, but it’s not something that we can forestall or abort or in any way make a position for government that has the legislative and resource capacity to do it. If you are going to do it, do it. And that goes to another theme that’s here, and that is the business of getting on with business.
I was reading a motoring magazine the other day, not something I do commonly, but I was reading it and I saw a product advertised to start recalcitrant cars and it was called ‘Start, you bastard’. I have been looking at Independent Motor Mart, which is next to me, and other places because I was hoping to buy a couple of them for the health minister. The problem we have here is inertia. The problem we have here is a ...
Mr Henderson: In your opinion.
Mr DUNHAM: Well, in the opinion of many. In terms of this House, for instance, we could start by signing off on the things we agree with. And there are lots of them. Lots and lots of things. Pretty much Territory Health Services, Health and Community Services, whatever the department is, is doing a lot of the things it used to do. I would suspect that a lot of the advice I got as a minister will be an exact replica of the advice that the current minister is getting. So there are many things we can sign off and say: ‘Well, okay, we agree with that’. We could politicise it, and that’s what the previous opposition health spokesman did. He often came in here with calamities of a particular client. He held up the circumstances of this client and said: ‘This person has disease X or problem Y and it’s the government’s fault’. I would prefer not to take that route because I think that, really, it’s quite a predatory action on the feelings and emotions of people out there. Most of them I think he treated like a dirty tissue anyway and threw their issues aside. But it is also a very offensive way of doing business, to parade the health circumstances of people in such a way.
So we are trying to set a stage here. The stage is if you’ve got all these good initiatives in here, please start boasting about them. Please tell us about them. Please do this fiscal integrity transparency thing with them and tell us what’s going on. We would also like you to start work – like, now - because there has been such a hiatus period that we think you’ve got to get on with the task. We also think that the amendment you’ve put of looking backwards, we could debate that, and I am quite happy to debate that. But I think it’s really in the interests of the government and the people we’re here to serve to look forward and to look at the initiatives that are on the table for the current health minister and for her to describe them fulsomely to us. I have left out Aboriginal health status and disabilities, but I think they are also issues that have to be brought into this argument, and I am hopeful that I will get another opportunity to talk about them tonight.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the motion be amended by omitting all words after ‘That’ and inserting in their stead:
this Assembly expresses its outrage at the CLP government’s deplorable neglect of health and
community services over its 26 years in power and applauds the present government’s
commitment to improving health and community services across the Territory through sound
and fair leadership.
Dr LIM: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. In the previous debate on the fisheries, Madam Speaker was in the Chair, and she in fact counselled the minister not to introduce the amendment until such time as the minister had spoken and at the end of her or his speech, the minister then moved the amendment. I suggest you follow suit.
Mr KIELY: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, might I also say that in the debate prior to that, it was the other way around. That it was really the choice of the Chair and it’s not the part of anyone on the floor to lecture the Chair on their responsibilities.
Mr DUNHAM: Could I speak to the point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker?
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was just about to say is there actually a point of order?
Mr DUNHAM: I think it could be resolved. I think the point that was made to Madam Speaker was that if we move immediately to this amendment, if the amendment is accepted, we are precluded from discussing the motion on the table. Given that this is General Business day, it would be good not to put those motions until the end of the debate. So for the minister to stand up and move the amendment is not a problem. The problem is whether she puts the amendment and precludes debate on the motion before the House from this side on General Business day.
Mr STIRLING: Can I just clear up this matter? It’s simply a mechanism to allow the minister to speak to an amendment. That does not preclude debate on the original motion. Both questions are on the floor. The original motion put forward by the shadow minister, the amendment put forward by the minister. If she chooses to put the amendment at the outset and speaks to the amendment, that is her prerogative.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me. I have something to say. There was clarification of this issue earlier in the evening when the Deputy Chair at that time sought clarification from the Clerk. Now, my understanding of that clarification coincides with what the Leader of Government Business and the Deputy Chief Minister has just stated. That is, members wishing to speak to either the amendment or motion may do so.
Mrs AAGAARD: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker.
I would like to talk tonight about the sad legacy that’s been left for us in the health portfolio, and also to look at the things which I have already started doing in this portfolio to turn this situation around. There have been a lot of questions tonight about funding, the budget and various other matters. The clear thing that we know is that when we came to office, the health budget was in a very, very serious situation indeed. I remind members that the shortfall was a massive $20m. To try and understand what $20m would mean, that represents approximately one-third of the funding available for the non-government sector or, to put it another way, the annual Katherine and Gove District Hospital budgets put together. This is a very significant amount.
We moved very fast to make sure that we could have a sustainable budget in the health portfolio. We had a mini-budget and all the details were already released in the mini-budget, so I feel there is absolutely no reason to go through those statements again. They are all in the mini-budget. I think one of the most serious things that we have been left with is an absolutely appalling legacy in indigenous health. Now I have to say that the former health minister did sign up on one very good thing, and that was on the primary health care zones. But what happened in the time before that? We have the most embarrassing and shameful situation in indigenous health. The outcomes for indigenous Territorians are unbelievable, and not only that, they are a national disgrace.
It is well known that indigenous life expectancy is not increasing at the same rate as non-indigenous life expectancy. In the period 1981 to 1995, life expectancy at birth was 75 years for non-Aboriginal males in the Northern Territory which is similar to that of Australian males overall, but it was only 58 years for Northern Territory Aboriginal males. In other words, an Aboriginal boy in the Territory could expect to live almost 18 years fewer than other Australian boys and while between the early 1980s and the early 1990s life expectancy increased by three years for Australians generally, for Northern Territory Aboriginal males, it only increased by 1.5 years.
For women, there haven’t even been these improvements. Between 1981 and 1995, females in the Northern Territory could expect to live 84 years, but not if they were Aboriginal. There was a 22 year gap. That’s a life expectancy of 62 years and, while life expectancy for non-Aboriginal Territorian women increased by two years between the early 1980s and early 1990s, there was barely any improvement for Aboriginal females. The health gains being enjoyed by other Australians are simply not being shared by Northern Territory Aboriginal people.
It is an absolutely appalling legacy that the CLP has left us.
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex, order! I ask the minister to resume her seat. Now, I point out to members in the House that when the shadow minister was speaking, there were limited interjections and when there was interjection, I called for order. I would ask members of the House to respect the minister’s speech. Continue, Minister for Health and Community Services.
Mrs AAGAARD: Since we’ve come to office, I’ve signed off on another seven primary health care zones. This will actually mean a very significant change in Aboriginal health over the next few years. Also, I made a point of going to visit the federal health minister soon after she was elected to government. I might add that I was the only health minister from any part of Australia that had actually visited her, and I’d have to say that we had a very cordial meeting. She has a strong commitment to indigenous affairs and I believe that the relationship which we started then will ensure that in fact indigenous matters in the Northern Territory in the health portfolio will in fact blossom over the next few years.
One of the most serious issues which I inherited from the previous government was something which I’ve already talked about in this House in these sittings, and that is the Alice Springs Hospital. I’d like to give a little bit of a history here. I became the minister on 27 August last year. I visited the Alice Springs Hospital the following week, which I am sure the members on the other side will be pleased to hear. In the week following that, I received a very urgent briefing from my department about the critical situation in the Alice Springs Hospital.
I immediately authorised a review of the Alice Springs Hospital, and the review was undertaken by Dr John Mulligan who is the Vice-President of the Australian Council on Health Care Standards. This report was delivered to me in October and we moved immediately to implement the things in the review. I’m very happy to say that there is a turnaround in the Alice Springs Hospital. There is a turnaround, and isn’t it wonderful that we’d won the election because otherwise goodness knows what the people of Alice Springs would be expecting now from their hospital.
Another situation we inherited: the private wing of the Alice Springs Hospital. Once again; this is a very sad situation. The issue with the private wing of the Alice Springs Hospital is that in the minds of the people who wish to put in a tender for this hospital wing, 15 beds was not a viable service for a private hospital. That’s the advice that I received from my department: 15 beds was not a viable service.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. Now on two occasions - I was happy to let her go last night- the minister has talked about a tender process. There was not a tender process, and I would like her to table those documents relating to the tender.
Mr Stirling: She doesn’t have to table anything.
Mr Dunham: She is not right, mate. It’s called a fib.
Dr Lim: And you know it’s not right.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Which point of order specifically are you referring to?
Mr DUNHAM: She has referred both last night and tonight to a tender process that involved some bidders, and I would like her to table the papers relating to that tender process.
Mr HENDERSON: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the member for Drysdale can’t ask for or demand any documents to be tabled in this House unless the member is quoting from them, so he’s in no position and there’s no standing order to compel the minister to table any document that she is not talking from.
Mr DUNHAM: Unless she is claiming there was a process that didn’t exist, which could be a fib.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. If you want to raise any issue of accuracy, you may do that in reply.
Mrs AAGAARD: Another area which has already been touched on tonight is that of illicit drugs. Sadly, the previous government did not really have a strategy for drugs. We moved quickly to establish a Ministerial Task Force on Illicit Drugs and I know that the member for Drysdale has made comments in regards to drugs in the Northern Territory. I’d like to invite him to make a submission at one of the public hearings of this task force. They’ll be meeting in Palmerston, they’ll be meeting in Darwin, they’re going to Alice Springs, they’re going to Nhulunbuy, Katherine, Tennant Creek, and I’d be very pleased if he made a submission.
Also, the member for Drysdale believes that we have already decided on what sort of actions are going to happen in relation to drugs in the Northern Territory. We have a task force which is a group of experts plus, I might add, Dr Valerie Asche who is a community member of this group, who are looking at these issues very seriously. They’ll be reporting to government with recommendations on the ways in which we should move ahead. We’ll look at those, and we will take up those things which we are able to at the time.
Linked with drugs is the sad situation in relation to the Northern Territory Tobacco Act. For the last three years, we’ve received the Dirty Ashtray Award. I sincerely hope we don’t receive it again this year. Next month, in March, we will be releasing a discussion paper which will outline options for changes to the Northern Territory Tobacco Act. Tobacco, as most people know, has very serious health consequences. It is linked to heart disease, stroke as well as cancer. In fact, one out of five Territorians die from direct smoking consequences. This is a very serious matter.
Another area which bothers us is the area of disability. On taking office, once again, this was an area which was completely in disarray. In relation to disability and the unmet need funding, this is something which we have looked at very carefully. We have already conducted public forums on the unmet needs of people with disabilities and, as the member for Karama pointed out last night, the feedback from the sector is that they believe there has been a much fairer distribution of unmet need funding in their latest allocation rounds, and the funds have gone to the key areas of need and priority. This is evidence that funding for this crucial sector follows our commitment to listen to and consult with those affected. This is the kind of accessibility that counts.
I guess one of the most difficult areas in this portfolio has been the non-government sector. The non-government sector appears to have been significantly neglected over the past few years. Quite a number of non-government sector people have come to me and have said: ‘We haven’t received any extra funding for seven years. We have got CPI increases in the last couple of years, but we haven’t had any significant increases for seven years’. This is a very, very difficult situation for a new government, particularly when we have funding constraints, so what we have set in place is a way of reviewing that whole system of the non-government sector and in another sittings, I will be reporting on that.
Accessibility seemed to have been something that bothered the members opposite last night. I’d like to say that I’ve actually met with several hundred, not just non-government sector people because they’re not the only people in the health sector. There are also peak bodies. I know that the previous government wasn’t very interested in peak bodies, but we’ve made a real effort to have a relationship with different organisations.
I have already established quarterly meetings with the Nurses Federation, with the AMA, with the Division of General Practice, the Dental Association, also various unions who are involved with the health sector. All of these people have said to me: ‘We’ve never had access to a health minister before’, and they keep coming back and bringing up issues, and we’re dealing with them.
There were some very sad comments made last night in relation to my department and the staff in my department. I would like to - on the record - state my absolute commitment both to my CEO, the management of my department, and also to the many hard-working people in my department. This is a very difficult portfolio and it is a very difficult department as well. The issues that we deal with are ones of life and death and I can only say that, as the minister for health, I am very happy that I have such a professional department to assist me in this portfolio.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, It is very late and I really don’t think that it is necessary for us to go on with this too much. I’d be happy to just sit down and get on with the rest of the evening.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, goodness me, what an exhausting time the Minister’s having. No, I can’t support this motion and I’m going to tell you why and by that I mean, of course, the amended motion.
Yesterday we heard the minister’s statement in response to various things and it lacked a lot of substance. The community here in the Northern Territory wants answers to health issues. Not all of this sort of waffle that we got tonight. For example, here are a couple of questions for the minister. What I’d like to know is: are non-registered staff still being used at Alice Springs Hospital? Yesterday she claimed that three weeks after she was appointed to the position of minister, she learnt there were problems at Alice Springs Hospital. Goodness me! It took three weeks to figure that one out, three weeks to learn that her second-largest hospital was in strife.
Now she is claiming that there’s been a big increase in staffing down in Alice Springs Hospital over recent times. Well, let’s know how many. How many extra nurses have you got in? Comparing that to, of course, how many vacancies do you still have down there? Once again, I ask: are non-registered staff still being used at Alice Springs Hospital?
That brings me to Royal Darwin Hospital. I’ve been told that Royal Darwin’s having trouble filling shifts every single day. In fact, they are having to use 60 agency shifts per day to fill the rosters.
Mrs Aagaard: Oh, so they fill the rosters?
Ms CARTER: Okay, they are filling the positions there on the boards, but that raises the issue of occupational health and safety. What I understand is happening is that those 60 shifts that are being filled by nurses every day at Royal Darwin Hospital are not nurses fresh from a restful day at home, or fresh from looking after the children during the morning and coming to work in the afternoon. Many of those shifts are being done as double shifts by public service nurses who, for example, might have worked an early shift in the morning. Then we’re having trouble recruiting and retaining staff at the hospital. We want to know what percentage of your agency staff has already worked the shift during that day in the hospital? It is dangerous to have nursing staff, or any staff, working hour after hour. There’s a question for you because we are not getting too many answers.
The promises of the Labor government have included that we will have 75 new nurses over the next four years. The shadow minister has capably explained away many of those positions. We have the details there: 10 this year, 30 next year, 35 the year after. We are six months into your term. What I’d like to know is: have the vacancies that are already there been filled? Have those extra five nurses that the last six months should have had on board, have they come in? Have you recruited them? The reason being, as I said yesterday, many nurses would have voted Labor based on that promise. I argue you’ve deceived them because I bet you those five nurses haven’t arrived - even one extra allocation in every hospital through the Northern Territory in the last six months. I guarantee you it hasn’t happened.
There’s an interesting little strategy that the Labor government has brought in during the last six months. It was a bit of a Christmas present for nurses. It’s a beauty, this one. For nurses who have been here two years, they get a study grant of $300. For nurses who have been here for five years, they get a study grant of $600. I can tell you from my friends who are nurses - and most of them have been here for more than five years – there was quite a giggle factor attached to that. Why is that? Sure, nurses appreciate study grants and they appreciate getting extra money in their pay packet, but they just can’t believe that this money was just handed out, that there’s no expectation that you actually do some study to get the grant. You don’t have to front up with your receipts for doing a course or your receipts for buying some text books. That money just turned up in the pay packet the week before Christmas. I can tell you my husband was delighted with the arrival of that money, and I can’t for the life of me understand why you didn’t attach that money to some requirement to actually have to do some studies.
Mr Henderson: Did he spend it on study? Did he?
Ms CARTER: No, he didn’t spend it on study. Of course, he didn’t.
Mr Stirling: He should give it back because he’s been dishonest by your own terms.
Ms CARTER: No, why would he?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Mr Stirling: About as honest as you are, you idiot!
Mr DUNHAM: I think ‘idiot’ is a little out of order, don’t you Madam Speaker, particularly when it’s coming from an idiot?
Madam SPEAKER: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear him. Order!
Ms CARTER: I am just pointing out to you, that if you’ve got an activity like this - this would have cost you in government hundreds of thousands of dollars, this little activity here. The nurses wouldn’t mind in the least. I can tell you from other friends that they wouldn’t have minded in the least if you’d attached it to some form of requirement to actually do something.
But many of them were shaking their heads because they know how tight money is and many of them have shaken their heads over this little effort of yours. Of course, the reality is that this is a recurrent activity. Every year from now on, this little thing is going to turn up in their pay packet and quite frankly, on behalf of nurses, thank you very much for it. I’m just astounded that you haven’t attached to it some requirement that some study be done. Indeed, as the member for Araluen says, its probably inexperience that’s caused it. So as a retention activity, I doubt very much whether it is going to have any sort of impact.
Let’s go on to the hospice. I’m very pleased that there’s been a working party, and I certainly was aware of that, anyway, that there was a working party set up to look at the hospice. The research that I’ve conducted over the last couple of years on this instance does get me into a little trouble …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Look, I’m not going to tolerate that sort of interruption at this time of night. Now just stop it or else you will all be thrown out. The member for Port Darwin should be heard in silence. And that applies to the member for Drysdale, as well as everyone else, because you have been very disruptive this evening. Now, all of you, on both sides of the House, stop it!
Ms CARTER: Madam Speaker, I am pleased that there’s been a working party set up to look at the hospice. I know when I raise this issue from time to time it upsets some people. My concern has always been with regard to the size of the proposed hospice. From the research that I have conducted I have been told that you must have a unit that has at least 15 beds. At the moment in Darwin, we don’t generate the need for a 15 bed hospice but that has been a decision that the Labor people have made. And good luck to you, and I am glad in that way that you have done it, but I do have serious concerns about the viability of such a unit. The minister for health has raised this issue of viability a couple of times during the last few days. One instance she raised the issue of the Palmerston Health Clinic and the 24 hour service. Because of the cost involved, not viable, can’t have it. At another time, the 15 bed private health wing in Alice Springs Hospital - 15 beds, not viable, can’t have it. So this raises with me a concern that a hospice that might have let say 10 to 12 beds is not going to be viable.
What do we do in that instance? Well, we might be a little bit creative. We might make it a 20 bed unit and at this point in time we might have six or seven palliative care patients in there. Who are the other patients that might be in that unit? I would argue that they might be nursing home patients. I have very serious concerns about co-locating a nursing home and hospice. Why do I have those concerns? Because of the research that I have done. I have visited many hospices in many countries, I am pleased to say, and I have had advice from absolute experts in this area: do not co-locate palliative care patients in a nursing home environment. Why is that? Because the nursing home patients will be in that place possibly for years. What do they see? People dying day after day. They see the ravages of an illness such as cancer and how disturbing will that be for them? That is one of the reasons why it has been put to me strongly: do not co-locate nursing home and hospice patients.
My other concern, of course, is what type of nursing home patient/client might you have in this place and, without putting a fine point on it, I know there are some very difficult, heavy nursing cases in Darwin with brain-damaged young people. Possibly they might be the sort of people that you are having trouble placing and they may be the sort of people that you are tempted to co-locate in a hospice, a place for the dying.
I put it to the minister to think very carefully if you are planning a joint facility in order to have a hospice, a building with a badge called hospice on it. Be very careful about the sort of patients and clients that you put in there because one of the problems, of course, is once that it starts to become a nursing home you find it is swamped by nursing home-type patients and the people who require palliative care can’t get a bed. The nursing staff who want to concentrate on palliative care, who want to provide that special kind of service, don’t want to provide nursing home care. It is a different sort of service and they would not be attracted to providing services like that in such a unit.
So be very careful with what you are going to do with your hospice, and certainly I hope you come out with a discussion paper so that the community can have some sort of input in to what you want to do there.
I will also mention the youth patrol. I understand the promise is for $320 000 a year for the youth night patrol. I have very serious concerns about how well this is going to work, but I agree with the minister for justice that you do have to try these things to see how they go and to offer a variety of services to the community. As I say, I do have concerns about it. My preference would be to see the sobering-up shelter expanded. At the moment what’s happening on particular nights of the week is that it doesn’t take very long, a few hours before it is fully booked up, and, of course, that means that clients that could have gone to the sobering-up shelter are going out to the lockup and that is not really good enough. My preference, as I say, would be to see that expanded.
Just as a quick note, and perhaps the minister can respond at some point, I noticed that over the Christmas period I called in to the Darwin Community Health Centre one morning and it was shut. I don’t know how long it was shut for during that period, but it is a concern that that community service had been closed down. In the same light, Breast Screen has also had a long period of time where it has been shut down. I did have one woman contact me with concerns over it and so it is an issue out there in the community. I believe it was shutdown for about three months and that is a real issue.
In conclusion, I don’t support this amended motion. I think that the minister is probably a nice person, she has been elected by her friends in caucus but ability is the key characteristic that is needed here, not popularity. The current minister has really failed to demonstrate ability. She says that she has consulted widely and is accessible to key agencies because she attends lots of public functions. Well, I’m sure many of us are aware, particularly in the non-government sector, the frustration that many of the key people have had in trying to meet with the minister and instead are told: ‘If you’ve got a problem, speak to one of my minders’.
We have also heard that since she has come in to the position, she has spoken several hundred people during that period. Well, a little bit of maths there works it out: if that’s 200 people in 26 weeks, she has seen about eight people a week. Quite frankly, in that sort of position you really need to be opening your diary up and allowing yourself to meet many more people; I would say at least 20 people a week. I think eight is nowhere near good enough.
There is also a little rumour around that the minister does like to get home at a reasonable hour and I guess we can all understand that. But is it all a little bit too hard? The minister does only have one portfolio. My recommendation at this point of time is that if she’s not finding it something that she can cope with, do the right thing and ask her friends to re-elect somebody else and certainly my recommendation would be either the member for Arafura or the member for Johnston.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to the amended motion. It is a very balanced motion in that not only does it deplore the neglect of health and community services over the 26 years in power, it also applauds our commitment to improving those outcomes on behalf of the Territory people. I would like to touch on both those themes with regard to remote health issues, particularly with some examples drawn from my background including my electorate in Central Australia.
I think you could say without any fear of contradiction that if you want to look around at where the neglect of our health system has been most damaging to Territorians, it would have to be in our bush communities. Where we debate the levels of secondary and tertiary health services in our urban centres, in many of the remote communities it is still a battle to get primary health care consolidated and effective for the population. What we have reaped from that is an increasing, tragic harvest of chronic disease and other disabilities that have flowed increasingly into our central health services overburdening everything from accident and emergency to the chronic disease wards to child care wards. Essentially, the situation, far from getting better over the last 20 years I’ve been out bush, has escalated into further and further dysfunction, particularly when you look at the situation with chronic disease, and very preventable diseases, the things that can be dealt with, the preventative health, primary health care level to the point where even simple things like keeping hydration rates up in adults in communities can make a huge difference on the possibility of the development of renal disease. Very, very simple things, and it would require only that we consolidate a basic service in these communities. Surely that is not too much to ask.
In the case of Labor, we are taking up this challenge. It is a considerable challenge, and it is going to be a very difficult challenge to meet. But the way we’re going to proceed - and we’re very open about this - it was built in to the full range of our policies prior to the election, we are going to work in very strong partnerships with people in the Northern Territory, very strong partnerships with people in our remote population centres. We have recognised that we need to mobilise and work with community groups to achieve any improvement in the current situation. This approach underpins all of our main policies in health, in education, employment creation, economic development, and in crime prevention. So you will see a very consistent approach from this government, in terms of the way we are going to set about it.
The most recent example that I’ve been involved in was the launch of our crime prevention policies and our Office of Crime Prevention. The hallmark of that is going to be a very wide system of community groups and community advisory structures that we can go to, to jointly generate ideas on how to tackle these problems. The same will apply to health; the same will apply to education, very much embodied in the Collins report, which we are, for the first time, going to give serious implementation to. The Collins report not only talks about health and education, but it talks about the need for both health and education to be put under very strong local control as well as the input from government.
If you are going to talk about employment in remote communities, you have to have very strong participation and mobilisation of the local community. These are more than just broad themes; they are practical principles which will steer government initiatives, community by community, neighbourhood by neighbourhood.
Let me take some examples based on health issues in the bush. When dealing with indigenous communities, the principles I’ve outlined dictate that the process should be driven and owned by the people themselves. This empowered community approach has been historically lacking in many of the dealings between government administrations and indigenous communities throughout our history. We understand that a regime imposed on a community, no matter how well meaning in intent, will not succeed without the empowerment of that community to make decisions and run programs, and hence own the outcomes. The notion that we know what is best for them is the thing of the past. This is not to suggest that we will be abandoning responsibility for providing clinics and other health services, but rather that we will be more focussed on working with communities in partnership to achieve better health outcomes.
On 28 September 2001, the NT government signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Commonwealth government aimed at accessing Commonwealth funding for increasing indigenous people’s access to primary health care services through their new Primary Health Care Access Program. Through this Memorandum of Understanding, the Territory stands to significantly benefit by the Commonwealth accepting responsibility for funding the shortfall associated with the inaccessibility of the Medicare system to NT indigenous people. By signing the MOU, the Territory is poised to receive significantly increased funding for comprehensive primary health care and improved joint planning processes. The Commonwealth has already approved $2.1m per annum in Primary Health Care Access Program funding for five Central Australian zones. The total amount of funding to be allocated to the NT health care system is likely to be in excess of $60m. The five Central Australian zones to benefit from this injection of funds are Anmatjere, Eastern Arrernte Alyawarra, Northern Barkly, Warlpiri and Luritja-Pintubi. This funding increase will have a dramatic impact on improving the health services and primary health care in these communities. In addition to the five Central Australian zones, two further zones are to be established this year for Borroloola and Darwin. Others will follow.
You have got to ask: what was the previous government doing, for years on end where this negotiation has been concluded within months of us getting into government? We are serious about getting resources out there, and we’re serious about putting those resources and the programs under more direct joint management arrangements with the groupings that I’ve outlined in this statement.
So, what’s out there in these zones? What are we building on? We have committed professionals, both Aboriginal and others, who have struggled for many years to improve health and wellbeing, hampered by a shameful lack of resources and a lack of sympathy and commitment by the previous government. I am sure that the new funding will greatly encourage these people to get in there and have another go at building these services into a consolidated form - in many cases for the first time.
We have a rich history of local successes, often ephemeral, but strong indicators of best practice and local innovation which can serve as a starting point for development of broader and more consistent programs. We have Aboriginal and professional leaders, people who are always ready to respond with energy and goodwill to the prospect of mutual initiatives with government. You have to admire their persistence and resilience given the number of times in the past where they have committed all to an initiative on behalf of their people, only to find the support wasn’t there as promised or was frittered away over time. They are there. They’ll have another go, and there will certainly be goodwill and consistent support on our part. If they want to go a mile, we’ll go a mile with them.
We have the crucial ability of communities to break through the constraints which often prevent broad and holistic approaches bridging education, health and employment to be formulated. It is only when you get to the community level that the barriers that often appear between agencies within a government can be broken down by the sheer imperative of having to work together to make any impact on the very serious problems and challenges that people in remote communities are facing. I am sure that the arrival of government espousing a clear commitment to local partnerships will engender an exciting renewal for remote and regional based people in the health and related areas.
I will cite, just very quickly, some examples of the sort of growing points that I’m talking about. The communities of Ali Curung, Lajamanu and Yuendumu have developed Aboriginal law and justice programs, Ali Curung being by far the most established. Lajamanu is substantially on the way to getting programs together, Yuendumu is just starting. What is so important in those initiatives is that, by starting at a much broader level within the community of reasserting the authority of the senior people in the families of that community, by reasserting the relationship of their authority with the authority of our courts, our police, our health professionals and our educators, they’ve been able to develop a very powerful climate in which to put individual initiatives that might be addressing violence against women, truancy and vandalism by children, substance abuse by adults, and, of course, interwoven with all of that, the impact that all of those activities are having on the health of the people in the community.
The establishment, for example, of safe houses for women in both Lajamanu and Ali Curung have led naturally to women’s health programs, to nutrition programs for infants. So one thing flows into the other and that’s what happens when you break open the barriers from one type of government program to another and involve a very strong commitment by the local community. They’re living examples of what could be done and will be done with this new funding and with this new approach in zones within our remote communities.
In the area of telemedicine, the earlier work which I was very pleased to be involved in with Tanami Network and the current bids by the ODN open up enormous possibilities for telemedicine to be put out bush, not as an imposed initiative originating from town, but as a partnership between community based organisations with Aboriginal directors and health professionals working in our health system.
One example I will highlight tonight is the very real possibility of having very powerful eye care programs originating from the urban centres like Alice Springs where, literally, a health worker or a nurse in a community armed with a digital camera and special lighting can take a digital image of a person’s eyes, transmit it immediately into town for archiving and examination by a specialist which then serves as a base for our periodic visits for surgery on conditions that can be operated on, and certainly, over time, providing a very good record of the progress of any disease in a particular person’s case. That’s a very easy innovation once we’ve got the digital technologies out there and it means the placement of an eye specialist in Alice Springs actually transmits to a service that goes throughout the region with very simple equipment and with very little cost involved in terms of the transmission of these images.
The last one I would like to call attention to is the nutrition programs at Laramba community. I certainly highlighted these some time ago in this House. That is again a situation where a very strong partnership between, in this case, the Laramba Community Council and specialists working in the nutrition area – everything from horticulturists going out to that community to help them produce their own fresh food through to the nutritionists giving the community advice on the best way to prepare and mix those food types for everyone from children to the old and the infirm. So there’s a community that’s realised that everything leads together; there are educational aspects to that program, there is the actual job creation of growing their own fresh produce and then the work that the health workers and nurses have been trained into those specialties to carry out the program.
Madam Speaker, I can say we are very excited about this program. It’s a new approach and it’s certainly an increased resource base that will impact on the key areas that we’ve got to do something about. We’ve got to turn around the generation of more cases of chronic disease that are flowing into our hospital system and eating up enormous resources within our health budget and within our health system. We are very committed to this and it’s very much in line with the approach we are taking in government to the programs we are initiating.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I rise to make a short contribution to this debate. I am aware of the late hour, so I will get through this quickly. I am starting to get an impression of how the health policy the minister for health is going to proceed. I have only had a chance to glance at it fairly quickly, but I have brought up the Labor Party’s health policy and platform, some six pages or five pages off the Internet to discover, as I go through the objectives - and I’ve yet to go through the rest of the paper in any detail - that the word ‘hospital’ in their whole health policy appears once. The word ‘nurse’ does not appear, neither does the word ‘doctor’.
Mr Henderson: We have a hospital policy. There’s about 20 pages of it. Wrong policy.
Mr ELFERINK: That’s interesting because this is the stuff that you put out to the public. Have you got another policy out there? This is very interesting because he says: ‘Oh, we’ve got about 20 pages of it’. Well, put it on the Internet. Or have you got another policy that you have tucked away in a draw and one for public consumption?
I listened also very carefully to the Attorney-General’s contribution. He mentioned the word ‘nurse’ twice, once for the purpose of taking photographs - which is no doubt important - of peoples eyes; the second time he used the word ‘nurse’ was in delivery of another primary care service, a nutritional program. Did he use the word ‘doctor’? No. I didn’t hear him use it. Did he use the word ‘hospital’? No. I didn’t hear him use it.
Considering that one of the problems we have, and certainly the minister for health herself alluded to this issue, is that the hospitals are currently one of the major problems in the Northern Territory, and the Alice Springs Hospital is certainly, no doubt. The tales that I hear, the stories that I hear of people lying on trolleys in A and E not for a few hours, but for days, waiting for beds to become available. When the superintendent of the hospital himself at a recent meeting made observations as to how the hospital was run, you would have thought that he would have made some effort to try and temper his language, but the term that he used was ‘continual crisis’. And when he was referring to the ICU, he used the term ‘unsafe’.
We heard from the minister for health that she has been to Alice Springs once. Shortly after she was made the minister, she visited Alice Springs and she said …
Dr Toyne: Nonsense. She’s been down there a half a dozen times.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, whatever. But the point is that she says: ‘I was made minister on such and such a date’ - 27 August if memory serves me. ‘I then decided that Alice Springs Hospital had a problem so I ordered a review which I got in October’. I find it a little bit surprising that if a hospital superintendent would go to a health minister and say: ‘We have a serious problem’, use the term ‘crisis’ and the health minister acknowledges the word ‘crisis’ and she then engages in a review which takes a month. Surely she can respond more effectively than that. But we find that she says: ‘Now we have set about creating Aagaard’s turnaround. We are going to turn around the Alice Springs Hospital’. Well, the Alice Springs Hospital is still 50 nurses short and there is no sign whatsoever that those 50 placements are going to be found. This problem is still going on. The problem continues to this day. They say: ‘Oh, it’s a product of the former CLP government’, but the fact is that their promises say that they’re going to fix up these issues and their promises are failing to fix up these issues. In fact, they’re getting worse. The situation in the hospital in Alice Springs today is worse than it was when they came to power.
The other issue which I wish to raise fairly quickly is the issue of the doctor at Hermannsburg, and I heard the Attorney-General saying: ‘We are going to be starting to put real effort into the bush. We are going to have primary health carers as one of our major issues’. I would like to hear from the government why on earth, then, with this focus on this primary approach -so people won’t end up in hospitals further down the track, I presume is the thought behind it - why on earth is the Northern Territory government cutting $25 000 of support away from the doctor’s position in Hermannsburg?
I’m not hearing anything, Madam Speaker. This sort of issue has to be addressed. I understand the direction that the members opposite and certainly the minister for health is trying to take her department. I have a great faith in the primary approach, but I really would like the minister for health to turn her attention to words like ‘hospitals’, ‘doctors’ and ‘nurses’ as well as all of the other aspects that she is talking about and, second, explain to the people of Hermannsburg why she is taking money away from their services that they enjoy in the bush.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I won’t take long. I am conscious of the time. I rise to speak tonight in support of the amended motion. I sit here listening to all the rhetoric going on about Aboriginal health. I have spent the last nine or 10 years at the coalface of Aboriginal health. Let’s talk about the health services; let’s talk about hospitals. The former health minister sitting over there, let’s talk about hospitals.
I was really surprised at the comments from the member for Port Darwin. Here is somebody who is sitting on the opposition benches who actually has some expertise in health, a female, who has never made it in to the health portfolio, and someone who has worked for a long time in the hospital, surely she could have been used a bit more.
In terms of the hospital system, and a lot of the arguments and debates that have been going on about hospitals, and we, who have all worked in the community control sector know that the current minister certainly has her job cut out for her in terms of the legacy that has been left by the CLP government. We look at the neglect that’s been out there …
Mr Dunham: Don’t think so.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Well, you and I can have this argument until the cows come home, but we won’t. You need to face the fact that when we talk about clinics that have been understaffed, there was a word: unsustainable. There have been a lot of clinics out in remote areas that have been unsustainable for a long time, where staffing levels have been unsafe for a long time. Did you do anything about it in the past? No. I, too, have talked to a number of nurses. I’ve actually worked with a number of nurses.
All the problems that you have purported to have suddenly come to the forefront on 18 August when our government came in, that these things have suddenly come out on the 18 August. I don’t think so. These are issues and problems that have been escalating for a long time.
Your hospital systems have been blowing out for a long time and now they’ve hit crisis point. They’ve been hitting crisis point for a long time. If you look at the hospitalisation rates of Aboriginal people in your hospital systems - why? Because you have got inadequate services out in your remote areas. There were never any proper primary health care services put out in the bush to try and decrease the hospitalisation rates of those people coming in. There’s never been effective chronic disease management, and because of that, those problems have been exacerbated; they’ve become worse.
I pick up on just a couple of comments that were made last night. The member for Port Darwin talks about gagging and the Public Sector Management Act. I know a number of very good public servants who were gagged for a long time and who actually hid, for a long time, their political affiliations because of fear of retribution. So, not only does this side of the House have it; we have it, too, where there has been retribution.
Dr LIM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We know that we cannot refer to a previous debate within the same session of parliament. That’s what she’s doing about yesterday’s debate.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I’m speaking to the amendment motion.
Madam SPEAKER: I don’t think there is any point of order. The member is referring to Hansard and that has been done many times in this House, as you know.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The issue of violence and nurses, that is something that, yes, we do have to address. The funny thing is, suddenly it becomes - and the current Minister for Health and Community Services mentioned it in an interview that she did - this problem didn’t just come on 18 August. This was a problem that was around for years, for a long time. You talk to nurses out there, and they will tell you that the issue of violence against nurses has been around for a long time.
Mr Dunham: It’s on the increase.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Increasing?
Mr Dunham: In the last six months
Ms SCRYMGOUR: In the last six months? Yes, Steve, okay. The member for Drysdale says it’s only in the last six months. Well, I beg to differ.
Mr Dunham: No, it’s on the increase. If you pick up the interjection, pick it up properly.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, quiet!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: She talks about safety audits as well. Safety audits - maybe there should have been an audit done of some of the clinics that have been in the past. There are some good ones in here, I should have kept the pages. The member for Greatorex: ‘Six nurses recently resigned due to overly heavy workloads and the inability of the hospital to recognise …’ - this is the Alice Springs Hospital - ‘… and rectify the problem’.
My recollection: I know back in 1994-95, there were numerous problems with Alice Springs Hospital and the ability of that hospital to actually try and retain - and there were some good nursing staff there. It was only through the work with Congress, the Aboriginal medical service down there, working with the hospital, that a lot of the nursing staff and doctors - the nurses didn’t resign. You are making it seem that the nurses resigned because of the Labor government, and that suddenly the heavy workload that this government put on them. This was our legacy that we inherited.
The other hypocrisy – a long wait for surgery query: ‘Alice Springs Hospital elective surgery waiting list for 13 months’. 13 months? Then you say: ‘Elective surgery in Alice Springs suffered so greatly in the last six months’. It just doesn’t add up. Someone is waiting 13 months, but you are saying that it suffered in the last six months. I think this problem has been around for a long time, and you people have just suddenly woken up to it.
Mr Dunham: You’re the ones whingeing about it. We’re asking you to tell us about your initiatives.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, we’re talking about the neglect and what we are having to work through.
Primary health care services: the clinics that have been understaffed; the instability of staff; where nurses and Aboriginal health workers have been left, in isolation from everyone else, to handle health services - perform the services of doctors. There are a lot of nurses who actually operate just as well as doctors out there. What reward do they get? There was very little reward for those people. They certainly had a government that didn’t think very highly of them.
Mr Dunham: Not true.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Your track record stands for itself.
Madam Speaker, I won’t say any more. I think I’ve gone through most of it. I await the member for Greatorex because I’m sure he’s going to go through a number of things. I support the amended motion.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, my colleague, the member for Drysdale, moved a motion which was seeking information from the Minister for Health and Community Services.
I don’t need to go through the four paragraphs again, but they were precisely to seek information from the government, what its intended initiatives will be; how she was going to get the funding; and to try and develop, in our minds, a picture of what the Labor government intends to do. She got up and moved a motion of no relevance to the motion that the member for Drysdale moved, then proceeded to read another prepared speech. I said yesterday that anybody can read a speech prepared by somebody else, just read it out. It’s a pity that this minister is not across her portfolio sufficiently such that she can deal with direct questions from one person to her.
There are significant problems. The minister talks about the Alice Springs Hospital turning around. How can the Alice Springs Hospital be turned around for the better when the Acting Medical Superintendent said to my colleagues, the members for Araluen and Macdonnell, and myself in the presence of the Acting Director of Nursing, the Acting General Manager of the hospital, and in the presence of a ministerial advisor from the Central Australian office of the Chief Minister, that the hospital is in crisis, that it has got worse. That it has got worse, those were his words.
Then, when I asked the question specifically - and I know that hospital very well; I’ve worked in Alice Springs as a medical practitioner since 1981. I have kept close contact with all the staff there and I do know the circumstances in that hospital - ‘Have you communicated your concerns to the minister?’, the Acting General Manager said: ‘No, that’s not my line of contact; I tell my department, my CEO’. That he did. He told us very plainly that he communicated his concerns to his CEO. I assume if the CEO knows, then the minister would know. But nothing has changed. ‘Have you had any response?’, I asked. The answer was: ‘No, we have had no response from Darwin’. Now, that is information that we received in a room with six people sitting there listening to it. So it’s no lie. It’s the truth. It’s comment made by very senior officers of the Alice Springs Hospital and yet this government continues to deny that there is a problem.
We spoke at another time about the private hospital, we’ve spoken about the emergency department and how badly run it is. The quote that the member for Arafura made just a short while ago about the six nurses, let me read it again for her erudition. It comes from his article called ‘Alice Springs Hospital in Crisis Mode’, and it appeared in the Centralian Advocate of 25 January 2002. It was a letter to the editor, and this person wrote:
- Six nurses recently resigned due to overly heavy workloads and the inability of the hospital to
recognise and rectify the problem.
Here comes the army to protect the minister for health. I mean, there are more bodyguards on that side of the Chamber when the health minister sits there than when the Chief Minister comes in. What a farce. What a farce.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Greatorex has been in this Chamber for long enough to know that he should not reflect on the presence or otherwise of a member in this House.
Madam SPEAKER: There is a point of order, member for Greatorex. There is a point of order; I have ruled there is a point of order.
Dr LIM: Yes, let me speak to it, if I may.
Madam SPEAKER: No, I have ruled. There is a point of order.
Dr LIM: I have not referred to anybody in the Chamber. I said when …
Dr Toyne: You’re dissenting.
Dr LIM: I have the right to …
Mr STIRLING: Throw him out, Madam Speaker. You’re dissenting from the Chair.
A point of order, Madam Speaker! There is a point of order, Madam Speaker. He’s dissenting from your decision.
Madam SPEAKER: I have ruled.
Dr LIM: I did not reflect on anybody’s absence or presence.
Madam SPEAKER: I’m afraid you did, and that is the way it came across. Just withdraw it.
Dr LIM: I withdraw it if I did, but I am certain I did not.
Madam SPEAKER: Unreservedly.
Dr LIM: What I said - I withdraw. I said that …
Madam SPEAKER: Just get on with your debate.
Dr LIM: No, I am just trying to - I’ve withdrawn the comment.
When the minister for health is in her chair, there are lots of other people in this room protecting her, but whenever - and she needs the protection of the bodyguards that the Chief Minister herself does not require; that’s how insecure the ministry and the Labor members feel about the health minister. That’s how insecure they feel about her, that they have to be here to run interference. That’s what they need to be here for, to run interference.
Madam SPEAKER: Can you get back to the debate now?
Dr LIM: I am at the debate. I’m just trying to reflect how incompetent this health minister is.
Mr Henderson: Fifteen minutes and counting.
Dr LIM: You can count as much as you like; I’m not particularly concerned. And the minister tells us that she attends lots of social functions where she can network, talk to people. Let’s see how well she can talk in the Kalymnian hall when the music is going, or at a function at the Islamic Society where the PA is blaring out. You walk around, you talk to people about sweet nothings. You don’t get complaints coming out. I’ve been there, you have not; you would not know what it’s like to be a minister walking into a room full of people with lots of loud noise. You don’t get a chance to deal with the issues. You need to be accessible in your office and going to visit them in their place of work. You’ve got to do that, and this minister definitely has not done that.
Tonight she says she had visited Alice Springs once, and yesterday during an interjection said she’d visited three times. Three times, she said. So I assume it is between one and three. It doesn’t matter, but I think three times is still woefully inadequate. Get down there, see what’s happening at the Alice Springs Hospital.
The member for Drysdale asked the minister several questions, and I think it’s worthwhile asking again. The health minister proposes to increase the number of hospital nurses by 75 over the next two years according to this mini-budget Paper No 3. I know for a fact – and, again, this information was gleaned from the Acting General Manager of the Alice Springs Hospital - that they are about 50 nurses short at the hospital at the moment.
Mr Henderson: Fifteen?
Dr LIM: Fifty. Five-zero. This health minister is going to find 75 more above the 50, the 75 of which are going to be scattered around in specialist areas that the member for Drysdale earlier delineated. So how is she going to do that? She hasn’t answered that. She has not addressed that issue, has she? She then says she will implement a professional development and training program with increased funding, and this is on page 42 of Paper No 3 again:
- Increased funding for professional development and training from 0.9% of the Health and
Community Service personnel budget to 1.2% from 2002 to 2003.
Mr Henderson: It was never there in the first place.
Dr LIM: Okay, so you are saying that the Acting General Manager of the hospital has lied to us at a briefing. He has lied to us. He has lied to three members of the CLP in Alice Springs, and lied in front of the Acting Medical Superintendent, lied in front of the Acting Director of Nursing, and lied in front of the ministerial advisor from the Chief Minister’s office in Alice Springs.
Those are the issues. Those people were prepared to stick their necks on the line, to tell us that there are problems in Alice Springs that this government is not prepared to listen to them.
Mr Kiely: What about the mosquitoes down in the swamp there back in the mid-1990s, Dr Lim?
Dr LIM: This little mosquito sitting behind me has been rattling around like an empty vessel, making a lot of noise about inconsequential issues, and, if I may say so, the member for Sanderson has demonstrated how deep his intellectual capacity is. It’s probably as deep as the puddle of piddle that the member for Millner creates when he goes to the toilet.
Now, the renal dialysis provision in Tennant Creek is another matter.
Mr Kiely: That’s the extent of your humour, isn’t it? Gutter humour, toilet humour, you sick little man.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell! I don’t think you should do that again!
A member: Sorry?
Madam SPEAKER: Was it you whistling?
Dr Burns: He was whistling Dixie.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, Madam Speaker. I’m sorry. I will never do it again.
Madam SPEAKER: Not in here.
Dr LIM: The member for Sanderson said ‘sick little man’. I don’t know who he was referring to, either, but it doesn’t really matter, I suppose. Some people do have a Napoleon complex but unfortunately they don’t have the intellectual capacity of Napoleon.
Dr Toyne: He’s just sick; you’re a sick little man.
Mr Dunham: Are these admissible interjections? Are we going to talk about people’s size?
Dr LIM: Should I call a point of order and ask the minister to withdraw?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Sorry, what was your point of order?
Dr LIM: Well, the minister called me a sick little man, and I think I’m a very fit man of 5’6” in stature.
Madam SPEAKER: Could we get on with the debate? There’s too much cross-Chamber slanging.
Dr LIM: Well, if the members opposite want to keep on throwing personal interjections at me, I believe I have the right to respond.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, you are entitled to, I am just saying, members on the government side, let’s get on with the debate. It’s late, I think we’d all like to have it finished.
Dr LIM: The member for Macdonnell raised an issue about Dr Chris Bain. Dr Chris Bain has been a rural or remote doctor for several years. She is based at Hermannsburg, while living in Palm Valley. She travels to Hermannsburg each day to conduct her medical clinic. Dr Bain is a private medical practitioner who goes in to remote areas, supported by the federal government on an annual $50 000 income subsidy. The Northern Territory government, under the CLP, has assisted her with a $25 000 grant each year, or up to $25 000 grant each year, to encourage her to stay there to provide medical care.
She approached me last year to lobby for continued funding which I was able to convince the former health minister to support. She approached me about two weeks ago when the member for Macdonnell and myself were both at Hermannsburg, and advised in very strong terms that her funding after the end of June this year has yet to be confirmed by the present government. I think it’s very important, in light of the words that were uttered by the member for Stuart, that we must make sure that our remote doctors, remote medical practitioners and health carers, get adequate funding to continue their very good work out there …
Ms Lawrie: She’s still out there.
Dr LIM: She is still out there, and she will want to stay out there, but she needs to have a commitment from a government to continue to receive the funding. Now, this minister is not prepared to do that. Time is running out and I’d like to see a commitment from this government this week, and no later than next week, that the $25 000 is committed for her. The minister is not prepared to interject to say yes, she will do it. I think it’s a real pity.
Another issue is about the harvesting of cord blood. Now that is something that has been tried for a while, and it is now a very successful program …
Mr Henderson: The harvesting of what?
Dr LIM: Cord, as in placenta. It has been tried and has been found to be very successful and is now being done in Sydney and Melbourne. What it needs is the government’s commitment to make sure that the program can start in the Northern Territory. Now, why is cord blood harvesting useful? It is the same sort of principle that you would use for bone marrow transplants. For bone marrow transplants, you need to have up to six, let me say, genetic type matching to be a successful donor. With cord blood, because it contains such primitive cells, you can use cord blood with only three genetic matches to make it successful.
We know that among Aboriginal people there is a very small gene pool, hence it’s very difficult to find bone marrow available to donate. Cord blood makes it a lot easier because you need fewer factors to match, and you can harvest that in Alice Springs and Darwin because of the number of births among Aboriginal people. Now this is something that will be very, very useful and helpful for Aboriginal children who suffer from diseases such as leukaemia. I ask the minister to consider this seriously, because many Aboriginal children are dying of leukaemia and associated diseases because they can’t find appropriate bone marrow donors. The cord blood would give them a higher chance of being treated because these diseases are very easily treated given the right type of cells to use.
Anyway, I digress a little bit …
Mr Henderson: Fascinating stuff.
Dr LIM: It is fascinating stuff because it is stuff that government can do with very little money. Cord blood harvesting costs you very little, and you can do this and you will save lots of Aboriginal lives with very little money. You should be able to do that and it’s something you should grasp with both hands …
Mr Vatskalis: Why haven’t you done it yet?
Dr LIM: I can’t do it because I’m not the health minister. So I’m saying to the health minister: do it, do it, it.
Madam Speaker, I will conclude my statement by saying that I think it’s a pity that the health minister decided to bring in an alternate motion that has got no bearing on what the member for Drysdale tried to raise.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, are you closing the debate?
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): I am actually speaking to the amendment, Madam Speaker.
I must commence my comments with a sense of …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, I am sorry, there was someone on the other side.
Mr DUNHAM: He did not get the jump, Madam Speaker, you recognised me.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, I did, but I wasn’t sure what you were going to do.
Dr Burns: You were on your feet before the other member finished.
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: It is when you are recognised.
Madam SPEAKER: What exactly are you doing? Are you speaking to the amendment?
Mr DUNHAM: Yes.
Madam SPEAKER: I will allow the member for Johnston to speak after you then, because you’re not closing debate.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, I commence my comments with a sense of dread because I think there is a bad foreboding about the state of the Territory’s health services under this current minister. We’ve seen the sorry example yesterday of the minister making a so called mini-statement, which she read, which was responded to by myself, and that response to my response was read. We’ve seen the same thing again today when she had the opportunity to talk about matters which she should have an intimate knowledge of, and matters which, no matter how you look at it, really shouldn’t be sheeted to anybody other than the authors of them, which is the current minister …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, the amendment is not about the minister. Stick to the amendment.
Mr DUNHAM: The amendment, Madam Speaker, is about the deplorable neglect over 26 years in power and all that sort of business …
Madam SPEAKER: That’s right and that’s what you’re speaking to.
Mr DUNHAM: What I’m saying to you, Madam Speaker, is that there is a theme here and the theme is we don’t look forward, we look back. I would have hoped that those opposite would have taken great pride in the initiatives that they took, not only to the election, but that are in the budget.
We have a minister who is a blancmange, who is only able to read pieces of paper that are put in front of her. She has no competence at all, she has betrayed not just nursing staff, she has betrayed cancer sufferers, she has betrayed the terminally ill, she has betrayed expectant mums …
Mr Henderson: Dear, oh, dear. In six months?
Mr DUNHAM: Yes, yes she has because tonight she had the opportunity to go to this mini-budget document and tell us the detail behind it. Her incapacity to do that without a written speech gives you the impression this whole portfolio area is running on auto pilot. In other words, unless there is somebody to put some words in the hands of this person, she is totally incapable of speaking.
Now, this is a big problem for us as a government. We know, many of us who are going to live here for a long time, that if this area is eroded to the extent that it could happen under the stewardship of this minister, we’re going to face some very, very difficult problems. I know members on the other side have a lack of confidence in her. I know that. They might be surprised to find that the verandah that’s out the front there overhangs the front of this parliament where I heard three of them speaking about her in very derogative terms, and I can name them. I think it just goes to the bleeding obvious which is the king’s got no clothes. You have a lame duck minister. She has to be replaced. Either that or she has to be trained real quick.
Six months is too long. This whole business of hiding in your office and pretending to see people, the whole business of not knowing what's in your own budget statement, the whole business of running out rhetoric about the difficulties of your portfolio and how hard it is, we know this stuff. What we are hoping is that she can assemble some capacity to have the competence to deal with her one portfolio. A very difficult portfolio, I grant you. She has very competent pack of staff in Health and Community Services.
What we are saying is we are appealing to the government, particularly the Chief Minister, to look at this issue. The debate tonight has given a great sense of dread to those of us on this side about the future for Health and Community Services which is in a parlous circumstance.
Mr Henderson: Your legacy.
Mr DUNHAM: The circumstances it is in has nothing to do with my legacy other than that some good things happened and some bad things happened, and I would argue any day on this motion that’s been put - and this is a sorry thing: to put a motion that we want to keep looking over our shoulder for someone to blame rather than looking at our own initiatives, looking at the wondrous things we’re going to parade before the people.
This is a budget of betrayal. An absolute budget of betrayal. We have a totally incompetent minister and the quaint little interjections earlier from the Millner about ‘weakest link’, we know who it is. The media know who it is. We know who it is. You know who it is. Let’s do something about it. The something is the Chief Minister says ‘goodbye’ right? Go through the script. That’s all she can do. Go through the script, get rid of this minister. She is an abysmal incompetent.
Her inability to engage Aboriginal people has plunged to new depths. Absolutely plunged to new debts. Her capacity to travel to the places she has to travel including the sprawling metropolis of Tennant Creek, which she couldn’t get to the other day, really gives a lie to the whole notion of statements where you say: ‘I will not be paying lip service to Aboriginal health’ and all that sort of stuff. This is a nonsense that is being perpetrated by the government. We want them to look to the future and they could start by looking at the stuff that is their business. They could look at the stuff that is totally of their own authorship and they could be telling the public, ourselves, and, as I said, some of the clientele of these services, what they intend because there are significant public meetings that have been held about all of these issues here. It is not a matter of putting three lines into a mini-budget statement, being totally incapable of even describing what it means and hiding behind the history that you inherited.
This has gone to our worst fears and I believe that if the motion was walked through and the minister was able to even make a semblance of an attempt to address point one of my motion, we would not have been talking about PAC referrals, and we would certainly not be talking about point four of my motion which goes to the spiralling levels of confidence.
Mr Stirling: Got one at the moment, I think.
Mr DUNHAM: Now, in your heart of hearts, you must know, member for Nhulunbuy, in your heart of hearts, you must know she has no capacity to do the job you have given her. Now give her something else. Give her sport and recreation, whatever. This is too important. This is too important. So all the little gratuitous comments we had about reshaping, redefining ourselves, looking at how we might go about doing business, I can give it to you, mate. Just do one thing for now: do the right thing. Put somebody there who can do a better job.
There was a lot of commentary about the lack the shadow portfolio attaching to my colleague from Port Darwin. She ate this person up. Killed her. Seven minutes she spoke for. Seven minutes, and most of that was a grab from last night. Totally revisited last night’s speech. Had a few little appendages on the end, never went anywhere near the motion on the Table, nowhere near it, and the contributions made by my colleagues just leave her paling into insignificance.
This is a serious matter for this House. This is an incredibly serious matter for this House. I believe that the minister should start now to focus on some core issues. She should take the advice from my colleague for Port Darwin about get some priority areas, talk about it. Leave all the black hole stuff behind. Let’s look at the future. I am happy to keep debating the black hole, but its really not getting us anywhere at all. What she has to do is get away from the wordsmiths. We know she is being driven by wordsmiths because we get a draft speech that says one thing and the next day it says something else.
We know that she said: ‘I’m going to fix up violence with nurses out bush by stewardship - oops, no! I mean leadership’. This is somebody sitting on a keyboard telling her what her policy is. This is a nonsense. This is stupid. This is people putting words into a word processor that turn into government policies in a speech because this person doesn’t know how to fix violence against nurses. The stuff in here …
Mr Henderson: What did you do about it?
Mr DUNHAM: Well, if I was the health minister, I would be doing a lot more than this one, and so would that person and that person and that person and that person - even him, probably. We are talking about the lowest common denominator in your Cabinet pack, and I believe that this is something that is so serious that this statement - what this statement has shown you is even when we say: ‘Could you please tell us what’s in your budget about things that you took to the electorate and know and love, and are probably good news stories?’ and we got a seven minute, read speech regurgitated from last night. So not only are her wordsmiths driving policy off the word processor; they are lazy and incompetent because they are giving her the same speech she got last night.
Under standing orders, we shouldn’t have even allowed her to continue to regurgitate this stuff. Nonetheless, out it came. That is a very sorry state of affairs for the Northern Territory, not just for people like myself and others in this room who have been involved with the health services and who believe it’s a precious service, but people who will use it.
In my own case, I have had children born in four Northern Territory hospitals, and I have worked and lived in different places. I know how powerful and potent these institutions are for us, and I believe that I am a person who will continue to use these services until I die - perhaps in the palliative care centre that is going to be inappropriately designed, constructed and inherited by us next term because there is no planning, thought or absolute fundamental design behind this stuff.
So my plea to the Chief Minister - and she can interject if she likes, if she believes that I am wrong in this - I would ask the Chief Minister to please assure me that this minister has her full confidence and its not forthcoming. That’s the point I am trying to make.
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: There has been a desertion of this minister and, apart from a couple of bobber boys who get around her when it starts getting difficult, you are in a position where you could be dangerous to the health services in this place and to the quality of life of people who live here. I suggest you get out of the way and find somebody who is able to put in - I mean, this person was flat out crashing through the stamina barrier tonight. Let’s face it. This is not a late night, really. I mean, most of us put in a night like this every now and then, so I am sure that it would have been within the minister’s capabilities to listen to this debate in its entirety. I am sure the minister would have been able to crash through that stamina barrier, have a late night, and get back to work tomorrow. Now, if she can’t do it tonight, she’s got hundreds of them in front of her. Hundreds and hundreds of nights like this. So let’s get it organised, let’s make sure we’ve got someone there who one, likes the job; two, is enthusiastic about the job; three, can do the job; and four, has got a bit of energy for the job. This minister fails on all of those counts and it is time that you ’fessed up to that, and it is time you did something about it because if you don’t fix it, the clientele of the department, the non-government sector and others will fix it for you.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I know it is late at night but I feel I must respond to a lot of what's been talked about tonight. First up, I would like to assure the member for Drysdale that our minister for health has our full support, and full support within our Caucus as well. Over the past couple of days, we’ve been remarking about the wonderful job she has been doing, particularly when she was attacked - or you tried to attack her - over the Palmerston Health Precinct. Absolutely fantastic, and she has our support.
Mr Dunham: She wasn’t even here. She wasn’t even in town. She was on R and R. She was not even in town.
Mr Henderson: One GP service - $900 000!
Dr BURNS: If I could go on. As a Labor Party and a Labor Caucus and a Labor government, we’re absolutely united; we are a team. I have been sitting here over the past two days watching that side. All I can see is some discord. I see people rising to answer questions that other people had prepared for - almost usurping other people’s shadow ministries - I see the 10 canaries in a cage on that side. Health is a serious issue, so let’s turn to it.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We’ve had the mongrel dogs, the possums and the canaries. Are we really going to go with this animal theme because, as I said, I have a whole list of animals I could think of that have remarkable similarities to these people?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, there is no point of order.
Ms Lawrie: Your Leader called me a cat.
Mr DUNHAM: Yes? Well, we’re going to have more of that. He’s a snake!
Dr BURNS: If I could continue? I would like to continue.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, quieten down!
Dr BURNS: I believe - I know - that the Northern Territory has many fine and dedicated health professionals. To be fair to the member for Drysdale, as he said, we all acknowledge that being health minister is a very hard job. I have no doubt that as health minister, he was a very dedicated person, but the case I’d like to build tonight is that you inherited a situation - some of it not of your own making - and found it very hard to reform. You’ve come here tonight and laid on the table your and your party’s openness to look at the drug situation, rehabilitation and treatment, and address these very serious issues. I commend that. I think we have to move forward, as you say. I agree we have to move forward, but I think we also have to look at history to inform us about where we are now and how we’re going to get to where we’re going to go. I’m going to try and be as fair as I can in what I say tonight.
There are some shining examples within what I call Territory health - it’s the Department of Health and Community Services now. Disease control is a fantastic, shining example that is recognised Australia-wide as having best practice. There are many things to boast about in disease control. Indeed, there are probably quite a lot of other aspects of Territory health where there is fine work done and where there’s national and international recognition of the work that’s done - I don’t tar everything as being negative and bad and falling apart. But let’s try and move forward.
I’ve witnessed in my travels, particularly around the Top End, many fine registered nurses who are fantastic people who are so dedicated and committed. They’re on call all the time; they see people into the world, they see people out of the world, they work in very difficult circumstances and they are very dedicated people. I’ve also seen many dedicated medical officers and particularly, I’ve seen some very dedicated Aboriginal health workers who work under even more extreme conditions. I doubt whether I’ll be getting to an adjournment debate tonight, but in my upcoming adjournment debate I’ll be talking about the work of Terrence Guyula who is a fantastic Aboriginal health worker at Gapuwiyak. His work received a national award late last year, and he is a Territory Health Services employee. So, there’s fantastic experience, commitment and energy out there.
There are difficulties with the health portfolio; we’ve mentioned funding, hospitals, and retaining staff. These are almost perennial issues that need to be addressed. My own view is that something lacking over the years has been - for whatever reason - that the primary health care system hasn’t worked as effectively as it could. That has meant that our hospitals have been filled with Aboriginal patients; there’s been a stream of Aboriginal patients coming into hospital, and the hospital costs have gone through the roof. I think everyone would acknowledge that.
I was going to beat you over the head with the deadly Territory stuff. I’ve done that before. I think it is on the record that we know about Aboriginal health and the deterioration of Aboriginal health. I brought to the attention of this House in October what Territory Health Services’ own statistics showed about the deterioration of non-Aboriginal health over a period between 1979 and 1997. The reasons for both the deterioration of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal health are probably quite complex, but I don’t think it’s right. I know the member for Greatorex and, to a lesser extent the member for Port Darwin, blame lifestyle factors as being the major reason. I don’t think that explains everything to do with why this situation arose. It does explain some of it. Tobacco is something that has been talked about here tonight, and I know from my conversations with you in another life and in another profession that you were quite committed to changing tobacco laws in the Territory. But I suspect that there are all sorts of barriers - we’re not going to go into it, I’m not trying to bang you up here - but there were barriers.
This government has proposed a way forward. Our health minister has made a statement about moving forward on tobacco issues in the Territory. They are very important issues for us to address. So, lifestyle issues, yes, let’s try and address them.
We mentioned drugs. I was going to beat you over the head about the drugs; I did that in October. The fact remains that I think you inherited a situation where there was a former health minister who said: ‘Put them on the bus’. We had another former health minister, the member for Katherine, who has a real problem with methadone treatment, and I think we were just stuck in there for a long, long time. I was a member of what was called the Schedule 8 Committee. I was a foundation member of that, along with others, trying to address this issue many, many years ago. There was a frustration within the committee, and I guess it spilled over at various times with Dr David Meadows - who you know is very committed and passionate in this area - about what he perceived to be the inaction of the former government about addressing this very important issue.
There are issues there. I know that the health minister has made some announcements about the task force. We met with that task force as the select committee, and I saw a lot of expertise around that table. I think we should value the recommendations that they propose as a way for us to move forward to try and address this very important issue - particularly morphine abuse here in the Territory and, of course, amphetamine abuse. These are big problems, and I’m convinced that they contribute to crime.
I’ve mentioned to you before that - I suppose I was a bit heated when I did it - about Strategy 21. Strategy 21 on paper is a plan forward, but I found it very frustrating as a member of the Preventable Chronic Diseases Strategy Committee - I know that’s a mouthful, but it was a very good representative committee to try and move forward in implementing what is really a fantastic and groundbreaking framework that I think Tarun Weeramanthri and others within the Territory Health Services developed, and you signed off as health minister. But it never really went anywhere. It never went anywhere. We just kept on going around in circles, and we didn’t know who we were reporting to. I’m not blaming you because of that, but actually that was one of the reasons …
Mr Dunham: I don’t mind that, either.
Dr BURNS: No, that was one of the reasons why I actually put my hand up for parliament because I became frustrated. I came to the conclusion that after 26 years of one party being in power that within certain levels of the public service there had become a sort of a malaise, there had been a lot of self-satisfaction or there just wasn’t the energy there. I just wanted to get in here and get the whip out a little bit.
The Preventable Chronic Disease Strategy, let’s do it. That is what I would like to say - let’s do it - because by putting that in place we will actually take a lot of pressure off our hospitals. That’s what I believe.
You mentioned this side of the House and where we were going with health. There is a lot of expertise related to health on this side of the House, and I am prepared to put in, I know the member for Arafura is prepared to put in, we are putting in. We are keen for things to move forward. We have very good links with professional groups and with the public health movement. This is certainly a way forward for us, because I come back to that primary health focus to try to take the weight off the hospitals. But I will come to the immediate problems with the hospitals very soon.
I was going to take a few swings at people, but it is very late at night; I will probably leave them to another time.
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: No, I am not. We have had enough tonight. It would only stir things up.
In your motion, you raised some issues related to the mini-budget, specifically related to health. I honestly believe that the mini-budget and the financial plan of this government over the next four years to try with our target of turning quite a large deficit into a surplus, a modest surplus, I agree with it. It is a good strategy. We haven’t cut growth. We have merely slowed growth, and our aim is to turn a deficit into a surplus.
Without getting into the matters of the PAC, I know that you asked many questions of the CEO for Health, Mr Bartholomew. It is all on the public record; the transcripts are available on the Internet. I think you asked about some of the issues to do with the nurses, about funding, about renal units, about all the things that you have in you memo. I thought Mr Bartholomew answered those questions very adequately in terms of future planning and controlling the budget and moving forward on that. A lot of that stuff is already on the record and we seem to be going over it. It is a very important issue, but I believe this government is very intent on demonstrating our fiscal credibility and our management of budgets and outcomes for the money that’s put in there.
Another important aspect in terms of health and redressing health issues is in terms of education. I will be speaking on this issue when the minister for education gives his statement on indigenous education. I commend the former government for engaging Bob Collins and generating the Collins report. But, a bit like the Preventable Chronic Disease Strategy, it never really happened. I went to the Learning Lessons conference that was hosted by the AMA, let’ say, and what struck me during that conference - and I did ask some senior education people at the time – was: ‘Where’s the plan for the implementation of the Collins report?’ and there wasn’t one. There was just a series of loose meetings and we really hadn’t worked out where we are going.
Well, this government - and I am not trying to steal the education minister’s thunder here - has a way forward on that, and he will be detailing that in his speech. There is a very important inter-relationship between education and health that I know that you’re aware of, and Professor Allan Walker is someone who commands immense respect, talks about the impact of health on education and the impact of education on health. We will be addressing that and I will leave that to the education minister to detail it.
The challenge for us - we do have big challenges; we do have big problems. But once again, I will come back to what I talked about before: we need to cooperate, we need to move forward and I really welcome your laying on the table here tonight, say with the drug issue, that your party is willing to talk about that and I welcome that, and I congratulate that.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Speaker, I wasn’t going to contribute to this debate, but I will try and be as brief as possible.
It is preposterous and absurd for the former minister for health and his colleagues to put the argument across that since we won government everything has gone down hill with the health situation in the Northern Territory. The situation is that this has been building up for quite some time and we are a government that is going to be very responsible on how we turn around the health problems in the Territory community. I sat up there doing some files and listened to the contributions from the member for Daly, the member for Greatorex, and the member for Drysdale, and it more or less disturbed me that they still cannot get away from this philosophy of throwing money at things and just fixing it and it is no wonder we inherited a big debt.
Yesterday in the debate, the member for Daly raised the issue of Dillinya. I personally know Sheila Miller and I tried to contact her when I visited Katherine recently. I wasn’t able to get through to her because I believe there might have been a fax/phone that was out at Dillinya. But I did hear the member for Daly talking on the ABC that morning expressing concerns about the closure of Dillinya and that our government was mean-spirited or something to that affect and it was not going to be providing any further funding.
Anglicare, as the sponsoring organisation in this particular community, never approached the Department of Health, as I understand it, for further funding.
Mr Baldwin: Didn’t give a briefing to the minister in person?
Mr AH KIT: Well, I am addressing this as the Minister assisting the Chief Minister on Indigenous Affairs and if this is an Aboriginal community, I believe Madam Speaker, I have every right to pull up members opposite who have taken this upon themselves to run an attack on the health minister and this government.
The department was told in June 2001 that Anglicare were provided $3000 to employ Sheila Miller to write a submission for funding to develop a model of care. The then Treasurer and member for Katherine, Mr Reed, approached Anglicare directly to sponsor this project. Mr Reed advised officers of the department that he had secured Commonwealth funding for this service. Prior to this, Dillinya was not a recognised alcohol rehabilitation service; it was an outstation providing time out for family members. I might add, I am supportive of any successful alcohol rehabilitation service that has a good program in place, is getting good results and value for money. The member for Daly might tell us the success rate and how many people are actually residing at Dillinya because the latest update that I have …
Mr Baldwin: Are you for it or against it?
Mr AH KIT: How many people living there?
Mr Baldwin: Tell us, for it or against it?
Mr AH KIT: How many people living there?
Mr Baldwin: Are you for it or against it?
Mr AH KIT: How many people have been successful in the program? You don’t know.
Mr Baldwin: I’m for it; he’s against it.
Mr AH KIT: He does not know how many, but the latest update is that there are five families there, five individuals and their families. There was an application - after the $3000 was provided by the former Treasurer and member for Katherine in conjunction with the then minister for health and obviously the local member would have know about it and received copies, one would think - for this outstation of something like $1.225m, an application for establishment costs, and $555 666 annual operating costs.
Now, the response provided to Anglicare by the minister was that funding would be one-off, and I have here, and I can table it if members desire, a letter from the health minister at the time, dated 10 July 2001, to Mr Peter Fisher, Director, Anglicare, Top End, post office box etcetera:
Dear Peter,
- I am pleased to advise that I have approved funding of $48 168 plus GST to enable Sheila Miller
in conjunction with Anglicare to operate a limited service at Dillinya and to further explore the
development of services. This funding is one-off and there will be no commitment for further
funding from Territory Health Services Funding will be released following an agreement being
negotiated between Anglicare and Territory Health Services Purchasing division.
That is available if members so desire.
So we had, yesterday, the member for Daly cutely saying things like: ‘Well, if they’re not incorporated’, well I believe they are incorporated. He also said: ‘well, you know, if they haven’t put in an application, I can understand that’. He knew all along, he knew as the local member, that that funding was limited and one-off. There was pressure applied by the then Treasurer, and this is how you blokes work, this is how you decided to do business, and no wonder we inherited a big debt. Mr Reed approached Anglicare and he said to officers of the department - I repeat - that he had secured Commonwealth funding for this service.
Later on, on 10 July, the response provided to Anglicare by the minister at that time was that funding will be one-off and there will be no commitment, as I said earlier. But there was also a mention that at this time it was evident that the Commonwealth was not going to commit to the funding. So we have the former Treasurer putting the pressure on departmental officers, saying: ‘I’ve got the Commonwealth government committed to this’, and now we find out that it hasn’t.
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Arnhem seems to be quoting from something, and if he is I’d like him to table it.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, but the member for Arnhem can perhaps clarify what he’s saying.
Mr BALDWIN: He is actually trying to allege that he has some information there that is testimonial and substantiated. So if he has, I’d like him to table it.
Members interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: I’m not quoting from any document; I’m reading from notes. You can have a copy …
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: Because he seems to be reading it, and standing orders say if you are reading from a document, you can be asked to table it, to table the document.
Mr AH KIT: I sought a briefing, as a good minister, from my colleague the minister for Health and Community Services …
Mr Baldwin: So you are sensitive about this. Why isn’t the minister …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr AH KIT: I’m not sensitive about this. You are sensitive about this because this shows a really good example of how you and your cliquey little group walked around, looked at a little place that jumped up and down, and you threw some money at it and said: ‘We’ll fix it. We’ll put the pressure on. We have an election coming up. This is how we do business’.
They should be very ashamed of themselves. I call on the member for Daly, and the former minister for Health, the now shadow minister for health, to provide some concrete evidence that the program is working well, get off your backside and help them get incorporated so that you can do your job properly as the local member and we may be able to help this community with its alcohol rehabilitation service.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, I won’t take a lot of time. It’s great to see the member for Arnhem coming in here tonight after I raised this issue, and it was raised also by the member for Nelson. It’s very interesting that after the remarks he made last night, he feels he has to come in here and equivocate those remarks. It’s very interesting also that the health minister is not standing up and doing this. It’s very interesting that in this debate of this motion that the member for Arnhem chooses to come in here and make remarks about Anglicare who have taken on this program as the service agency, which is a normal practice, a normal practice for them to do, and you would confirm that, I’m sure, minister for Health. Yes, she confirms that.
Yes, this was restricted funding for this program, but that doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t continue. I am interested that the member for Arnhem is virtually saying here tonight that he is not going to support this program. I think he’s trying to vindicate his remarks of last night - in the Hansard of last night - that have already gone to these people, for them to read, and he’s come back in, after a special briefing from the minister for Health. I find this intriguing. Why would you have to come in here, on a motion by the opposition, to vindicate the remarks he made in Hansard last night. He is very sensitive about this issue. He is very sensitive. And I stand up here tonight, very briefly, so that I can make the point about these remarks because these, too, are going to go out to the people concerned about this and the people at Five Mile, because this is all wrapped up together.
Mr Ah Kit interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: If the member for Arnhem …
Mr Ah Kit interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: I won’t speak to him directly because he’s trying to interject …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Arnhem.
Mr BALDWIN: If the member for Arnhem is not going to support this program, which is Aboriginal owned, Aboriginal run by people who have put themselves through training, and it’s a great, new, innovative program that you would agree with, and if he’s not going to support this program, then which ones is he going to support? This one he should be supporting to the utmost, and the people in my electorate and his electorate are going to know about it.
Mr Ah Kit interjecting
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arnhem, that’s enough. Quiet!
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker, I’ve had a rest; I feel better now.
Madam SPEAKER: I’m glad you do.
Mr WOOD: When Dillinya was mentioned, I’m afraid it got my back up a bit because I believe if the government is fair dinkum about helping Aboriginal people, it won’t put hurdles in its path, and I think that’s what you’re doing. I know you’re trying to win a debate against the member for Daly, but …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr WOOD: All I felt is that the government, I believe, should find ways of overcoming the hurdles that it says are there to try and help this community. There may be some hurdles, but I think it would be better for the government to look positive by saying we can overcome some of these problems.
The same with Wulik Witbi or Five Mile Hill. I know the minister spoke yesterday, and I am concerned, but I am concerned from what I heard from the minister yesterday that maybe the powers that be - and in this case it may not be the minister - have a different agenda. I feel, if we are going to discuss Aboriginal health, if we are going to discuss the problems with drug and alcohol rehabilitation, that if we don’t send out a positive message to these Aboriginal groups that are trying their hardest, that may not fit into this model someone else has because they do things differently, like – amazing! Five Mile Hill does things like take people out hunting with a spear, concentrate on sweating the alcohol out of them, living on the floor instead of on beds, by preference, and doing things traditionally.
I think if Aboriginal people are making the effort, I would like to see the government support it. I know that there may be some difficulties, but I would rather hear: ‘All right, we know there are some difficulties, but we will try and overcome those. We will do our best to back them’. That is what I’d like to hear and I think that’s what should come. Sometimes the politics get in the road. We shouldn’t be allowing that; we should be saying: ‘Let’s get behind these people. We’ll do our best to support them’.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is the amendment be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, do you want to sum up before I put the amended motion?
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Yes, Madam Speaker. I won’t go back to all the points here, but I will make two observations. One is that I thought the member for Johnston spoke like a health minister, and that was one of the points I was trying to make. Here is a man who spoke without notes, who was passionate, who was motivated to get involved in political structures and struggle on the basis of health experience. Look, I applaud him. I thought: ‘This is the sort of speech that should be being made by the health minister’. So get the video; go back and read it.
Another telling statement was the one that was just made – ‘… and the powers that be, and I know that might not be the minister …’ – that is the point we’re trying to make. This thing is being driven. We talked today about smoking policy. Now, smoking policy was mentioned in the speech that was tabled last night and circulated, and it’s down here as - you’d reckon I could put my hand straight on it, wouldn’t you? Anyway, it was interesting that smoking policy changed last night. Here it is. Page 24 of the speech as circulated to me, and it came to me as:
After full consultation with industry and interested community members, we will look at passing through tobacco legislation proscribing smoking in enclosed places.
- … which will address smoking in enclosed spaces.
So one of them is talking about pulling it up; the other’s talking about having a look at it. That’s the point I’m making. Speech writers are driving this minister. She is making comment about full consultation on something at 8 o’clock one night turned into something else by the time the speech was delivered. That’s not a possibility. So we’re looking now at a significant problem here.
I thank members for their contributions to the debate. It was much more wide ranging than was intended; it was intended to be a showcase for what the government was doing. There is still the potential for us to do that; it doesn't have to be done in this debate. I’d like to see some of those issues brought forward.
I was disappointed that disease control wasn’t in the minister’s statement last night - world breaking work going on there. These statements can be brought piecemeal to this House, we can talk about them and we’ll probably disagree about them, but for God’s sake, let’s not do them in such a cold and clinical way in rigid speeches where people are rigidly adhering to the written word that’s been prepared by somebody who is very cold from an operational viewpoint. I would ask Cabinet over there - I don’t know how you guys do it, caucusing or something - please revisit this decision because I think the contributions tonight from at least two of your members have shown your minister up.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF
STANDING ORDERS
STANDING ORDERS
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): I apologise to members, but we have to do this today, I’m afraid. Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Classification of Publications, Films and Computer Games Amendment Bill 2002, (Serial 34) passing through all stages of this sittings.
Motion agreed to.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Under Standing Order 306, a suspension can only be passed by an absolute majority, therefore I believe it has been lost.
Madam SPEAKER: Absolute majority? The Clerk will need to advise me on that. I thought that we approved it in the affirmative, the suspension of standing orders. Do we have the absolute majority of the whole number of members? You are opposing the suspension of standing orders?
I shall put the question again. The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to. Yes, Leader of the Opposition.
Mr BURKE: With respect, Madam Speaker, the decision has been made; it has been made on the voices. You cannot rescind a vote that has been done on the voices, and the voices were done without an absolute majority, so there is no vote.
Madam SPEAKER: I am asking the Clerk for advice.
Dr TOYNE: I seek leave to suspend standing orders.
Leave denied.
Madam SPEAKER: If there is a ‘no’ when leave is sought, then it is not granted. They are the standing orders. Therefore the point of order is upheld.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move the House do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016