2003-10-16
Mr Acting Speaker Wood took the Chair at 10 am.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Year 6 and 7 students from Bakewell Primary School, accompanied by their teachers Rebecca Gunner, Carolyn Silva, Bernie Waters and Kerri O’Shaughnessy. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Acting Speaker, I present a petition from 286 petitioners relating to services to separating families in the Northern Territory jurisdiction of the Family Law Pathways. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms to the requirement of Standing Orders. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Mr Acting Speaker, this morning I continue my reports to the House on visits to schools, training centres, and workplaces in the Northern Territory. I add my welcome, as minister for Education, to the students from Bakewell. It is a great school, it is big school, and it is terrific to see them all turning out in their uniform - and great ambassadors for their school.
Since my last report, I visited 17 schools across the Territory in Alice Springs, Katherine, Groote Eylandt, Batchelor, rural Darwin and Darwin, and hosted a visit to Parliament House by the Nhulunbuy Primary School. At Groote, I travelled to Umbakumba and met with the principal Graham Mathews and the teachers. It is a community not without its challenges. The teacher houses were handed back to the community a number of years ago. All non-indigenous staff now reside in Alyangula and travel each day to Umbakumba. I am pleased to report that the community is very keen for the teachers to be based at Umbakumba, and are committed to the safety and security of those teachers on their return.
I also visited Angurugu. The principal, Barb Wilson, has the school running well, though attendance remains an issue. I have asked DEET to report on how soon they can place an attendance officer to service all of the schools on Groote.
In Alyangula, staff housing issues brought to my attention were houses in poor condition and furniture not upgraded for many years. However, work is under way to address these issues.
Batchelor Area School celebrated its 50th anniversary. I had the pleasure of attending the ceremony for the closing of a time capsule to be opened in 25 years. Students made ceramic tiles for the floor of a new shade area, overseen by a most talented artist, Midge Coleman, potter. Thanks to Tom Ober and Tony Otway for a great day. There was a stunning performance by a young indigenous fellow on the yidaki. It would rival some of the best from north-east Arnhem Land. I would love to get him across there sometime.
Recently, I attended the Adelaide River Festival, a combined Top End Group Schools Living in Harmony event titled ‘Come Together Right Now’. The three-day event was held at Adelaide River Primary School, and brought together students, teachers and parents from 15 small rural and remote schools. It really was a credit to the group school’s principal there, Leonie Jones.
At Taminmin, I was escorted around the school’s farm and orchard by the Principal, Kim Rowe, the Deputy Principal for Vocational Education, Rose Calland, and Karen Young, a member of the school council. I was pleased to see the students actively involved in vocational education programs such as conservation, land management, agriculture, automotive engineering and multimedia studies. It draws secondary students from a range of schools and they are doing a great job.
At Humpty Doo Primary School, a terrific school with a positive atmosphere, I expressed my thanks to the principal, Glenda Sharp, Lu Steuart, the school council chairman and Cherie Holtz, the ASSPA committee chair for accompanying me during the visit. It has a special needs annexe to provide for students with disabilities from the area, but I have to describe the facilities as rudimentary and insufficient to cope with the expected increase in numbers over the next few years.
In Katherine, I visited Kintore Street Special School – again, a great school being run with facilities that could well do with an upgrade.
It is an issue that has been neglected for far too long; that is, options for students with disabilities once they leave school. As a result of my visits to these schools I have asked DEET to prepare for me a thorough report on all issues to do with students with disabilities. I have asked for an audit, in the first instance, on infrastructure at special schools and special needs annexes within other schools. I am keen to see this physical audit with costings and a program for upgrade or replacement of facilities. I also want an analysis of the special needs cohort that includes age, degree of disability, future options, current levels of assistance and strategies to address inequities. We need to have a clear understanding of the options for students with disabilities able to access the labour market, and strategies in place for those students who cannot. We have to facilitate very clear pathways with support and mentoring, to help those who can enter the labour market, to get in there with secure jobs.
Mr Acting Speaker, I want to compliment all school personnel for their work and their continuing commitment to students, and to thank them for their hospitality during my visit. They always make me feel most welcome and I am appreciative of that.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Acting Speaker, it is good to get a report on activity in our schools. At the outset, I also acknowledge the students from Bakewell and their teachers.
Minister, I would expect that you have had a look at the report that Dr Brendan Nelson commissioned, Australia’s Teachers – Australia’s Future. It is contained in three volumes and one volume is the Agenda for Action. It addresses the significant issue that holds our schools together - that being the teachers – and the concerns that teachers and we, as a community, hold, in looking forward: ‘How can we sustain our teaching profession?’. The report notes that teachers are leaving the profession in extraordinary numbers. Although there has been an increase in those taking up the profession through training, the numbers who are leaving the profession in their first year is 40%, once they begin work in the classroom. Why is that so?
I have also had the report locally that only 35% of those graduating in the Northern Territory continue on in classes in their first year after graduating. The amount of time and expenditure that we place on training our teachers, will necessarily draw our attention to issues related to sustaining our teaching profession; issues such as remuneration, the professional standing in the community, the size of classrooms and behaviour management.
I trust the school councils also consulted with you on your trip around the countryside and informed you of their concerns about the removal of powers, which has been in part reinstated. However, the management of capital works programs still is a serious deficit in the ability of school councils to manage their communities.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Mr Acting Speaker, I thank the member for Blain for his comments. The first and most important thing for Brendan Nelson could do, as federal minister, to sustain the teaching profession over the next few years is to create extra places in our teaching and learning institutions across the country. Because what is going to happen – and whilst teaching unions across the country have cried wolf a bit over the last five or 10 years, to say there is a massive teacher shortage looming, it is now a fact. Why that is, is because of the ‘baby boomer’. Our average age in the teaching profession in the Northern Territory is 47. It does not give them long. Over the next 10 years, we are going to see a mass retirement - and, indeed, it is common across the public sector. I am not singling out teaching here; we just happen to be talking about education.
Similarly, across Australia, the average age of teachers is rising, not decreasing. The reality is we are going to have to train, as a country and the Northern Territory, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of teachers, and we need to start now because the baby boomer exit from the work force is well upon us.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Mr Acting Speaker, today I update the House on government moves to ban commercially made slingshots in the Northern Territory.
For too many years, commercially made slingshots have been used to cause thousands of dollars of damage to both commercial and private property right across the Northern Territory, targeting the windows and doors of businesses, homes, cars and buses. Each time someone takes aim with a slingshot with the express purpose of causing this kind of damage, they are potentially putting lives at risk. Imagine how you might feel to have your car or taxi window fired on when you were driving; to have your shop or hotel window smashed. Members of this House would remember the most recent spate of attacks in August when $26 000 worth of damage was caused to businesses in the Darwin CBD in just one night.
The weapons being used to cause the damage are readily available to anyone. This very slingshot that I have shown to honourable members before in this House was bought for only $30 in Darwin. It has a range of 175 yards and comes complete with ball bearings and instructions on how to load and fire it to cause the most damage.
This government is sick of this kind of dangerous and mindless vandalism. In August, I announced that we would investigate ways through which to ban these commercially made slingshots, purpose-built to cause damage.
Currently, regulations for the sale, carriage and use of slingshots is covered by the Weapons Control Act which came into force on 8 August 2001. At the moment, only slingshots that have been designed or adapted to be used with an arm brace are prohibited weapons; that is, they are the only kinds that cannot be imported, manufactured, sold, possessed or carried in the Northern Territory unless the holder is exempt under the act.
I want to make it clear to the House and to all Territorians that the government is not moving to shanghais that are made in the backyard by children out of sticks, coat hangers and the like whilst they are playing and use to knock cans off the back fence. Overwhelmingly, commercially made, purpose-built weapons are the ones being used, and have been used for years, to cause thousands of dollars worth of damage and, in doing so, putting lives at risk.
Since the spate of slingshot attacks in the Darwin CBD in August, the government, through the Northern Territory Police and Department of Justice, have examined a number of means of banning these purpose-built weapons. I report to the House that, on advice from the Northern Territory Police on the best method of achieving this, amendments will be made to the Weapons Control Act to ban the possession and retail sale of commercially made slingshots unless the holder is exempt under the Weapons Control Act.
Paragraph 15 of Schedule 2 of the Weapons Control Regulations will be changed to include a catapult, shanghai or slingshot without an arm brace and intended for commercial distribution, and a slingshot intended for commercial distribution.
Paragraph 8, Schedule 1 will also be amended to allow for homemade slingshots for use by a child in the course of play. Therefore, homemade slingshots being used for play are not affected by these amendments. Children can still use shanghais during play.
The government has already received support from across the community from people who are sick of the mindless people using commercially made slingshots for vandalism. When I announced in parliament in August that we were moving to ban these slingshots, there was immediate support from many retailers. Indeed, one operator said he would be taking slingshots off his shelves straightaway. Support has also been received from community groups including the Esplanade Action Group in Darwin, the Transport Workers Union, the Mayor of Palmerston and other community members.
There will need to be transition arrangements put in place. This will involve the capacity for people to voluntarily surrender their slingshots. Some weeks ago, retailers were put on notice that these changes were likely to occur. Retailers will be further updated of the move I am outlining today. Retailers who have slingshots in stock will have options open to them. The retailers could dispose of the stock, or voluntarily deliver them to the Northern Territory Police or arrange to sell them interstate where no such prohibition exists - although I understand that there is only one jurisdiction where this is the case. Solely, and only in relation to stock that was on hand in the Territory before notice of government’s intention was given, the retailer may consider making an application for an ex-gratia payment from the government. Such applications would only be in relation to stock that was already on hand, which is appropriately documented and will not include foregone profit or the like. Consideration of such applications lies within the discretion of the Treasurer. It is the current intention for the regulatory change to come into effect on 1 December 2003.
Territorians are sick of seeing commercially made slingshots being used to cause damage to business and private property, and putting lives at risk. This is a commonsense move to address what has been a long running issue. I move that the Assembly take note of the report.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Speaker, I can signal at the outset that the opposition supports this particular move, and for good reason. As I understand it, the ball bearing out of one of these commercially made slingshots came out of the slingshot at about 300 feet per second. To give members some idea of how quick that is, a short-barrelled .38 pistol – which is the snub-nosed weapon you often see in movies – has a muzzle velocity of about 900 feet per second. So this ball bearing comes out at about a third of the speed of a firearm-fired bullet. I also believe that there will be a lot of dogs and cats in the northern suburbs which will feel a whole lot more safe at night as well, as a result of this.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Mr Acting Speaker, I thank the member for Macdonnell and the opposition for their support. This is a commonsense move and, yes, maybe those dogs and cats will be feeling a bit safer, but so will our taxi drivers, bus drivers and retail property owners throughout the Northern Territory. Once again, I thank the opposition for their support.
Mr AH KIT (Regional Development): Mr Acting Speaker, at the May 2003 meeting of LGANT, that is the Local Government Association NT, I launched the Building Stronger Regions - Stronger Futures Strategy. It was no accident that the strategy was launched in Alice Springs first and in parliament second. The Martin Labor government is determined to get rid of the Berrimah Line and consign it to history.
The strategy is aimed at strengthening regions to improve economic and social outcomes for all Territorians. The strategy announced the establishment of the five regional development boards to guide regional development across the Territory. These boards will facilitate and monitor implementation of regional development plans. The boards will also provide high level advice to the Minister for Regional Development. The boards will enable regional stakeholders to negotiate directions in regional planning and development as partners with the Northern Territory government. As announced at the strategy launch, the boards will report on progress in implementing regional plans every two years at a State of the Regions conference.
A framework for evaluation of progress and performance is being developed. The membership of the first Katherine Regional Development Board was announced last month at the community launch of the Katherine Regional Development Plan. I had pleasure in announcing the membership of the other regional development boards earlier this morning at the annual general meeting of the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory.
I am pleased that the membership of the five boards represents a very strong cross-section of experience and capability. Over 40% of the five regional development boards are current or former members of local government, or employed in that sector. I have not added it up, but this represents scores, if not hundreds of years of experience in local community development. The boards also contain representation drawn from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association, Aboriginal organisations and the community services sector.
The Southern Regional Development Board will be chaired by Ms Fran Kilgariff, who is well known to members as the Mayor of Alice Springs.
A member: Hear, hear!
Mr AH KIT: The Barkly Regional Development Board will be chaired by Ms Barbara Shaw, the interim General Manager of the Anyinginyi Congress Aboriginal Corporation. The East Arnhem Regional Development Board will be chaired by Mr Gatjil Djerrkura, a well known and respected leader in that region. Mr Djerrkura is the current CEO and previous chair of the Miwatj Health Aboriginal Corporation. Mr Djerrkura is also the Chair of the Batchelor Institute for Indigenous Studies. The Katherine Regional Development Board will be chaired by Ms Julie Newton, a well known local business owner, and a member of the Katherine Regional Tourism Association. The Darwin Regional Development Board will be chaired by Mr Duncan Beggs, a civil engineer with a background in business administration and local government, and currently ADrail’s Community Relations Manager. I will table for members’ information a copy of the full membership of all boards.
The regional managers of my Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs will provide executive officer support to each of the boards. Each board will also be served by a project officer in the Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs, dedicated specifically to this task. Over the next few months, it is planned to take each board through an orientation program including an interstate study tour. This will provide board members with the opportunity to interact with an established regional development organisation, and start to build a team at an individual board level. Earlier this week, I wrote to members of the Katherine Regional Development Board requesting their participation in a visit to Kununurra to meet with members of the Kimberley Regional Development Commission.
I would like to thank all organisations and individuals who nominated for the respective regional development boards across the Territory. Due to the strong response to my invitation for interest, it was challenging to ensure that membership is reflected of community and regional interest. I believe that the broad membership of each board provides a great opportunity to develop a coordinated approach to the development of our regions. I congratulate those people who have been appointed to the first boards, and thank those members who have accepted appointment as the initial chairs of these five boards.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Speaker, having cast a quick eye over the list of names, I am glad to see that the minister has chosen to draw from a broad cross-section of the community. I notice that there were even a couple of ‘Hear, hears’ on this side in relation to some of the selections. I congratulate the minister on his choice. Generally speaking, I wish the people who are on these boards every success into the future.
These regional development boards are something that I have been briefed on. The concept is one that we on this side are generally supportive of. However, it is a concept which needs to be properly supported by government. I am glad to see that they are taking time to have a look at how these type of things operate in other states. However, at the end of the day, executive support is one thing but, as time passes, I would urge the minister to cast his eye on other ways of supporting these particular boards. I am sure they will find their own ways as to what is an appropriate level and method of support. I would imagine that would occur differently in different places. Certainly, the Central Australian board, as opposed to the East Arnhem board, would have different expectations and demands of government.
The minister also said that he attended the LGANT meeting this morning. The only question I pose to the minister arising out of his information which I have received in relation to the local government agenda in bringing councils together: I believe it is the department’s intention to reduce the number of local governments in the Northern Territory to about 20, and I am wondering if he can confirm or deny that particular story for me.
Mr AH KIT (Regional Development): Mr Acting Speaker, I have heard nothing of the sort regarding bringing local governments together to a minimal amount of 20. The shadow minister should understand that the former government embarked upon the local government reform process. He should also be aware that the ability of regional development plans and boards were not being effective in a proper manner.
Here is an opportunity now to be serious and to start ensuring that other parts of the Northern Territory are included in the way we move forward as a Territory. This is a serious and genuine attempt to put in place regional development boards, and to give them the support and the resources that are necessary to help formulate a serious partnership with government, so that we can plan properly and include them in the way that we move forward in employment, economic development, etcetera.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Mr Acting Speaker, today I advise members of a second submission prepared by the Northern Territory Tourist Commission to the Commonwealth government’s medium- to long-term strategy for tourism, or its green paper. This second submission complements the July 2003 submission by the Northern Territory Tourist Commission, with a focus on whole-of-government issues with direct relevance to the rural and remote segment of the tourism industry, and of business in general.
The tourism sector makes a major contribution to the economy of rural and remote Australia. Tourism is one of the few industries that provide opportunities for employment, small business and economic and social development in rural and remote regions. Economic development within many indigenous communities is dependent on development of niche tourism ventures. Because of their location and nature, these rural and remote tourism ventures and sectors are fragile and need help and guidance, as well as the removal of impediments that are often imposed, unintentionally, by governments.
The Northern Territory Tourist Commission focusses on the challenges and proposes means to address them. Remote tourism offers opportunities for small and start-up enterprises, including increasing numbers of indigenous-owned businesses, leading to more self-sustaining local economy and a move away from welfare dependency, as prerequisites to long-term improvement to social conditions.
Tourism has a major role in achieving economic and social goals in rural and remote regions through investment, enterprise development and sustainable development. Such development will lead to flow on benefits to social wellbeing, greater participation and education, and improved health outcomes. For some regions tourism may be the only future prospect, thus impediments to its development take on greater importance.
Many of these impediments, although mostly unintentional, are policy induced and can be addressed by policy changes. For example, the distortions introduced by the taxation system impose disproportionate cost and cash flow burdens on rural and remote businesses. Unlike the agricultural sector, there is no mechanism for smooth income and taxation for tourism businesses.
The Commonwealth must commit adequate resources to the protected areas it controls. Targeted government support is required for indigenous tourism development through provision of commercially driven venture capital and business development support and flexible start-up funding for new businesses, accompanied by close commercial guidance. The current cabotage arrangement for international air passenger transport reduce opportunities for competitive travel to destinations such as Darwin.
The Northern Territory Tourist Commission makes the following major recommendations to the Commonwealth’s green paper:
1. Strategies should be implemented to create additional avenues for investment attraction and business
mentoring for small and medium tourism enterprise in rural and remote locations.
made available to aid the development of sustainable indigenous tourism enterprises.
provisions introduced to allow tax averaging for eligible businesses and individuals.
appropriate infrastructure and resources to manage sustainable tourism which supports the natural
and cultural values, eg in Kakadu and other Commonwealth national parks
Australia are given appropriate weight in assessing road funding needs.
The Northern Territory Tourist Commission has made strong representations to the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources to implement these recommendations. I expect to be leading a delegation of government and industry representatives to Canberra in the near future to meet with Joe Hockey, the federal Tourism minister and federal Transport minister, John Anderson.
The Northern Territory’s second submission to the green paper is also available from the department’s web site at www.nttc.com.au, and I commend it to all members.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Speaker, the minister will be delighted because, unlike some other occasions this week, in my reply I am not going to repeat the figures and the ABS, Tourism Top End, NTTC documents and publications showing a huge reduction in the number of visitors or visitor expenditure. I am not going to encourage the minister to get out and do more, meet with the industry and, indeed, lobby his more senior Cabinet colleagues for additional funds. Nor am I going to remind the minister that it is incumbent upon him to lift his game in relation to the tourism industry in the Northern Territory.
Having said those things, I commend him on talking about the green paper. I am glad that the submission is available on the web site; I look forward to reading it. I wish you well in your delegation to Canberra. There are some important issues that were raised. Even the minister knows that there are some important issues and, thank God he will have a delegation with him, because they can wind him up and tell him exactly what to say. I look forward to the minister coming back another time and reporting to all of us on the outcome of his meeting. Like so many other Territorians, especially those in the tourism industry, we will keep our fingers crossed in the meantime that the industry will get an injection of funds.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Generally, Mr Acting Speaker, I welcome the reply by the member for Araluen.
I would like to compliment the Northern Territory Tourist Commission, particularly their board, for a very good set of recommendations in response to the green paper. I would particularly like to commend Richard Ryan, the chairman of the board. A lot of these taxation reforms foreshadowed in here have come from Richard Ryan, whom most people would know is a very well known accountant and business identity in the Territory.
I would like to see the federal government take on this message about averaging income over time because there is no doubt, politics aside, that the tourism industry does experience rises and falls in income. It would be good to see that sort of thing introduced. I am sure that the industry will welcome these changes. It has come from a board that has very strong industry representation and a very strong chairman in Richard Ryan. I commend their submission to the green paper.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to make amendments to Part IIA of the Criminal Code, which deals with the defence of mental impairment and unfitness to stand trial. As members would be aware, the Criminal Code Amendment (Mental Impairment and Unfitness To Be Tried) Act 2002 introducing Part IIA to the Criminal Code was passed in this House on 23 May 2002, and commenced operation on 15 June 2002.
Part IIA introduced new procedures for dealing with persons being tried by the Supreme Court, in respect of whom there was some question as to their fitness to stand trial or whose mental competence in relation to responsibility for commission of a crime is in question. The provisions replaced Administrator’s pleasure detention, and ensured that, where such a person presented a danger to the community, they could be appropriately detained and, where possible, be treated for their condition. It provided independent review by the court of the terms and conditions of detention and the need for continued detention.
We have had an opportunity to review the operation of the legislation so far, as cases have now been dealt with by the Supreme Court. These cases have highlighted a need to make some changes to Part IIA. Under Part IIA, where a court has declared an accused person to be liable to supervision, the court must then make either a custodial or non-custodial supervision order.
In accordance with the objectives of the legislation, supervision orders are subject to various reviews, either on application by interested parties or at specific events set out in the legislation. A review of the supervision order may be made to determine whether the supervised person may be released from the supervision order, whether the order may be altered from a custodial to a non-custodial order, or indeed, from a non-custodial to a custodial order if the circumstances of the person warrant that action.
Part IIA provides for procedures that apply when the court makes, varies, revokes or reviews a supervision order. One of these requirements is that reasonable notice of the proceedings must be given to the victim, the next of kin of a deceased victim, the next of kin of the supervised person and, if the supervised person is a member of an Aboriginal community, that Aboriginal community. The aim of this provision is to ensure that persons who have some interest in the outcome of the proceedings are aware that they are afoot.
At present, the court also has the discretion to request and receive reports from the victim, the next of kin of a deceased victim, and the next of kin of the supervised person and, if the supervised person is a member of an Aboriginal community, that Aboriginal community, before it makes, varies, revokes or reviews a supervision order.
Section 43ZL deals with the content of reports, and refers to a victim, or next of kin of the deceased victim, making a report setting out their views as to the conduct of the supervised person. The intent of these provisions was to both provide an opportunity for victims and near relatives of victims to fully express to the court the effect that the offending conduct had had on their lives, and to appraise the court of their views as to the effect on them of the potential release of the supervised person. Unfortunately, it would appear that this intent was not clearly expressed in the current provision, the court, in a recent review, taking a more narrow interpretation of the provision and disallowing a report that dealt with the impact of the offending conduct on the victim’s family rather than just their view of the conduct.
Not unnaturally, it is precisely the impact of the conduct that many family members will wish to convey to the court. They will want the court to understand their loss and how that has affected their own lives. That was what was intended and what the proposed amendment now aims to achieve. In addition, to make clear the importance of allowing the victim’s family to express their views, the act will be amended to ensure that, when a victim, or next of kin of a victim, prepares and submits a report, the court must receive and give consideration to it. This ensures that the views of the victim or next of kin of the victim will be heard by the court, and ensures that such persons are not marginalised in the process.
An amendment will also be made to the notification provisions, establishing a mechanism which will allow the victim, or the next of kin of the victim, to give notice to the court that they do not wish to be notified when a supervision order is to be made, or when a review of the supervision order is to be conducted. Because there can be, potentially, many occasions over a lengthy period when some consideration may be given to the status of a supervision order, there may be persons who do not wish to be notified on each occasion because of the obvious significant emotional distress that may occur. This mechanism will allow a victim, or next of kin of the victim, the choice not to be notified or involved in these processes.
In addition, an amendment is to be made to section 43ZG of the code. This provision requires that, when the court sets a supervision order, it must also set a term for the purpose of conducting a major review of a supervision order. Supervision orders are for an indefinite term. The major review of a supervision order is to determine whether the person’s detention or further restriction under a supervision order continues to be justified by public safety considerations. The term that is set for a review under section 43ZG is the term that a court would have set, as a sentence, had the person actually been found guilty of the crime. At present, the provisions are dealt with under the heading ‘Limiting of Term of Supervision Orders’. That terminology is not strictly correct because the supervision order is not limited by the terms set under section 43ZG. A supervision order can only be altered by an order of the court following a review or other application, and such alteration is subject to the restrictions on community safety, and safety of the supervised person as I have mentioned.
The effect of setting a term under section 43ZG is to trigger a major review. The heading to section 43ZG(1) of that provision will be altered to make clear that the section deals with major reviews, not the setting of a term that has the effect of limiting or terminating a supervision order. In addition, section 43ZG currently provides for a review term of 15 years for crimes that carry mandatory life imprisonment, or where the court would have set life as the sentence had the person been found guilty of the offence. Clearly, some term is required to be set for a review to be conducted; it being obviously pointless for a review to occur at the end of a life sentence.
This provision will now be amended to reflect the alteration to the Sentencing Act to be introduced in the Sentencing (Offence of Murder) and Parole Reform Bill that will be introduced in this sittings. The court will now set, as a term for the major review, the term that it would otherwise have set as a non-parole period for the person convicted of the crime of murder, or for a sentence for which life imprisonment might be imposed.
It is important that we continually review the operation of legislation and, where necessary, refine the provisions to ensure that the objectives are able to be achieved. We will continue to closely monitor this important legislation to ensure its effective operation. Mr Acting Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to implement reforms to the current sentencing regime for the crime of murder. The bill achieves these reforms by amendments to the Criminal Code, the Sentencing Act and the Parole of Prisoners Act. Since December 2001, the government has conducted extensive research into the laws governing the penalties for murder, manslaughter and dangerous act, to ensure that the Northern Territory laws in these areas are appropriate and operate effectively. This review has resulted in the development of the bill I am introducing today.
This bill maintains mandatory life imprisonment for murder. It also recognises the previous government’s policy of considering release of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment for murder after 20 years, with a standard non-parole period that will apply, to be set at 20 years. However, the review considered that a blanket policy of 20 years for review and consideration for release of all murder cases did not go far enough. It did not recognise that many crimes of murder include circumstances of aggravation which must be taken into account.
Together with a standard minimum non-parole period of 20 years, the bill establishes for the first time a higher minimum non-parole period of 25 years. This non-parole period specifically recognises and identifies cases which involve particular circumstances of aggravation that increase the relative seriousness of the offence. The minimum non-parole period of 25 years will automatically apply in cases involving the murder of more than one person; murders which involve sexual assault; murders of children; murders of public officials who are acting in the course of their duties such as police, teachers and nurses; and cases where the accused has previously been convicted of murder or manslaughter.
In addition, the bill recognises that the facts and circumstances of some of these crimes of murder are so heinous that the offender should be ineligible for parole for a much longer period that these minimums or, indeed, should never be released. Consequently, the court will empowered to set higher non-parole periods above 20 or 25 years, or order that an offender never be released. In deciding to set a higher non-parole period than those specified, the court may consider the level of culpability of the offender by looking at any objective or subjective factors; that is, any matters concerning the offender or the factors of the offence itself that make the crime more serious. In making a decision to refuse a non-parole period, the court will be required to consider the level of culpability of the offender and whether it is so extreme that the community interest in the protection of the community, retribution, deterrence and punishment can only be met by a natural life sentence.
The matters I have outlined illustrates some of the deficiencies in the previous government’s policy. Setting 20 years for the Parole Board to review and recommend on all cases failed to recognise that some cases are more serious that others. It failed, particularly, to recognise that there will be some cases where an offender should never be considered for release.
The bill will also recognise that, in some extremely limited circumstances, like battered wife cases or mercy killings, the court should be able to consider whether to apply a non-parole period of less than 20 years. The government has very carefully scrutinised this part of the bill and developed a provision, the terms of which will ensure it can only be applied in truly exceptional circumstances. The discretion will apply where the court is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist that are sufficient to justify a shorter non-parole period than the standard of 20 years. In determining this question, the bill directs the court to the matters which it must take into account in determining the existence of exceptional circumstances, and provides that the court cannot take any other matters into account.
I will give greater detail of this provision later in the speech but, in summary, to determine whether exceptional circumstances exist the court must be satisfied that a defender is of good character and is unlikely to reoffend, and that the victim’s conduct, or their conduct and condition, was such that it substantially mitigated the action taken by the offender. The government has received advice from a leading Queens Counsel that this provision has an extremely narrow application.
Given each of these matters, the government is satisfied that it has the balance right. It has provided the court with the ability to deal with the full range of cases that might come before it. It allows the court to substantially increase or refuse to set non-parole periods, but provides a discretion that can be applied to truly exceptional cases. Those include cases of wives who have a long history of having been victims of physical abuse, or cases where close relatives assist to end the suffering of a loved one in the last days of a terminal illness. However, the provision is, rightly, one with very limited application.
This bill also contains important and overdue reforms to the Northern Territory Parole Board. That board will be required to consider applications for release at the end of the prisoner’s non-parole period. Before turning to the detail of these reforms though, I would like to make clear the operation and effect of the non-parole period.
Eligibility for parole is, of course, no guarantee of release. However, there is an unfortunate tendency for the media, when reporting on the sentence for a crime, to focus on the non-parole period as being the actual sentence handed down by the court and which will be served by the prisoner. This is not the case. A non-parole period is the period of time during which time the offender is not eligible for release from prison. It establishes only the earliest time at which the offender may be considered for release. The fact that a court sets a non-parole period does not mean that a prisoner will automatically be released on parole at the expiration of that non-parole period. It is the function of the Parole Board under the Parole of Prisoners Act to determine the suitability of individual prisoners for release at the expiration of that period of time.
Eligibility for release of a person convicted of murder from custodial portion of their sentence is dealt with at two separate stages in the criminal justice process. First, it involves the court setting a non-parole period or, indeed, declining to do so in a worst case scenario. Secondly, it involves, quite separately, the Parole Board at the expiration of the non-parole period considering whether the prisoner is suitable for release. This two-stage process is particularly important to crimes that carry a lengthy sentence of imprisonment because it is very difficult for a court, so far out from the consideration of release, to determine questions of rehabilitation and community safety. The function of the Parole Board in determining the suitability of a person for release ensures that these elements are more properly and accurately accessed at the time of eligibility. In other words, the parole system allows for a review of the offender’s case after he or she has served a significant part of a custodial sentence, for the purposes of deciding whether he or she should be released on parole at that stage.
It is clear the setting of a non-parole period does not have the significance, in release or length of sentence, that is sometimes suggested by media reports. Nor does the granting of parole mean the end to the sentence or the end to the punishment for the crime. Parole should not be regarded as a ‘get out of jail free’ card. The offender on parole remains a prisoner subject to the conditions of the parole order, and can be returned to prison for a breach of the parole conditions. All parole orders are subject to a condition that the person be under supervision on parole, by a parole officer, and that they must obey all reasonable directions of the officer. Standard conditions are generally specified in the order; for example, the place of residency of the prisoner during the parole may be ordered.
As I have said, parole orders may be revoked or cancelled where there is a breach of parole conditions, and a person returned to prison. In the case of murder, the prisoner continues to serve a life sentence, but in a non-custodial manner, when released on parole. As they are subject to a mandatory life sentence, parole continues for the rest of their lives and they can, therefore, be returned to prison at any time if there is a breach of their parole conditions.
I turn now to the role of Parole Board and the reforms being proposed by this bill. The Parole Board will have the responsibility for considering parole applications from prisoners who have served their minimum of 20 or 25 years or higher non-parole periods. The Parole Board is currently constituted by the Chief Justice, the Director of Correctional Services and four other members appointed by the minister.
The board considers a broad range of material when deciding whether or not to release a prisoner on parole, and each case is considered on its individual merits. The documentation always includes a parole report prepared by the assigned parole officer, an institutional report prepared by prison staff, a police record of prior convictions, and a transcript of the Supreme Court sentencing details if the prisoner was sentenced in that court. In addition, the Parole Board may consider other relevant reports, including pre-sentence reports, psychological and/or psychiatric assessments and reports, medical assessments and reports, assessments and reports from substance misuse programs and treatment facilities, legal opinions, reports from interstate services, letters from the prisoner, and letters from the victim or victim’s representative.
The Parole Board does not automatically grant parole to those who are eligible. During 2002, 205 prisoners were considered for parole. Of these, 103 or 50.24% were granted parole; 40 prisoners or 19.51% were refused parole; 34 matters or 16.59% were deferred; and 28 grants of parole or 13.66%, were declined by the prisoner. Considering these statistics, there is absolutely no reason to suggest that, when a court sets a non-parole period, this will result in the release from prison of a person who has been convicted of murder simply at the expiration of their non-parole period. It sets only the very earliest date at which the person may be considered by the Parole Board for parole.
As part of the reforms being introduced by this bill, membership of the Parole Board is being increased to 10, with new members including a police officer, a Victims of Crime representative, and community representatives. When considering parole applications from prisoners convicted of murder, the board will be constituted by all 10 members, with a quorum of eight, up from the current six members. A unanimous decision is required for the decision to release a prisoner, and the bill will require the Parole Board to consider the public interest, including the protection of the community as a matter of primary importance when considering the application. For all other parole applications, the board will be constituted by six members, including the new police officer position and victims of crime representative, with a quorum of four. Other reforms will require the board to keep a record of its reasons for accepting or rejecting a parole application.
Before I turn in to the detail of the bill, I will briefly refer to the circumstances that led to the review of this important area of law. The review was prompted by the consequences of the former government’s policy of considering release of prisoners sentenced for murder after 20 years. Under that policy, the Parole Board was to review and make recommendations on those cases after 20 years had been served, with a review every three years thereafter. Cabinet was then to consider all recommendations made and the prisoners retained their rights to petition the Administrator to exercise the Royal prerogative of mercy for release. It is clear that the former government’s policy was deficient in a number of other aspects, not least of which being that it did not make any distinction between different cases of murder.
Section 162 of the Criminal Code Act provides for the crime of murder. That provision covers a wide number of different circumstances. As would be expected, it covers deaths caused with an intent to kill, but it also applies to acts where the intent was to cause not death, but grievous harm to the victim. A form of constructive murder also exists in which the act causing death is not required to be accompanied by an intention to kill or even to harm, and does not require the offender to foresee that death was a possible consequence of their act. Liability for this form of murder might arise, for example, where death occurs as a result of an inadvertent act committed in the course of a robbery. It is accepted that crimes of murder have different degrees of heinousness and culpability, notwithstanding the tragic consequences of each case. Some crimes of murder result from conduct of such cruelty and brutality and cold-bloodedness, that there can be no doubt they deserve a natural life sentence, both to punish the offender and to provide for the protection of the community. Other crimes of murder may be committed in circumstances which indicate the community’s interest in ongoing retribution and punishment is not so great.
The former government policy of applying a 20-year review period to all cases did not recognise those distinctions. This inadequate response will be overcome by the provisions in the bill, which will create a 25-year minimum non-parole period for identified circumstances, together with new provisions to enable the court to order higher non-parole periods, or order that particular prisoners should never be released. These provisions represent a significant tightening of the position of the Northern Territory and ensure that an appropriate minimum imprisonment period, or an order of no release, is available for offenders convicted of more heinous cases of murder. The penalty for murder will, of course, remain at mandatory life sentence in all cases, recognising that murder is the most serious of crimes.
It also became clear during our review that the offence of manslaughter may be operating as a potential escape route for cases which should be treated as murder cases. Since 1989, there have been 27 murder convictions and 99 manslaughter convictions. In some cases of manslaughter, the facts were quite disturbing, and some appeared markedly similar to cases which had resulted in a murder conviction. The offences of manslaughter and dangerous act are now being looked at in detail, and I hope to be in a position to be able to report back on this area of criminal law early next year.
I turn now to the substance of the bill. The reforms being implemented by this bill are achieved through amendments to the Criminal Code Act, the Sentencing Act and the Parole of Prisoners Act.
This bill amends section 164 of the Criminal Code by providing that the court may, in accordance with new section 53A of the Sentencing Act, set a non-parole period for the crime of murder. The mandatory penalty for that crime is retained as a sentence of life imprisonment.
As introduced in 1983, when the parliament passed the Juvenile Justice Act, the court retains the power in the case of a juvenile to set less than life imprisonment as the head sentence. A standard minimum non-parole period of 20 years is prescribed. This represents what is to be considered to be the minimum period of imprisonment before there is eligibility for parole for a crime of murder, in the middle of the range of objective seriousness for that offence. There will also be cases where there are factors associated with the crime that should warrant an automatically increased minimum non-parole period.
This bill identifies particular factors that aggravate the seriousness of the offence and set, for those cases, an non-parole period of 25 years. These factors include cases where the victim is in a particular category of occupation which provides for the safety and protection of other members of the community and which, as a consequence, may place them personally at risk. Where such persons have been targeted as a result of their duties, or the offence occurs while they are carrying out their duties, this factor is considered deserving of a heightened non-parole period. This provision will apply to victims who are police officers, emergency service workers, correctional services officers, judicial officers, health professionals, teachers and community workers, in particular, are part of this identified class of victims.
Similarly, the taking of the life of a child, one of the most vulnerable members of our society, is deserving of recognition of increased objective seriousness. Crimes of murder that are occasioned also by sexual assault, are also recognised as deserving an increased non-parole period. Where a victim has been sexually assaulted and then killed, either as a result of the assault or some subsequent act or omission, I believe that that factor places the offence, quite rightly in the minds of the community, in a more serious category of offence. Likewise, an offence in which the victim is killed, and then their body subjected to sexual degradation post mortem, is considered to be a more serious example of the crime of murder. Multiple convictions and prior convictions for homicide are also recognised as being aggravating factors that should increase the minimum non-parole period.
Although we have identified some particular examples of aggravating factors, it is not possible to anticipate all the circumstance and facts relevant to each and every crime of murder. There will be some offences for which a natural life sentence without the possibility of parole is necessary to be imposed. The court is, therefore, empowered under the amendments effected by this bill, to refuse to set a non-parole period, thus providing for a natural life sentence for cases deserving of this punishment. The court is also empowered to increase the non-parole period beyond the 20- or 25-year period specified, where it considers that the objective or subjective factors associated with the crime warrant the setting of a higher period. Consequently, it should be clearly understood that the aggravating factors identified in the proposed new section 53A do not limit the court to only imposing a 25-year non-parole period. That period may be subject to increase, or the court may decline to set a non-parole period if satisfied, as I have previously said, that the measure is required in all the circumstances of the case.
I have just canvassed particular factors that aggravate the crime of murder, and for which the community may view as deserving of a higher non-parole period. Recognising that a variety of factors or circumstances will affect the relative seriousness of the offence means that we must also appreciate that there will be some cases where the facts and circumstances actually lessen the culpability of the offender. I have no doubt that the community recognises that there are some exceptional cases where the same level of prolonged incarceration is not necessary, either as a punishment or for the protection of the community as a whole.
An example of such cases that come readily to mind are those of spouses - most frequently women - who have endured years of physical and emotional abuse and violence from their partner. Many times these cases are accompanied by sexual abuse, both of the spouse and sometimes also of the children in the relationship. It is easy for those who have never experienced this level of traumatic abuse to say that that woman should just walk away and leaver the perpetrator of the abuse. The reality is that a person who has been made vulnerable by abuse over an extended period of time will frequently be incapable of exercising free will in this way. They may be too afraid to leave; threatened by acts of violence if they do so. In some cases, they will have been brought back to the relationship by violence when they have sought to leave. Many stay in a misguided attempt to sustain and nurture their family unit, becoming caught up in a cycle of remorse being expressed by the perpetrator, promises to make changes, and then reversion to the old pattern of abuse. In some tragic cases seen in Australia, the spouse will eventually be able to take no more and may kill the perpetrator of the violence against them.
Of course, according to the law, if they do so when under physical attack they may be able to successfully raise the defence of self-defence. However, the reality is that, stacked up against a physically stronger person, they may not be able to defence themselves. Their opportunity only comes when the person is himself vulnerable: asleep or unconscious from alcohol intake. In such cases, the defences that might ordinarily be applied to cases involving violence by the victim - provocation and self-defence - may not succeed. The spouse will be convicted of murder and, without the ability for the court to take into consideration the history of the conduct of the victim, that person will have the same eligibility for release as the minimum non-parole period, as for all other persons convicted of that crime.
Likewise, cases have arisen in Australia where an act of killing has taken place in the context of sexual abuse by the murder victim against the offender’s child or other family member. Whist not condoning in any way these actions, it may be that, in some cases, a parent who strikes out at a perpetrator of the sexual abuse or is convicted of murder, may be deserving of some understanding expressed in the non-parole period that they receive.
Other tragic cases may include what the community commonly refers to as ‘mercy killings’; cases where the person - often a close relative to the victim - at the victim’s request and in circumstances where the victim is experiencing intense suffering as a result of illness, assists the person to end their life. I do not say that, by recognising these examples, that retaliation or vigilante activity is in any way condoned. The focus for consideration of the sort of cases that I have mentioned is clearly on the conduct of the victim, and the extent to which that conduct might explain the conduct of the offender and diminish their culpability. Nor do we condone ‘mercy killings’, but we recognise that there is a very different motive involved in such killings than in other examples of the crime. Those cases arise out of a wish by the offender to alleviate the sufferings of the victim, and occur with the consent of the victim.
I am not suggesting here that such consideration applies to a person who unilaterally determines to take the life of their partner or close other without that person’s expressed indication that in such circumstances they would not wish to continue their life. That example of the offence does not fall into the same category for consideration for a lesser non-parole period because it does not involve any actions or conduct on the part of the victim.
We have not proposed that these examples of the crime should receive a lesser sentence. Like all other crimes of murder, they will receive the same sentence, that of life imprisonment. However, we do not believe that the community would see offences such as these examples I just mentioned, as deserving of the same periods of incarceration as an offender who has raped their victim and/or subjected them to the most unimaginable levels of violence before the act results in their death. Cases such as the ones I have outlined are not ones where the community is at risk, or where the offender is likely to repeat violent conduct.
Under the proposed new section 53A of the Sentencing Act, the sentencing court will be able to set a shorter non-parole period than the 20-year period, where the court is satisfied exceptional circumstances that would justify a shorter period exist. As I have already outlined, this provision is an extremely limited one which contains a number of constraints on the exercise of the discretion by the sentencing court. As the standard non-parole period represents a non-parole period for an offence in the middle range of objective seriousness for the offence, any offence of which a non-parole period of less than 20 years is set, could not be more serious than an offence in the middle of the range of objective seriousness, and can reasonably be anticipated to be one which would be in the lower end of the range of objective seriousness.
In addition, in order to exercise the discretion the court must be satisfied that the offender is a person of otherwise good character and be unlikely to reoffend. This will include consideration by the court of any prior convictions or other relevant matters. Clearly, offences such as traffic matters or minor property offences will have little relevance to the determination of a lower non-parole period for the crime of murder, whereas prior convictions for offences of violence will be relevant matters for determination. Whether a record is significant or not may depend also on the date of the offences. Offences committed only new may have little significance in respect to a middle-aged offender. These matters are only capable of being determined by the court on an individual basis.
Further, the court must also be satisfied that the conduct, or the conduct and condition, of the victim substantially mitigates the conduct of the offender. This is not just a requirement for the court to consider that the conduct of the victim may have had some effect on the offender; it goes much further than that, requiring the court to consider whether the conduct in question – such as that I have just described – was such that it provided a substantial lessening of the offender’s culpability. No other matters, other than these requirements, may be taken into account by the court in the determination of the existence of exceptional circumstances.
The bill also amends the Parole of Prisoners Act by making alteration to the constitution of the Parole Board to ensure that it is representative of our community in the Northern Territory. The membership of the Parole Board is increased to 10 members. The Chief Justice or his or her nominee will be the chair of the board. The Director of Correctional Services and a member of the Police Force nominated by the Commissioner of Police, and a person with medical or psychological qualifications, will all be appointed. A person specifically appointed to represent the interest of victims of crime will be required, and the other five members will be required to be persons who reflect, as closely as possible, the composition of the community at large and whose membership must include women and persons of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent.
When the board is to consider matters in relation to the parole of a person convicted of murder, it will be constituted by all the members of the board and will require a quorum of eight members, including the chairman. On consideration of an application for parole by a person convicted of murder, the Parole Board must be unanimous in its decision. For all other matters, the board will be constituted by six members, comprising the chairman, the Director of Correctional Services, the police nominee, the Victims of Crime representative and two other members. A quorum of four, including the chair, will be required. Decisions of the board on these matters will be determined by a majority of votes, with the chairman having a deliberative and a casting vote.
The Parole Board must, obviously, consider the public interest in cases where it is determining the release of a person who has been convicted of murder. New section 3GB of the Parole of Prisoners Act identifies key features of public interest to which the board must have substantial regard. These are the protection of the community and the likely effect on the victim’s family if the person is released. Protection of the community is to be the paramount consideration.
In addition, in recognition of the composition of the Northern Territory community, if the offender is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person who identifies with a particular community, the Parole Board must take into account the likely effect on that community of the person being released on parole.
In order to ensure accountability when the Parole Board determines eligibility for parole of convicted murderers, the board will be required to record the reasons for their decision.
It is necessary for there to be a transitional provisions to allow for the application of non-parole periods to prisoners serving existing life sentences. The bill, therefore, provides that the sentence of a prisoner currently serving life imprisonment for a crime of murder will include a 20-year non-parole period or, in the event that a person is serving sentences for two or more convictions of murder, a 25-year non-parole period will apply.
However, once again, we recognise not all cases may be the same. Consequently, the Director of Public Prosecutions will be empowered to make application to the court for cases which deserve a greater non-parole period or, indeed, should have a non-parole period refused and, therefore, a natural life sentence confirmed. In considering these cases, the bill requires the court to fix a non-parole period of 25 years in cases involving circumstances of aggravation, which I have already outlined, in respect of new cases bought before the courts. Like with new cases, the court will also be empowered to order a higher non-parole period or that the prisoner should never be released.
Appeals from decisions on these applications will be provided in the same way as appeals on sentence provided in Part X of the Criminal Code.
These amendments maintain a strict sentencing regime with a mandatory life sentence for the crime of murder, but they overcome the simplistic approach contained in the policy of 20 years as a review date for all cases of murder. These reforms recognise that not all cases of murder are the same, and that tougher responses are required in a number of cases. Establishing a 25-year minimum non-parole period for cases with recognised factors of aggravation, and empowering the court to set higher non-parole periods or order that a prisoner never be released, are an essential elements of ensuring appropriate community safety and protection. At the same time, changes to the Parole Board also ensure that community safety is preserved, and that the community of the Northern Territory will continue to send a strong message that violent behaviour is never condoned and will be punished accordingly. Mr Acting Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
These amendments to the Bushfires Act provide: significantly increased penalties for serious offences against the act; increased penalties for lesser offences against the act; provision for authorised officers to enter land for the purpose of undertaking investigation into the cause of bushfires where it is considered that an offence may have been committed against the act, and to search for evidence relating to such offences; provision for authorised officers to enter land to undertake inspections for fire prevention measures where these measures are in the public interest; provision for the recovery of costs incurred fighting wildfires; the introduction of infringement notices for regulatory offences; and the removal of a minor provision relating to constructed fireplaces approved by the Bushfires Council.
This bill will significantly increase the deterrent value of the Bushfires Act, against people who are responsible for lighting fires which burn millions of hectares in the Territory every year and threaten the livelihood and safety of Territorians. Last year, in 2002, some 37.4 million hectares, or 28.5% of the Northern Territory, was burnt. While some of these fires were due to land management activity and some due to lightening strikes, most of these fires were either lit deliberately, or as the result of careless actions of people travelling through the Territory.
The bill substantially increases the penalties for offences under five sections to a maximum of $25 000 or five years imprisonment. These offences are potentially the most serious under the Bushfires Act, as they have the greatest potential to cause significant property damage and endanger the safety of Territorians. The offences include: setting fire to bush; burning without a permit to burn; leaving a fire before it is extinguished; lighting a fire during a declared fire ban; and setting fire to another person’s land.
In addition, this bill increases the penalties under a further eight sections of Bushfires Act to a maximum of $5000 or two years imprisonment. These offences, amongst others, include not complying with a firebreak notice and throwing down smouldering or burning matter. With this increase in penalties, the Bushfires Act will now have similar penalties to comparable legislation interstate.
The increase in penalties contained in this bill will greatly improve the deterrence value of the Bushfires Act. However, it is also critical that authorised officers have the ability to enforce the act and make it work effectively to achieve the intent of this act, which is to enable the prevention and suppression of bushfires. Merely increasing the penalties only goes part of the way to achieving this, and would be purely a knee-jerk reaction to the complex matter of managing bushfires in the Territory.
This bill introduces a number of other crucial amendments that will help to achieve this outcome. In order to effectively pursue an investigation into a fire and to determine if an offence has been committed, fire control officers need to be able to enter land as soon as possible to investigate the physical evidence left by a fire. This evidence, such as charring and scorch height on trees, or vehicle tracks and other traces of human activity, will deteriorate quickly and it is important that inspection is undertaken by qualified officers as soon as possible. Amendments to the act will now give authorised officers the power to enter land in order to conduct such an investigation when it is reasonable to suspect that an offence against the act has been committed. In addition, they will now have the power to search vehicles and vessels for evidence relating to a suspected offence. These powers are now consistent with those within the Fire and Emergency Act.
In the Northern Territory, the approach to bushfire management is founded on the need to undertake preventative actions to limit the spread and impact of wildfires as much as on fire suppression. The Regional Bushfires Committee and departmental staff commit over half of their resources every year into developing and implementing fire prevention programs.
In the Vernon fire control region, which incorporates the rural areas near Darwin, the Regional Bushfires Committee has determined that the minimum fire prevention standard is to have a perimeter firebreak installed on all properties. Fire control officers presently undertake annual inspections to ensure that all land-holders have their firebreaks installed but, to date, have not had the authority to enter land to inspect the firebreaks. Officers will now have the power to enter land to assess whether it is necessary for firebreaks to be established, or flammable material to be removed. These actions are undertaken in the public good to ensure that all land-holders undertake their responsibilities and help to protect not only their own property, but the property and safety of their neighbours.
Firebreaks are also an important safety issue for our volunteer bushfire brigades. Our bushfire volunteers routinely enter property to suppress wildfires, and the firebreaks provide not only a clear line from which to undertake control activities, but also an escape route should a fire threaten the safety of firefighters. Our bushfire volunteers commit thousands of hours annually to help Territorians manage and control bushfires. These amendments will help them to undertake this difficult and sometimes dangerous task with a greater degree of safety. The addition of these powers for authorised officers under the act is consistent with other Territory legislation. The power to enter land for the purpose of undertaking fire investigations and hazard reduction inspections are currently available to officers authorised under the Fire and Emergency Act.
The impact of wildfires on the Territory through the loss of property affects rural enterprises. The impacts on biodiversity conservation, and through the emission of greenhouse gases, are complex and extremely difficult to quantify. We are working to better understand these impacts, and we will continue to do so. However, we do know that the cost of fighting wildfires is one that is a constant impost on Territorian land managers. These costs and effort are generally accepted as a part of the Territory landscape, a part of working and living in a dynamic and fire-prone environment except, that is, where fire is the result of a deliberate act of arson or other offence under the Bushfires Act.
This bill will allow for the recovery of costs and damages incurred during wildfire suppression operations, where the fire is the result of an offence committed under the act. This cost can include the use of heavy plant and equipment, aircraft for aerial survey of fires, and other operating expenses incurred by the Territory.
While the significant increase in penalty for major offences under the act will help act as a deterrent to offenders, it is recognised that many breaches of the act are of a minor nature. In keeping with the expressed need to improve the ability of officers to enforce the act, these amendments will introduce provisions to issue infringement notices for regulatory offences. The introduction of infringement notices will streamline the enforcement process and allow for immediate punishment of those persons who commit offences. The ability to issue infringement notices during the annual firebreak enforcement process, for example, will markedly increase the effectiveness of this program, and will ultimately help reduce the workload of fire control officers.
The amendments in this bill do not introduce new offences, nor do they change the structure or the intent of the act. Land managers, be they pastoralists, indigenous landowners or conservation managers, will still be able to conduct fire management programs as they do now. The use of fire for land management and traditional purposes such as hunting, will continue as it has in the past.
There is, lastly, a minor amendment which removes the requirement for the Bushfires Council to approve constructed fireplaces. I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr BURNS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Mr Acting Speaker, I move that this bill be now read a second time.
The main purpose of this bill is to provide a prompt, effective response to an emergency animal disease and ensure minimal effect on the animal industries and the economy, if an emergency animal disease such as foot and mouth disease was detected within the Northern Territory or anywhere within Australia. The cost of a large-scale outbreak of foot and mouth disease was estimated in 2002 to cost $12bn to the Australian economy, comprising direct costs of $4bn and flow-on costs of $8bn.
The amendment bill will strengthen a number of existing powers and introduce new powers to enable an effective response and better risk management. A number of the amendments are necessary to ensure that the Northern Territory legislation is consistent with the national cost-sharing agreement for emergency animal diseases, signed by the Northern Territory in December 2001.
Compensation is now provided for animal products and buildings destroyed or damaged as part of an emergency animal disease response. Top-up compensation is provided for replacing stock, if the value of equivalent stock has increased since the disease outbreak. Compensation may be withheld if a person fails to meet the obligations with respect to reporting disease, or fails to comply with details of a prescribed disease control program and is found guilty of an offence.
Early detection and reporting will greatly limit the scope of the outbreak response and the cost of the response. Prescribed diseases will be classified as: an emergency disease that is listed with the national emergency animal disease response agreement; an exotic disease not found in Australia and not listed in the emergency animal disease response agreement; or an endemic disease that is one which occurs naturally within the Northern Territory.
There are obligations for persons to report a suspected or confirmed prescribed disease. There is an obligation for the Chief Inspector to publish a list of all prescribed diseases.
The legislation enables the declaration of a stand-still zone if an emergency disease is, or may be present, or maybe introduced into an area. The purpose is to prevent further movement of livestock or animal products while the extent of livestock movements from the risk area is determined and disease surveillance is done. This ban will be for a short period of time and released as soon as possible. This measure will greatly limit the spread of disease by exposed animals or animal products. A permit system will allow low risk movements to occur; for example, stock for slaughter at an abattoir. While it is envisaged that the ban would usually relate to livestock, a ban on livestock and livestock products is provided. Producer representatives are an important part of the response team and would contribute significantly to the decision process.
The ban on feeding of swill to pigs is strengthened by specifying the only conditions for any exemption to the ban, and establishing an offence to supply swill to pig farmers.
There is an ouster clause to provide protection from a legal injunction to prevent delays in the rapid response to an emergency animal disease. An order or direction by the Chief Inspector is final and conclusive in a disease control program for an emergency animal disease. Rapid actions early in an outbreak can greatly limit the spread of the disease. There is no ouster clause for endemic diseases.
In order to minimise the risk of poor quality diagnostic test results for emergency diseases, there will be an approval system for veterinary laboratories and specified tests for emergency diseases. There are national standards to support the approval process.
There is protection for persons acting in good faith against civil or criminal proceedings during emergency animal disease response. The penalties have been reviewed and converted to penalty units. There is a substantial increase in penalties. This is due to the fact that penalties have not been reviewed for many years and a deterrent is necessary to the high economic consequence of offences under the Stock Diseases Act.
The proposals in this bill are the result of lessons learnt during the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the United Kingdom in 2002, the national foot and mouth disease exercise conducted in September 2002, and consultations with industry and government organisations.
Mr Acting Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members for their consideration.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 19 August 2003.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Mr Acting Speaker, the procurement in the Northern Territory is an important topic. Procurement is, of course, the purchasing by government of items, services and products and its interaction with the private sector.
The irony, of course, is that the Northern Territory government – like all governments – is using the money which it has taxed from business to buy their products. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that people across Australia and the Northern Territory are, generally, of the view that government does provide a number of important services and the money is well spent.
The ministerial statement of 18 June 2003 by the Minister for Business, Industries and Resource Development, outlined a number of proposed reforms. However, before the statement does that, there was actually a very worthwhile summary of what type of impact procurement by the Northern Territory government has on the private sector; for example, the very fact that each year approximately $750m is injected into the Northern Territory economy by the Northern Territory government by way of procurement. The minister is absolutely correct when he said in the beginning of his statement that that helps many Territory businesses, particularly during the lean times.
The decision-making process relating to procurement, as to which particular services are utilised by government, is required to be fair and transparent. It also must achieve the fundamental goal of value for money, both in encouraging private enterprise and jobs in private enterprise, as well as achieving the proper provision of quality goods and services to Territorians.
The minister touched upon a couple of those fundamental pillars at page 2 of his statement. He said, quite rightly, that at the heart of the reform is this government’s genuine commitment - indeed, all governments’ genuine commitment. He has five criteria: open and effective competition, value for money, enhancing the capabilities of Territory business and industry, environmental protection, ethical behaviour and fair dealing. That is from the minister’s statement at page 2.
One aspect I will comment on is not a substantial portion of the statement but a portion that had a significant effect on a number of schools in my electorate. There are approximately 12 schools in the electorate of Goyder. The whole rationale, concept and the mechanisms associated with school-based procurement is something of vital importance to those schools, particularly the school councils and the parents who are actively and regularly involved in the process. In the ministerial statement, probably about halfway through, there is a fairly bold statement in relation to school-based procurement.
The government of the day – which is, of course, the Martin Labor government – decided that the roles and responsibilities that were within the realm of responsibility of school councils across the Northern Territory, would fall back to the Department of Employment, Education and Training capital works and repairs and maintenance. That is, all the education and training capital works and repairs and maintenance would come back to the department. That was a significant change. He went on to state that:
That caused a degree of consternation. School councils were effectively told by this government: ‘We do not trust you enough, despite the fact that you and your children are the primary beneficiaries’. Here was this typical, centralist Labor government demonstrating that they have abused the trust once against that Territorians placed in them in August 2001. That trust was misplaced. They, at that stage, took it upon themselves to remove that power.
There were, I understand, numerous representations made to the government by representatives from various school councils. Then we heard, very recently, a partial backflip announced by the Minister for Employment, Education and Training - it was a half pike. The minister effectively said that some powers would be returned to school councils. Therefore, we have the situation where, for many years, Territory school councils have had the authority to be directly involved in building projects such as the construction of classrooms and other school facilities, and refurbishment. In addition, school councils had the authority - and rightly so - to engage contractors for minor works around their particular schools. By way of background, the reason that occurred – and it is quite logical – is that it empowers the parents; it promotes the very principle that parents should get involved in their schools, bringing parents and education closer together.
It really comes down to this: who has the most to gain from decision-making at a school level; that is, is it the parents or the bureaucracy? My view is it is most certainly the parents. This government has attempted in the ministerial statement to take away that power from parents and give it to the bureaucracy …
Members interjecting.
Mr MALEY: That occurred without any consultation, so all the noises they make in this Chamber about consulting until the cows come home, amounted to effectively nil, because there was no consultation. That authority was revoked in minister Henderson’s procurement reform initiative statement he gave on 18 June 2003.
There is no doubt that volunteers – and they are volunteers – on numerous school councils across the Territory had, for years, made valuable contributions to school communities through their involvement in building programs. In fact, many schools – certainly in my electorate – are able to demonstrate that, through that parental involvement and management, public funds have procured much more than merely the described works.
The reform to procurement policy announced in this ministerial statement significantly reduced the role which school councils and parents have. Then it turns out that, after the backlash, the minister for Education recently announced that the unpopular decision to remove the ability of school councils to be actively involved in capital work-like programs would be partially reversed. It seems that school councils now can still make some decisions regarding minor new works, but will still no longer have the power to engage in capital work projects.
Once again, it comes down to that this is a real practical ‘on the ground’ reform which demonstrates that this government does not trust the view of parents enough to give them a real and comprehensive say in how their school should be run so that their children can get the best education possible under the public and private sectors.
At the end of the day, the proof of these proposed reforms will be in the pudding. We will not know, really, how effective or ineffective these are going to be until some time has passed. Procurement is an important subject and one which I am interested in. I can assure Territorians that I will be keeping a careful eye on this procurement initiative, and the effect that it has on …
Mr Henderson: Where from - Sydney?
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MALEY: I will have a careful eye on this government on behalf of all decent Territorians.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Acting Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me how little research and knowledge the member for Goyder does or has. The sheer laziness of his contributions in this Chamber - and I would have thought his leader would pull him up on it at some stage. Nevertheless, I digress.
As we have heard in debate, the NT government has an enormous impact on small business in its procurement purchasing power. There is some $750m per year pumped into the Territory economy through our procurement of goods and services. In his statement, the minister pointed out that this has a significant impact on the viability of Territory businesses, particularly in the light of statistics he told us: 80% of all government purchases are for items valued at less than $3000 - some $300m in expenditure each year. Thus, the government’s procurement practices will have a direct impact on the health of our local businesses and, therefore, Territorians’ livelihoods through their jobs.
I want to briefly reflect on the need for the procurement reform that was undertaken by the government, detailed by the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development in his statement to the House that we are debating today. Procurement, in the past, was not open to scrutiny nor adequate audit practices, creating an environment open to cronyism and purchasing practices that were nefarious, to say the least.
In talking to small, medium and large business owners that I know throughout the Territory, it had got to the point in the past where they no longer bothered to tender for a Northern Territory government contract. They believed that the cronyism had reached the stage where the tenders were no longer being let on the basis of the best bid but, rather, on the basis of who happened to be drinking or playing golf with particular ministers. I believe that this is to the eternal shame of the CLP, a party which pretends to represent the best interest of business. Such practices are commonly referred to elsewhere in other jurisdictions as corruption and, I believe, are, in fact, absolutely intolerable in a fair government ...
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Mr Acting Speaker! The member for Karama, possibly in her naivety, has levelled allegations of corruption at the previous government. She either does that by substantive motion or withdraws.
Ms LAWRIE: I have not levelled a allegation of corruption at the previous government at all, I am talking about …
Mr Burke: Just withdraw.
Ms LAWRIE: … people’s views on what they believe happened in terms of drinking and playing golf.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Will you withdraw, or …
Ms LAWRIE: I do not have to withdraw anything that the Leader of the Opposition …
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: No, will you withdraw that statement?
Ms LAWRIE: Which particular statement?
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: The corruption statement.
Ms LAWRIE: I did not make a statement on corruption. I said in other jurisdictions things are viewed as corruption.
A member: Withdraw!
Ms LAWRIE: I was not talking in terms of the Territory …
Mr BURKE: Mr Acting Speaker, I would suggest that, for the purposes of Hansard, the member withdraws all of her comments so far and starts again.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: I just ask you, member …
Ms LAWRIE: I will withdraw any comments with regard to corruption that the Leader of the Opposition might find offensive.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Continue.
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you. Indeed, I welcome the procurement reforms which will ensure that we have an open procurement system in keeping with our responsibilities to all Territory businesses. I have heard from Territory business people that, for the first time, they are now tendering for government contracts. You on the other side might laugh, members of the opposition, but this is what people are saying. It is to your shame.
Mr Burke: That would be your friends you play golf with, is it?
Ms LAWRIE: No, I do not play golf. I talk to business.
Mr Burke: You do not talk to business?
Ms LAWRIE: I said I go and talk to business.
Mr Dunham: That is your problem.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: How do these reforms create a fair environment? The establishment of a government Procurement Council to provide direct advice to the procurement minister on issues relating to government procurement policies and practices, the effectiveness of government procurement polices and practices, and options for procurement reform. The council will also liaise with the government in the preparatory stages of significant projects, to ensure that industry is thoroughly briefed.
The government called for nominations for this important council, and has appointed six private sector representatives. These representatives are Graeme Townes of an engineering design firm, Townes Chappell Mudgway; Sharyn Sherrington of Corporate Express; Caroline Angel, a restaurateur and former marketing manager of the Alice Springs Convention Centre; William Tilmouth, manager of Tangentyere Council in Alice Springs; Denis MacKenzie, Director of ICT provider Connected Solutions Group; and Michael Lynagh, businessman and Chairman of the Small Business Association. Public sector membership is Jennifer Prince and Sarah Butterworth.
In addition, we have restructured the Procurement Review Boards, with Katherine joining the PRB in Darwin and Tennant Creek joining the PRB in Alice Springs. In the past, Katherine and Tennant Creek PRBs saw about 10% all up of government procurement whereas, under this new structure, these Katherine and Tennant Creek representatives will get to see 100% of the government procurement.
Another critical reform is the establishment of a central procurement reference group within Treasury. It is designed to remove the fragmentation of policy and practices across government in the past.
In addition, government has also mandated the use by all agencies of the DCIS contract and procurement services for the provision of technical support for tendering processes, for all procurement over $10 000. This provides a more consistent approach across government agencies in the preparation of tender documentation and the management of tender processes.
The government will train its procurement agency staff, with $825 000 set aside for this upskilling exercise over the next three years. Our aim is that all procurement officers will achieve workplace competency levels, and those levels will, in fact, be prescribed in duty statements.
In the meantime, the minister has instituted a program called Meet the Buyers which creates forums that link procurement officers directly to the private sector to enhance the opportunity for local businesses to secure government work. These functions provide business with the opportunity to explain the capacity and the nature of their business, while procurement officers can explain the nature of government needs and practices – a win/win situation in keeping with our government’s philosophy underpinning this procurement reform which the minister in his statement explained as ‘open and fair competition, value for money, enhanced capabilities of Territory business and industry, environment protection and ethical behaviour and wellbeing’.
I do not intend to address procurement planning which the minister dealt with comprehensively in his statement, in terms of our counter cyclical delivery programs to tackle the peaks that we all know exist in the Territory experiences. Instead, I will deal with the latest procurement policy from our fair government, which goes to the ability of schools to manage their minor new works expenditure.
Despite the flight of fancy we heard previously from the member for Goyder, I will deal with the facts. The facts are that the government has absolutely clarified to schools that all school councils who wish to retain responsibility for minor new works, urgent minors and routine maintenance continue to do so. For those schools - and there are some schools in this category, member for Goyder - that wish to undertake these responsibilities, the Department of Employment, Education and Training will confirm on an annual basis that adequate technical competence is available to the school to undertake the necessary tasks related to minor new works and routine maintenance because, in the government’s experience, there are some schools which prefer not to. However, this clarification provides the flexibility for the schools to take on the work if they want to; to hand it over if they do not want to. In the instance of capital works over $150 000, they will remain with DIPE.
DEET and DIPE will work together to have an effective process in place to ensure that school communities are heavily involved in any capital works decisions that affect school design and amenity. On more general forms of procurement, DEET will work with schools to provide guidelines and training on procurement matters. This will include how procurements should be handled by schools in a transparent and accountable way. It has regard for the limited management resources available to schools. We heard from the minister that a letter is going out to all school councils explaining these provisions in detail.
I was present at a gathering of school councils recently where the minister explained the school council procurement provisions to all the school council members. Present at that were teachers and principals, and the response was very positive from members present. Being a parent, and having been a past chair of a school council, I have first-hand knowledge of just how a school council operates in school procurement and minor new works. What I can say is: that training is an essential tool of procurement managers. It has been an area overlooked. We have had the provisions given to school councils over the years; we have had some decentralisation. Okay, you can take on more and more responsibility at the school council level in your budgets and what you are doing with your budgets, particularly in the area of procurement. That has landed some schools in hot water. There is no doubt about it. We have seen clear examples where schools have come across great difficulty in these practices when it has come to audit time. We do know that, if you adequately equip and train people carrying out such responsible duties, they can do so in an environment where audits will show that they have performed them in an appropriate fashion.
I congratulate the government on identifying that the school councils will need appropriate training where they wish to continue with the procurement practices of the past. The role of DIPE in major new works projects is an appropriate one, working with the schools in the projects. I have had school principals say to me: ‘I am not a builder, I am not an architect. I do not want full responsibility for a major project. I do want to, as principal, work with the architects and builders to ensure that our school gets the best possible project that meets our needs’.
That is what the provisions the government has put in place and bedded down will provide. In another way, we have a win/win for the schools as well. Where they want to and have the capacity to undertake minor new works, they will continue to do so. Those schools which do not want to, and do not have the capacity, will not have to in the future. That is their choice. There is a process in place for the schools to be asked whether or not they want to take it up. In terms of major projects, that will sit with DIPE, working with DEET and the local schools to deliver what the school wants …
Mr Mills: That is the part that is offending everyone.
Ms LAWRIE: I will pick up on the interjections from the shadow for education. He thinks if he speaks to one, two or three people, then he definitively has the response from the entire sector. I urge …
Mr Mills: Excuse me! I have written to every school council.
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms LAWRIE: … members in this House to get out and speak to as broad as possible …
Mr Mills: I wrote to every school council and consulted COGSO.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Blain, order!
Ms LAWRIE: … section of people. Clearly, sometimes, they come in here with a narrow perspective. The feedback I have received already from principals is – and I restate it – that they are not architects or builders. They do not want the sole management of major – and we are talking major - projects. They do want input; there is no doubt about it. They know what is best for their school in the outcome of the project. They do not want sole responsibility for that project. They have enough on their plate being the principal of a school.
I congratulate the government for having the strength and passion to undertake this procurement reform process. It is difficult. We were the dinosaur jurisdiction, yet again, in the issue of procurement.
Mr Mills: Oh, what sort of animal is it now?
Ms LAWRIE: You might laugh, shadow for education. When I was talking to other jurisdictions on the issue of procurement, they could not believe how behind we were in our procurement practices. They have encouraged us in these reforms, and I know that they have welcomed these reforms. The Commonwealth has certainly indicated that they are happy with these reforms in discussions at ministerial level. It really does place us well to be highly competitive within the Australian business environment.
I am delighted with the feedback I am getting from small, medium and large businesses; that they now see a fair procurement process. They now have the belief that they can bid for contracts which, in itself, is an expensive process to go through. You are putting in time and resources of your business to bid in the first place. They now have the confidence to go into that bidding process believing that a fair decision will occur at the end of the day, because there is scrutiny, openness and transparency in the procurement process.
The Buyer Forums is a fantastic initiative. It is a very practical way of bringing businesses and procurement agency officers together to enable people to explain what goods they have on the market to sell and, from the government’s perspective, just what goods and what quality we are looking for.
I congratulate the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development and his agency. DBIRD has done a lot of work on this. Treasury has a very strong role to play in this in the centralised procurement agency board. I know that there are officers within Treasury who have done a lot of hard policy work on procurement and continue to do so. I congratulate the members of the council who have been appointed by the government. I encourage them to continue to look at ways that government can enhance procurement to local business within the context of the National Competition Policy. That really is the difficulty for all jurisdictions. Western Australia, currently, in the Australian context is out on its own somewhat in the emphasis that it provides to local procurement, and that is proving problematic in funding arrangements with the Commonwealth.
The challenge for the Territory is to be able to operate within the National Competition Policy guidelines, yet enhance the ability for our local businesses to have a cutting edge in procurement. That is something that I believe is very much a task for the Procurement Council, in liaising with the minister, because that gets down to the heart of what small business are looking for. They want to have a competitive edge, where possible, in their local business. Yet, how do we do that in the fairness of competition, and an open and transparent procurement system? I am sure that the wisdom that is gathered through this Procurement Council can actually pay attention to that issue that all jurisdictions are grappling with - not just this jurisdiction - and that we will all continue to grapple with, particularly in the context of a national debate about the free trade agreement with the United States that is currently being negotiated.
We are working with these reforms in an environment of shifting circumstances nationally. Already we are signing up, as are other jurisdictions, with agreements nationally and with New Zealand in procurement. Really, it was time for us to come of age in procurement practices. I am delighted with the reforms because they have brought us up to standard nationally.
I believe we have an opportunity, with the Procurement Council that has been established to advise the minister, to take it that next step further to tackle the difficult aspect of giving a cutting edge to local business within an open and fair system. I encourage all procurement officers to take up that opportunity of training the government is pursuing with the $825 000 over the next three years. Professional enhancement will come through that training. Identifying the procurement skills in duty statements is a progressive step which shows professionalism in the sector. I look forward to further reports from the minister on this critical issue of procurement.
Debate suspended.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Mr Acting Speaker, I will brief in response to the minister’s statement on procurement reform. I wanted to place a couple of comments on the Hansard record.
Firstly, and I say this in a genuine fashion, we are debating a ministerial statement that came down on 18 June 2003 - June this year - and it is now 16 October. There is a problem in this Assembly in holding over these ministerial statements too long. I can understand the government - and I do not know what happened in the past, but I do not recall statements being held over inordinately. There may have been an occasion, say, where statements were held over for some reason or another. However, it seems to be a particular tactic of the current government that statements are announced with much fanfare, a few speakers speak to those statements, and then they are adjourned for long periods of time. Whilst I understand that the minister might reply and say: ‘Many want to speak on these statements and we need to give them full opportunity to do so’, I wonder why that opportunity is not presented at the time if the statement is so important to be responded to.
The problem with the passage of time is that things change. The member for Karama, in her patronising way, corrected the member for Goyder because of inaccuracies that he made in his comment today. However, in fact, the debate centres on a ministerial statement and that has not changed. The ministerial statement is quite explicit with regards to the responsibilities that will be taken away from schools. If I refer to one part of that statement, it says, with regard to school councils:
If the government has, since that time, decided that is not the best way to go, and maybe needs to do some changes and announce those changes by means of a press release, or a question in parliament, that is one thing. However, it does not help the consistency of the debate to be, on the one hand, debating a statement, which, when a statement comes into this House one would expect that to be a fairly definitive stance of government. That is why it comes forward in the minister’s name and is read, under the conventions in this House, without ministers straying from the words of that statement very far, because it is an important statement being presented by the minister, laying down government policy in a particular area. That is what the minister has done in this procurement review. In that review, he was very definitive about the way procurement would work in future with regards to school councils. Times have moved on; there is now some more flexibility given to school councils.
However, to suggest, as the member for Karama did, that they are all happy ignores the fact that I do not believe that they are. In fact, that the member for Blain reinforced that point of view. He is entirely correct. One only has to read the letter from the Moil Primary School, which I am sure the minister has a copy of, where they say they are proud of the way that they have been involved in those sort of procurement issues in the past, and do not see any reason for any change. You could hardly describe them as being overjoyed with the changes that happened.
However, having said that, it also points to another issue, and that is, that I wonder - and I hope that it is not the fact - that the government is using these statements simply to fill out the fact that they do not have enough legislation on their Notice Paper to pass through this parliament. If that is the case, it is a pretty sad state of affairs where the government itself is not generating enough legislation and, in order to keep the business of parliament going sufficiently on a day-to-day basis, that they have to use ministerial statements simply as fillers. That seems to be the case with this particular statement.
I wanted to approach the statement with a measure of strong support for the government. I believe the measures the government are putting in place are good, and I support those. It is disappointing, to say the least, that, prior to having to stand up and respond, one has to move a point of order against the member for Karama for the unfortunate and wrong attacks that she made upon the previous CLP government in this House in reference to these particular reforms. Then, when I look through previous statements that were made, I was sorry I was not in the House when Dr Toyne, the Attorney-General, made his comments, because, and if I could quote, he said:
It is pretty shallow stuff to suggest that, somehow, the procurement procedures that existed under the CLP government were one of contracts being awarded to mates on the golf course. That might be the opinion of some members of this House but, when you make those allegations, remember that they are being made against public servants, many of whom are the same public servants who are working for your government. I would imagine that many of the public servants are the same ones who are still involved in those procurement areas, and operating in the same way as they operated under my government. A childish comment that might create a giggle amongst the members of government really has wide-ranging implications and should not be made in this House on those important issues.
If you wanted to go to those type of areas, the example that stands out glaringly to anyone with regard to the wonderful reforms in the procurement processes that have happened in the Labor government, is Chinatown. If you want to benchmark Chinatown against the procurement objectives that are laid down in this ministerial statement and the so-called wonderful reforms that, by virtue of the ministerial statement, have already been implemented - which they have not. However, if you read some of the comments, for example, from the Attorney-General he says, by these reforms: ‘We have eliminated the possibility of ad hoc decision-making’. Well ,you are beginning to put in place processes that will improve decision-making but, to suggest that through these reforms they have been eliminated, is a big call indeed.
As the member for Wanguri well knows, Chinatown does not benchmark well, in any shape or form, against the objectives that you have laid down here, particularly if one looks at open and effective competition, value for money, and enhancing the capability of Territory businesses and industry. The whole process of Chinatown, I believe, was a total sham and embarrassment. The fact that almost nothing occurred has at that Chinatown development after well over two years in government, is evidence of the fact that one has to wonder whether or not the probity issues that were supposedly put in place, actually were there. When we questioned those probity issues in this House, it was clear from the documentation that was tabled that there were a number of probity auditors engaged and also disengaged - and disengaged at critical decision points in that process. The government may wish to defend their decision-making - that is up to them - but I simply say that if you want to throw stones about procurement processes of the CLP, look in your own backyard.
As the member for Wanguri knows, the $1.5m contract for the lighting of Traeger Park in Alice Springs has gone to a company which has its major headquarters in South Australia. I know it has an office in Alice Springs; I do not know what the size of that office is. But, certainly, if you look up the CAL web site, the particular contractor that has been awarded that project in Alice Springs - a large government project - is substantially a South Australia company.
There are ongoing issues involved in procurement, many of which, I guess, can be explained away adequately. One of the problems with procurement in the Northern Territory, I believe, has been this ability to ‘back brief’ unsuccessful tenderers in a responsible way. I note and applaud the number of agencies that have now been established as the Procurement Reference Board under the auspices of the Chief Minister. There is the Procurement Reference Group under the auspices of Treasury, and the Procurement Review Board, under the minister’s department, has been strengthened in its responsibilities. Also, there is an over-watch issue in the way agencies go about preparing tender documentation done through DCIS, by the Contracts and Procurement Unit.
The only question I would have for the minister is - and it may be in the report that he tabled, I have not actually seen it; he could explain it to me if he wished - the hierarchy of those agencies when it comes to responsibility, particularly in questioning by the Ombudsman. It is something that he may be able to easily explain away, but it seems to me there are conflicting and concurrent responsibilities in a number of those particular agencies. However, on the face of it, it looks particularly good. The Procurement Reference Board, essentially, advises on policy, policy development and policy implementation. The Procurement Reference Group is basically a Treasury organisation that, amongst other things, allows people to complain about procurement issues if they feel dissatisfied.
One of the things that is not in the statement - and I hope that the minister might take this on board – is that one of the things we tend to be focussed on in the Northern Territory is the concept of value for money. Value for money, more often than not, ends up being translated down to the cheapest tender. That is a culture that may pervade our departments, simply because they do manage very tight budgets; they have extreme demands on their budgets. I wonder if, in many of the infrastructual or purchasing responsibilities that they have, that in managing that budget it is very easy to move to a situation where the factor of the cheapest quote tends to predominate. The fact that the cheapest quote, too often, seems to be the one that is awarded the tender leads to a great amount of grievousness, particularly when an interstate firm wins a tender against a Territory firm, and the Territory firm believes the issue of value for money for Territorians is not being evidenced enough in the way the procurement decisions are being made.
One suggestion I would have for the government would be that the government, in its procurement processes, should put an absolute emphasis on quality. That is, when we are spending taxpayers’ money in the Northern Territory, perhaps we could better define this concept of value for money. Maybe it could be defined more in quality of work, and maybe that quality of work could be emphasised in the way the government goes about its whole tendering process in that, when the government looks to acquire a tenderer for a particular project or for purchasing goods, I believe they are the ones who should be leading the way in the Northern Territory by saying: ‘It may cost more, but we are focussed on quality’. I believe that a lot of these issues fall down to: ‘My quote may have been more expensive but the quality of my work would have been far better than the tender that has been awarded’.
I know they are vexed issues. I know they are very difficult issues to deal with when you are managing taxpayers’ money. I accept the fact that, in the reforms that have been put in place, the government - on the face of the minister’s statement - seems to be moving very well in setting in place a system that gets greater accountability by agencies, ensures that the agencies are well and truly trained, puts in place a reference group of quality people as a standing committee to advise the government on procurement policy and procedures and where improvements need to be made, and gives the Procurement Review Board far more power in reviewing the way decisions are made within agencies - and continue to be made, particularly when there are additions to contracts. In that regard the review of 10% variation going back to the Procurement Review Board is a very good idea.
I have said to the minister on many occasions that it is a more constructive debate if – and I am the first to acknowledge in this House - we move forward on this issue. I certainly acknowledge that, in the term of my government, there were a number of issues in procurement that I was not happy with. I wish I had had the time to have dealt with them more forcefully. We certainly put a review in place. The minister has mentioned the fact that that review was not tabled, but the review that this current government has now published essentially picks up most of the issues that were being grappled with by my government.
It is in that context that I support the minister and the statement. I support the government in what they are doing in improving procurement in the Northern Territory. I hope that the new structures being put in place work well, and are seen to be working well by the industry - those who are involved in this business on a day to day basis. I look forward to seeing the further reports on this issue from the minister.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Mr Acting Speaker, I would like to thank all members who have taken part in what is a very important area of government: the $750m a year of government procurement that finds its way into and ripples right through the economy.
Everyone in this House would agree that procurement is always going to be contentious. There is always going to be an element of division because, at the end of the day, there are winners and losers in any government procurement. As is obvious, there are always more losers than there are winners in this process. There are always going to be issues of complaints to be dealt with; of people who feel that they have been hard done by and allegations, whether they are warranted or not, of favouritism, nepotism, even – and I am not making these allegations – of corruption.
We are all members of parliament and we hear these calls. I suppose they are amplified because the Territory is such a small place. We have a fairly small economy and, basically, everyone knows everyone in the Northern Territory. So it is a contentious area of government.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his general support for the reforms. These reforms are overdue. Time will tell whether they are effective. At the end of the day, it is the perception out in the business community that really matters here, that government procurement is open and transparent and that contracts are awarded on a ‘value for money’ basis. If we have broad perception amongst our business community that we have achieved an open, transparent and ‘value for money’ process, then the job will have been done. However, it is going to take a while for these things to be worked through.
It has been a huge job of work. Within government itself, out of our 14 000 public servants, we have thousands of people with delegation to spend money on behalf of government. Every time a public servant makes a purchasing decision outside of the public sector with the business community, someone in that business community benefits. The fact is that of the public servants who have delegation to spend money at various levels, very few have been trained in regard to their responsibilities for government procurement under the Procurement Act. That is the real challenge. It is not that public servants are acting irresponsibly; the fact is they have not had training. The key part of these reforms is training within the public sector so that people understand their responsibilities, and can more accurately determine the potential cost of the purchase to government, whether it is goods or services.
The member for Greatorex today produced a list of 14 tenders that have been cancelled. I will go through the exercise and follow this up with my colleague, the Minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Environment. A number of those will have been cancelled because the bids that have come in after the tenders have closed would be in excess of what the department has probably budgeted for. People have said: ‘Crikey, we cannot afford this’, or ‘Something else has to slip if we are to manage the budget allocation’. That goes to show a lack of training and planning within the public sector in regard to the procurement process.
Every year in Cabinet - and the Opposition Leader will be aware of those processes - ministers go in and fight among themselves for the capital works programs for our agencies. Agencies get a capital works allocation, a minor new works allocation, and a repairs and maintenance allocation. There has been very little by way of structures within those agencies to actually plan the roll-out of those allocations on a year-to-year basis. That is why we see, consistently - and it has been happening for many years - underspending by agencies, particularly the big agencies, in terms of infrastructure planning, where an allocation is made but, as a result of lack of resources, training and planning, the allocation does not get spent that year because the processes are not in place in government.
It is a bit like the QEII, or a great big oil tanker. It is going to take a while to turn this ship around and achieve better outcomes. I am committed, as procurement minister, to do that and drive these reforms through government.
I will pick up on a couple of comments from the Leader of the Opposition. I do not know exactly where he was going regarding Chinatown. However, if there was any allegation of anything other than delays on that project, for whatever reasons, the Auditor-General, in his October 2003 report that was just handed down in parliament last week, certainly does not find any fault in the process. The fact that, subsequent to that, early on in government when the building construction industry was in a bit of crisis, we had developed new guidelines and policy for the purchase of office space, he certainly stands by the role of the probity auditor throughout this process. I am not sure where the Opposition Leader was heading to there, but I would urge him to read the Auditor-General’s report.
On the issue of the Traeger Park lights, I did speak to the Leader of the Opposition about this at a function on Friday. We are looking into that issue. As in a lot of cases, we have members from the business community complaining to ministers about decisions in procurement. On the face of it, they seem to be justifiable concerns. However, when you backtrack through the process, normally there are very genuine reasons why a decision has gone one way or the other. The issue here is the perception of an open, transparent and ‘value for money’ process that has to be dealt with. Also, an adequate and thorough debriefing process for failed tenderers, if they choose to avail themselves, so they really understand why they missed out on the job. They can then walk away from that debriefing process a bit wiser in terms of why they lost, and how they can be more competitive the next time around. I advise the Opposition Leader that I have asked questions in regards to that particular tender, because we do need case studies and case matters to ensure that reforms actually do what they are set out to do.
On the issue of the school-based procurement, I say to members opposite that it is great when you are in opposition and pick up on an issue and run with it and get a bit of traction; that is what opposition is about. It was a finely judged and balanced decision. Again, the opposition would know, for many years complaints amongst the business community, particularly small business, were that they do not get a look-in with regards to school-based procurement. They were complaints that were levelled at the previous government loud and clear when Bob Truman chaired the procurement review.
They were issues that came through again. The argument from the business community - and the opposition, as conservatives, are supposed to be the champions of small business - is that school-based procurement is public procurement; it is done with public money, and why don’t schools have to follow the same procurement legislation, guidelines and practices as other departments? On the face of it, it is a pretty fair question to ask. I refer the opposition - and I am sure the Opposition Leader may have been there – to the forum, earlier on in the government, that was convened by the president of the Small Business Association in Darwin. Mr Braedon Early - somebody everybody in this parliament would be aware of - is president and invited the Chief Minister and me to attend the forum at one of the major hotels here. There were a couple of hundred people, and there was and open question time. One of the questions that came from a small business in the Mall was: ‘Why are schools allowed to purchase books and stationery interstate without testing the local marketplace and purchasing through businesses in the Territory?’ On the face of it, a very good question.
That has to be balanced with the autonomy under devolution for school councils to be able to run their own affairs. We are a government that is not too proud to say that, if we make a decision and it has gone the wrong way, we will listen to the chord of public opinion and change that decision. That is what we have done in the way of saying to schools: ‘If you want to, and you have the capacity, then you can make those purchasing decisions in regard to expenditure less than $150 000’. However, expenditure over $150 000 is significant, and it is vital that, in the best interests of value for money, a quality product and ensuring that we are testing the marketplace, that purchasing in excess of $150 000 of public money should be done through the procurement process. However, it will certainly be done with full collaboration, input and sign-off from the schools concerned regarding those capital works.
For members opposite to say - I have just had a project at one of my schools, Leanyer School, completed; a $1.2m project. There was collaboration with DIPE there, because the school could not handle a project of that size. However, they had enormous amounts of input in commissioning and signing-off on the design, and that will continue to happen. I understand the politics of all of this but, for the opposition to run around and send letters off to school councils and say basically: ‘We are going to come in and run it all for you’ – well, I just warn them that there are many people in the business community who thought that that reform was long overdue. It was done with the best interests of trying to ensure robust purchasing, and equal opportunity for all businesses in the Northern Territory to be able to have a slice of the significant amount of purchasing that comes through our schools.
Many members contributed to the debate. I am very keen to meet, for the first time next week, the government Procurement Council. Again, to go through the make-up of that, this is the first time where government has said to the private sector - these are people who are the vital stakeholders in all of this - ‘We want you to form a government Procurement Council, where the council will be dominated by the private sector - six from the private sector, two from the public sector. You will report directly to me as minister for procurement, and you will have self-referencing powers’. Talk about transparency! This has never occurred before, where we are saying to the private sector, in an effort to breach and break through the perception of a lack of accountability and transparency: ‘We are opening our books up to you. You have self-referencing powers to be able to look at any area of government procurement that you wish, and we will provide the secretariat to you for that’.
I will also have the opportunity to task that council. We are meeting for the first time next week. The council will elect its chair next week - and not a chair or a council that has been appointed by the minister. We actually went out and sought expressions of interest from the business community. Ultimately, it is my choice, but we did go public for expressions of interest, and we have tried to achieve a balance on the council in the different sectors of business and industry, as well as regional representation.
I am very pleased to have been able to announce the members of that council being:
Graeme Townes, director of engineering design firm Townes Chappell Mudgway. Graeme is well respected
in that sector of the engineering design community;
in government. She understanding how government procurement works, and is a keen participant, in initiatives
she gives in terms of government policy for economic growth;
she was the first manager and operations director – I am not sure of her specific title – at the Alice Springs
Convention Centre. She did an enormous amount of work in initial bookings for the convention centre, and is a
woman of great capability;
enterprises because an enormous amount of public money is spent in Aboriginal communities. What we want to
see as an outcome from that expenditure, as well as quality and value for money, is the capacity for local employment
on those indigenous communities, and indigenous enterprises starting up on those communities that can bid for
government contracts and see that money stay in those communities, employing Aboriginal people in real jobs.
It is very important that we have somebody from the indigenous community on this council, and it is great to see
William putting his hand up.
economy. It is great that the ICT industry has come together as an industry sector, as a result of the first ICT forum
that was convened by my colleague, the ICT minister, and me last year. My colleague has just led a very successful
delegation to Singapore and it is vital that we have that sector represented on this group.
the CAL Board. Again, he is someone who has a great deal of vision and understanding about business in the Territory.
This is a very strong group. The public sector membership is: Jennifer Prince, our Under Treasurer, and CEO of the procurement area; and Sarah Butterworth, the CEO of DCIS.
That is a very formidable group. I know, from speaking to some of those members, that they cannot wait to get on with the job and really understand government procurement and contribute some very solid advice on where things need improvement and how they can be improved.
Another issue is the Procurement Review Boards. Currently, we have five boards across the Northern Territory. There has been some allegation and scaremongering that, because we have gone from five down to two - a board in Darwin and a board in Alice Springs - that somehow we have withdrawn decision-making from those regional communities. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Under the existing structures the Katherine, Tennant Creek and East Arnhem boards only saw procurement decisions under, I believe, $250 000 in those areas. When you wash through it all, the value of purchasing that they had any say on at all was 2% in Tennant Creek, around 6% in Katherine, and the figure for East Arnhem escapes me. Essentially, they had no say or oversight of contracts and tenders that were let for those regions.
The fact is now, with bigger procurement review boards in Darwin and Alice Springs, and a representative from the Katherine region on the Darwin board, and a representative from the Tennant Creek region on the Alice Springs board, there will be regional representation on those boards that will oversight 100% of the purchasing in those regions, and will contribute very strongly to those boards. That is a significant move.
It is October Business Month and we are running a series of Meet the Government Buyer expos across all regions in the Northern Territory. The most amazing statistic that came to me as procurement minister – and it is still quite amazing – is that 80% of all purchases made by government during the year are for amounts less than $3000 - single purchasing amounts. In terms of the volume of purchasing, 80% of it is less than that figure. Under the Procurement Act, for purchases of less than $3000 there is no competitive process; it is, basically, a single quote and a transaction. If you are in business and you do not know who the people are in government who are making those decisions, you have no capacity to access and be able to put your case about the goods and services that you can supply.
These Meet the Government Buyer expos are about putting government procurement people out there for business people to have access to, to be able to make their pitch regarding the value of goods and services. We will also be putting government purchases on the Internet, agency by agency, so that people can access them. That is a huge reform and one that is being well supported by the business community.
These reforms are significant. On the whole, I believe members do support them. I am certainly keen to come back into this House in 12 months or so and update people on how they are going. I move that the House takes note of the statement.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Dr BURNS (Environment and Heritage): Mr Acting Speaker, I want to talk about an issue that is of material importance to all Territorians: the cultural heritage of the Northern Territory; those historic and significant places and things that give the Territory its unique character.
In making this statement, I want to firstly touch on existing processes for heritage conservation, and the action taken to conserve our heritage over the last 10 or so years. I will then focus on the value of heritage conservation to our sense of identity and economic wellbeing. Finally, I will outline the major issues associated with the review of the Heritage Conservation Act so that we can leverage even greater benefits from conserving our heritage assets.
The previous government introduced heritage legislation to the Territory in the 1990s, making the Territory the second last place in Australia to have heritage legislation. Since then, much has been done to save the special character of the Territory, but there is much that remains to be done.
It will not come as a surprise to members that, in other states, heritage legislation often came about after loss of a significant popular iconic building. In Queensland, heritage legislation arose from the public outrage following the midnight demolitions of the Cloudlands Ballroom and the Bellevue Hotel in Brisbane.
Here in the Territory, sadly, we lost our special place seven years after our Heritage Conservation Act was passed. I have not yet met a single Territorian who, when talking about the Hotel Darwin, does not lament its loss as a great shame. The loss of a place like the Hotel Darwin has to make us pause for thought. How did it come to pass that a place as well established, as well loved, as integral to the streetscape of the capital city of the Northern Territory, could be destroyed in the dead of night?
Prior to the election, the Labor Party announced that it was committed to improving the processes that protect and conserve the Territory’s heritage. Today, I wish to foreshadow that I will shortly be releasing a public discussion paper that canvasses a variety of ways the Territory might improve the protection of our heritage. The Martin government is keeping that promise.
Experience shows that the current heritage regime in the Territory: firstly, is highly centralised; secondly, invests a great deal of power in the minister; thirdly, has a lengthy and rather complex procedure for registration of heritage places; and fourthly, has limited provision for interim protection of places under threat.
The review of the Heritage Conservation Act will look at heritage protection and conservation models from around Australia to see how these issues are dealt with elsewhere. This is an opportunity to take the best that Australia has to offer and craft it into a tailor-made heritage system for the Territory. This public discussion paper will form the centrepiece of a process of consultation with all Territorians, and will seek their views on heritage and what it means to them.
As the minister for Heritage, I am strongly of the view that we have come to a watershed in the conservation of the Territory’s heritage. During the last 12 years, many places that are quintessentially Territorian have been protected on the NT Heritage Register: Andado on the edge of the Simpson Desert; Flynn of the Inlands Grave; the Adelaide River Railway Station; East Point fortifications; and the Alcoota fossil deposit. In all, there have been 181 declarations spread across the Territory. Of these, 46% are in Darwin and the Top End; 34% are in Alice Springs and Central Australia; and 20% are in the Katherine and Tennant Creek districts, including the townships of Borroloola and Timber Creek.
Our heritage is spread widely across the Territory, and includes residences, mines, railway features, Aboriginal sites, military places, pastoral places, graves and parts of the Overland Telegraph Line. Territorians deserve credit for protecting these important components of the Territory’s environment but, as I said earlier, it is the places that have not been protected that we need to look at. These are the test of the system.
Some of the places that did not make it onto the register under the former government include the Hotel Darwin; the former nurses quarters on Lambell Terrace; the ‘Z-Special’ training area at East Arm; Hughes Airfield; and the Stella Maris complex. It beggars belief that, after having being recommended for declaration by the Heritage Advisory Council, the Hughes Airfield, the most intact World War II bomber airfield in the Northern Territory, and Stella Maris, a place as redolent of the character and history of seafaring in Darwin, could have been rejected by the minister of the day. Some would even say it is an outrage. These are places of great importance to the Territory and I take this opportunity of informing the House that I will be referring these places - the ones still standing at least …
Mr Baldwin: It is about time.
Dr BURNS: … back to the Heritage Advisory Council for review and advice about their heritage values. I will pick up on the interjection from the member for Daly. This is no laughing matter; this is very serious.
Mr Baldwin: I am not laughing.
Dr BURNS: You could have fooled me.
It is not enough, however, to merely review the places that have not been protected. We also need to review the process that provides for a minister, on a whim if you like, to decide not to protect a place against the advice of his Heritage Advisory Council. More than that, we need to review an act that has been changed so that a minister can destroy a place that has already been given heritage protection. I will repeat that, because this is actually a very crucial paragraph, and it needs to be emphasised on the record. More than that, we need to review an act that has been changed so that a minister can destroy a place that has already been given heritage protection.
I am referring here to the amendments made following the case of the former Alice Springs Gaol. In that incident, the minister for Heritage at the time determined that the gaol had to be demolished despite that it was heritage listed. Fortunately, the people of Alice Springs protested. I am sure my colleague, the member for Stuart, well remembers the Alice Springs community coming together, and many of Alice’s senior citizens mounting nightly vigils outside the gaol to ensure it was not knocked over in the dead of night. With support of the National Trust, court action was launched and the minister was found to be acting beyond his power - and the gaol remains today.
The story does not end there. What did the CLP then do? They changed the act so that the minister was provided with the power to destroy something that was declared a heritage place. It is matters like this that I believe will be central to the review of the Heritage Conservation Act.
We need our heritage places to understand the history that has made the Territory great, and has led to the achievements that we are so proud of. It also causes us to reflect upon the things that show that, like us, our ancestors were far from perfect, and sometimes did things that we are not so proud of. Importantly, our heritage places are a contributing part of our economy. Many of them have been contributing to that economy for over 100 years, and continue to do so.
It is clear that any heritage regime needs to be cognisant of the economic realities of the Territory. While it is fair to say that conserving heritage is perceived by many to be a cost that we can ill afford, the reality is that no development project in the Northern Territory has been stopped by the presence of a heritage site. The construction of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway had the potential to impact upon 125 heritage sites, including Aboriginal quarries and historic features. ADrail worked closely with the Office of Environment and Heritage to ensure that the railway had minimal impact on the Territory’s heritage places. They employed an archaeologist on staff to implement the mitigation and conservation works - the first time a development company in the Northern Territory has employed a heritage expert as staff. The level of cooperation between the Heritage Advisory Council, Office of Environment and Heritage, and ADrail, allowed for the issues to be worked through to achieve the best outcomes which were, firstly, conservation of the Territory’s heritage and, secondly, completion of a $1.2bn infrastructure project that will fundamentally change the Territory forever.
Notable among the successes of this project was the realignment of the track at Adelaide River to allow the retention of two of the three sets of rail from the old North Australia Railway. Let us not forget the Fergusson River Bridge – over 100 years old, it has been re-used by the new railway; a metaphor, perhaps, for our heritage: carrying our economic future. I would like to take this opportunity to thank ADrail, the company and the individuals, who worked so hard to conserve the Territory’s heritage.
The ConocoPhillips LNG plant at Wickham Point has also required a great deal of interaction between the Heritage Advisory Council, the Office of Environment and Heritage, and ConocoPhillips. Firstly, a sound process was established under the environmental management plan. This provided for the conservation, including fencing and avoidance of some sites, and the careful salvage, excavation and collection of sites where this was not possible. Prehistoric shell middens and historic World War II materials have been documented in detail in one of the largest heritage projects in the Territory for more than a decade. Again, the goodwill of ConocoPhillips and the hard work of the Office of the Environment and Heritage should be recognised, and I thank them for their efforts.
I know that there are officers of the Office of the Environment and Heritage here today, so it is good that they are able to hear first-hand that commendation. I am sure members from both sides will join me in that.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS: In large projects and small, the government and the Heritage Advisory Council have worked to ensure that valuable economic projects can proceed, while conserving the values of heritage places. This has often required innovation, lateral thinking and clever approaches to the adaptation of historic features; a task that seems to me peculiarly and appropriately suited to Territorians.
Heritage has not stopped development in the Territory, but more than simply not being an impediment to our economy, it is our view that the Territory’s unique heritage actually contributes to it. As Tourism Minister, I am acutely aware of the significant contribution that our heritage plays in shaping the experience of tourists and visitors to the Territory. We now that, in 2001-02, tourism contributed over 15 000 jobs and over $2bn to the Territory economy. Tourism contributes 4.9% to the Territory’s GSP, the largest percentage of any Australian jurisdiction. We also know that 45% of holiday visitors to the Territory visit our heritage places, even though they were not all aware of them before they arrived here. The Tourist Commission reports that 54% of holiday visitors see Aboriginal cultural places and view Aboriginal art sites during their Territory trip, and 27% of overseas tourists specifically come here to experience the rich Aboriginal cultural heritage of the Northern Territory.
The Northern Territory Tourism Strategic Plan 2003-07 states that there is a need to develop alternative attraction to the icons that are currently the backbone of this industry. The strategy states that heritage is one of the primary motivators for visiting and says:
Cultural tourism is recognised in the strategic plan as one of the two major building blocks for the Territory’s tourism future.
There is no question that one of the major tourism assets of the Territory is its heritage - whether environmental, cultural or both. Whilst this heritage may not always be grand, it has something far more important than grandeur alone: authenticity. For example, we have the features created over countless generations by Aboriginal people who have lived in this very place and left their marks, art sites, camp sites, quarries and tools. Few peoples on the Earth have been blessed with a heritage like that, of today’s Territorians. Visitors to the Territory know it and see it for it is; it is the real deal.
Of course, Aboriginal cultural heritage is not only about tourism numbers. It is not only about the great contribution cultural tourism makes to our Territory; it is about protecting an important part of the social fabric of the Territory. To protect that social fabric, we have to recognise our very diverse heritage and be prepared to conserve them through an effective Heritage Conservation Act.
In a recent study of regional economic impacts of tourism in heritage mining towns, it was found that visitors value authenticity and historic heritage very highly. They do not want razzle-dazzle. What they do want is good information and an opportunity to explore and understand at their own pace. Interestingly, visitors to these places were also enthusiastic to determine whether or not the places they were looking at were heritage listed and protected.
Where else in Australia can people see the whitewashed church in which our Albert Namatjira was taught about Christ, visit the house he lived in, or the ranges he painted so vividly? Where else in Australia can people see a war memorial that was actually shot at and bombed by enemy planes? Where in Australia can people see the remains of the busy campsites of World War II - the airstrips, the crashed planes and fortifications? There is nowhere else but the Territory where these opportunities present themselves. However, in order to realise the opportunity we have to conserve these things. No one will be interested in a brass plaque saying: ‘Here once stood the Hotel Darwin. It was a really great place’.
With this in mind, I am pleased to announce that I have already declared two places that are important contributors to the special character of the Territory. Firstly, Strauss Airstrip that was built in 1942 to accommodate a small group of brave men and their aircraft from the US, Britain and southern Australia. Strauss was one of three fighter airstrips protecting the Top End from Japanese raids that penetrated as far inland as Katherine. Strauss and the other two roadside airstrips were the sharp end of the war in Australia and, while it has suffered much over the last 60 years, it remains the most intact fighter strip we have left. It is clearly a place of great significance to the Territory and the to the nation. Strauss well deserves its place in the Northern Territory Heritage Register, and I will be taking steps to ensure that its heritage values are conserved.
The second one relates to another site. In contrast to Strauss Airstrip, the former Reserve Bank in Bennett Street represents a time when the Territory’s future looked rather brighter than it did in early 1942. Built by the bank under the leadership of the legendary Nugget Coombs, it was designed to be an important landmark and a statement of the central role the Reserve Bank was to have in Australian society. By reflection, it enhanced the city, it was built in and completed the encirclement of bank corner, occupied by Westpac, Commonwealth and Commercial Banks. The Reserve Bank is a noted example of late 20th century stripped classical style of architecture and continues to serve an important function as the base of the United Nations’ operations in East Timor.
This brings the number of places declared as part of the Northern Territory Heritage in 2003 to 11, and I look forward to receiving more recommendations from the Heritage Advisory Council.
I have talked about visitors to the Territory having the opportunity to enjoy the unique heritage experiences, but I want to make it clear that we do not conserve the heritage for visitors alone. We need to cater for people who live here now and who will be living here in the future. Our heritage places need to be available for future Territorians, and planning for that growth has to start now. Nor did our heritage begin in the last two centuries.
Aboriginal cultural heritage is addressed through the Heritage Conservation Act, while the protection of sacred sites is delivered through the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Site Act. Aboriginal places are under-represented on the Heritage Register and I have, therefore, asked the Heritage Advisory Council to look closely at the provisions of the act which protect Aboriginal cultural heritage. I have instructed the council to make sure that any new heritage bill will protect Aboriginal cultural heritage, not only out bush, but in towns as well. The council will also look at who owns and controls cultural heritage. People make our heritage and people will be the best conservers of our heritage places.
As Territorians, we need to make sure we have the best regime possible for protecting our heritage. In developing any scheme for its conservation, we must consider some specific issues. We need to consider the following:
we need to be clear about what aspects of our heritage are important and make sure they
are protected;
where they are most needed;
wider heritage of the Territory;
and understand it; and
but that does not mean that we cannot find a modern use for them and retain their heritage values.
The review of the Heritage Conservation Act will begin this process.
It would be wrong of me to conclude without making mention of the Territorians who are working to conserve our heritage, from Nguiu on Bathurst Island to Aputula on the Finke, from Angurugu on Groote Eylandt to Timber Creek. They are committed Territorians who are working hard to conserve the heritage of their regions.
As a government, we have been working to help people with professional advice and encouragement. The government also provides financial assistance to those seeking to protect and conserve our heritage through the NT Heritage Grants Program. However, it is a legislated heritage regime that really supports the work being done in our communities. Our communities need to know that they have an open and transparent process, and that they have an opportunity to have constructive input into conserving our heritage. We take this seriously, and the discussion paper I foreshadowed has been developed with the valuable input of 25 key interest groups. We have also engaged Australia’s foremost heritage legislation consultant, Mr Peter James, to examine how these issues are dealt with elsewhere, and to ensure that we get the most appropriate model for the Territory. It is worth noting that Mr James, a man of over 30 years experience in these matters both in Australia and overseas, personally commended the review process and told me it was the very best of its kind he has seen.
It is, therefore, with some considerable pleasure that I will be releasing this public discussion paper, as it is now time to hear from the wider community. I anticipate that the discussion paper will be available for public comment within the next month. By referring members in the community to the discussion paper, I want to encourage all interested Territorians to read and comment on how the legislative regime can best help them. The more widely these matters are discussed, the better the final outcome for all of us.
With an appropriate legislative framework, highly motivated organisations and individuals, and an absolute commitment to authenticity, I am confident that we can secure the Territory’s heritage, preserving the past for the benefit of future generations.
Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of this statement.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Mr Acting Speaker, I thank the minister for this statement today on the heritage legislation review and the details that he has outlined about the review. I look forward to the discussion paper when it is available.
I would have thought, though, that having done this today, the discussion paper might have been available. I note that it is going to come out some time in the future, but it is a shame that it is not here today to put together with this announcement.
I congratulate the minister for bringing Mr Peter James on board. He will provide good leadership in this whole process. I also acknowledge all the people who he is working with on the review.
What came down today in tabled papers, as the minister was speaking, was the Heritage Advisory Council’s 11th Annual Report. It is quite timely that that came. Even though you do not have your discussion paper, we have the latest report. However, unfortunately, minister, you will note - as I am sure you know already, because you sign off on these coming for tabling - that the 11th annual report is the 2001-02 report. It is now 2003. Normally, the 2002-03 report would be signed off as soon as practicable. It says in the act that it would be tabled in this parliament. In fact, when you get it - I think the act says, from memory - you have six sitting days to table it. I note in this report that Mr Bob Alford, who is the chairman, signed this off 6 February 2003. Therefore, one has to wonder how long you have had this report. The act does require you to table it in this House within six sitting days, so you might want to go and check on that; have your officers have a look. As I say, this is a report that is now over a year old. However, it is still quite interesting.
The minister takes much delight through his statement in criticising the former government, the CLP, for all the things they did, and did not do, and that is fine. We expect that of this Labor government. However, some of the things that we did do - certainly heritage and heritage assessment and conservation - stand us in good stead. Things like the financial assistance grants program, which was initiated under the CLP. The Northern Territory Heritage Grants Program has been continued by the Labor government, which is good to see. Always in need, usually - or I would say probably always - more demand than supply, like most grant processes. There are people out there who are always looking for money to do things in terms of heritage.
The philosophy of re-use of heritage objects is still one that is fundamental to the government's philosophy and is good to see. The incentive package that is available to people who own heritage-listed objects, including buildings, of course, where you can ask for rate relief, is still being progressed and used, as far as I know. The Pre-Heritage Advisory Service to be used by owners of heritage places is a very good strategy and program that I believe, at least for the rate relief, has taken up something like 100%. The Heritage Advisory Service is also very critical to the preservation and conservation of our heritage.
The minister talks about all sorts of things in the statement, but the thrust of it is the review. Like all things, legislation and the way things are done needs to be reviewed. The minister has thrown up a number of issues where he would like to see changes. Certainly, that is government’s prerogative. I would just note though that the minister used the example of the Alice Springs Gaol as an area where the minister’s powers are too strong. That may be correct in the way the minister thinks, but there will come some time when the minister or the government will wish to do some things that will require some extraordinary powers. How you deal with that is up to you, and I guess that is thrashed out in the discussion paper. That is why it is unfortunate that it is not here today.
However, let us look at the case of the Wesleyan Church, for example. You might think that that was the wrong decision by government as well; to remove the Wesleyan building because it was no longer a church in the eyes of the particular church group that owned it. Certainly that was listed, not only as an object, but as a place. I had to de-list that, if you like, and remove it. However, that was after a long period of consultation, and after trying to negotiate with all the stakeholders involved, including the Heritage Advisory Council. I went through that process to get permission to remove that building and preserve it at some place. They did not agree with the government of the day’s intent, and that is fair enough; they gave their advice.
However, the simple fact of the matter was that the owners of the land and the building had no wish to conserve it. In fact, we listed it at the time - declared it listed; made a declaration over it - because they were not maintaining it and wanted to destroy it. That was quite some years beforehand. So, I negotiated with all of the parties and the eventual outcome is what we see today, of course, and that is the development on Knuckey Street worth some tens of millions of dollars - some would say at the cost of the heritage value of that building and that place. They would be right; there is no doubt about it. This is the fine balance you get into in the decisions you have to make.
Fortunately though, there was an opportunity that I was able to negotiate with some funding from the owners and proponents to relocate that building, and have it properly restored with advice from architects who were suitably qualified and the Department of Heritage people. It is now a great facility, albeit not in its original place - but still conserved and preserved for all to see, because it is a historic building. It is my understanding only two of those types of buildings were produced in Australia. They were produced by the man who went on to make - God, I am searching now …
Ms Carter: Simpson.
Mr BALDWIN: Simpson washing machines. I think of Whirlpool, Simpson. Anyway, they were made fully prefabricated and one sent to the Territory and one elsewhere that has since been destroyed. Therefore, as a type of building, a type of construction, it was certainly worth protecting. We all in this House know the state it was in prior to government and me becoming involved in relocating it and having it preserved. Unfortunately, the site which was the site of the first church - I think it was - in Darwin is now built on, but that was the will of the owners of the day and, all in all, a practical solution.
There are times when the minister or the government really needs to have an extraordinary power. How you wish to do that - whether it has to go through the planning process or something like that - that is fine; you can change how you do it. However, at the end of the day you will find that you want to keep an extraordinary power. Perhaps you do not, I do not know. You will find, in time, there will be - and I can name a few buildings here in Darwin that could find themselves with a similar fate if you were not able to use some extraordinary power.
Minister, you also made reference to when the Heritage Advisory Council refers or recommends something to you for declaration, and the minister does not declare it. There is good reason for doing that in the eyes of the government or the minister of the day, and you might come across it yourself. In fact, you may already have come across it because I notice in this report that, when we get to places not declared, the minister chose not to declare Talc Head, recommended for declaration by the HAC:
I am assuming that was you who did not take up that recommendation in declaring Talc Head, because I cannot recall – and I will stand corrected if I am wrong – that one in particular coming to me. Given that this is a report that goes from July 2001 to June 2002, there is only a short period in there when I probably was the minister. I doubt that one actually came to me. My assumption in that is that you, minister, chose not to declare Talc Head. Therefore, it is all very well making references to previous ministers, but perhaps you have to sometimes look a little closer to home.
Much has been said about Hotel Darwin in this House and everywhere – and I am sure many more speakers will mention it …
Ms Lawrie: As we should.
Mr Kiely: You bet on it. Unless you apologise now. I will pull all my stuff if you apologise.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BALDWIN: I am sure that you will. You should realise that, in declaring heritage places that – and it is not mentioned in the minister’s statement anywhere – there is one other factor that comes into consideration. That is the owners of the building. They must be taken into consideration and, I am sure, minister, when you are given recommendations, that that is one thing that you check on. Well, I hope you do, because it is important that you take into consideration the wishes of the owners and weigh them up against the interest of the Territory.
We can argue about this all day but, in terms of the Hotel Darwin, there were a couple of engineering reports done on that: one by the heritage people, one by the owners, both conflicting. The owners were adamant that they wanted to get rid of the building because of the problems that the building was suffering, because of the type of construction – and that is the way it was. It was not heritage listed and sure, people do not agree. However, that was the owners’ choice and my power was whether I could put an interim control order over it. I could have, but we chose not to because of the wishes of the owners. They were the same people who built it that currently own it today. So, you have to, at times, take them into consideration. You will find there is a particular building in Darwin that you might have been told about, minister, because most Heritage ministers are – if you are getting the right advice and I know you are, because you have very good staff in the department – that you will keep an eye on always because of the potential for that to disappear if an interim control order is not used in a ready fashion.
The minister talks about listing a couple of places that he is very proud to list. I note that he says that he has declared 11 places this year, and that is very good. One of the places mentioned for listing that he is looking at is, I thought - was Strauss Airstrip that you …
Mr Burke: Hughes.
Dr Burns: No, Strauss.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, Strauss Airstrip. I thought that was the one that you wanted to put the highway through, so we can talk on one hand …
Ms Lawrie: Your federal mates, get it right. It is the Commonwealth.
Dr Burns: Your Mr Anderson wants to do that.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BALDWIN: I thought with a little money, you could divert that highway …
Dr Burns: It is a national highway!
Ms Lawrie: Ask your mate Anderson.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BALDWIN: As the managers of that funding, you have a lot of say in what happens …
Dr Burns: We need an extra $1.2m.
Mr BALDWIN: I will pick up on that interjection. If you are so concerned about the heritage value of Straus Airstrip, you will find a way; whether it is going back to the minister and making a bid. However, at the end of the day, if they say no, you will come up with the money because you are so concerned about Strauss, and I will be the first to congratulate you. I am sure the member for Nelson will be the first to congratulate the government for doing it, and I will be the second.
It is within your power. Therefore, do not come in here and say, on the one hand: ‘We are declaring this’, but on the other hand, ‘Woe betide, we have to put the highway through it because we cannot find a little money’. You have come in here today and talked about how much money you are spending on roads everywhere, and $1.2m or whatever it is nothing for the preservation of that heritage site.
Mr Kiely: Evidently $50 000 was too much for the Hotel Darwin.
Ms Carney: Careful, Len! You might say something you regret.
Mr BALDWIN: We expect, Mr Acting Speaker, to hear an announcement …
Dr Burns: I love you.
Mr Kiely: Misery, misery!
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BALDWIN: … an announcement pretty shortly …
Ms Carney: You make my skin crawl. You are so revolting.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Araluen!
Ms CARNEY: Mr Acting Speaker, the member for Sanderson has declared his love for me …
Mr Kiely: Oh, get out of it, Jodeen, I am a bloke!
Ms CARNEY: ...because that was a fairly remarkable statement, I could not resist commenting on it, Mr Acting Speaker.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Members for Araluen and Sanderson …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Acting Speaker! Let us get this right on the record. I made no such comment. She stands up here making accusations, making a total farce of this parliament with inane comments like that. You talk about points of order, let us get one on the record. Let us cut these inane comments and the trivial tripe that she carries on with.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Members for Sanderson and Araluen, that is it! Let us leave the member for Daly to complete his speech.
Mr BALDWIN: Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. Perhaps some of the members in the House need to go and open the windows, get a bit of fresh air into the place and cool down a bit. Moving right along …
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: I can hear another little voice over there, but I will not even register that one.
May I put on the record the good work - and the minister has mentioned this in the statement - that ADrail has done in that major project, the Alice to Darwin railway line, and minimising the impact on the Territory’s heritage in that project. It was an enormous project, as we know, that was going to impact in various ways. I know their employee who was looking after the conservation works worked very close with department officials to ensure that the impact was very low. I am not sure where anyone has a different belief, but from what I know, there has been very low impact apart from a few bits and pieces that appeared in the paper from time to time around Grove Hill and what have you.
In particular, I would like to put on the record the good work that was done around the old Adelaide River Railway Station and the old North Australian Railway lines at Adelaide River. In this aspect, you have to pay due respect to one Trevor Horman, who went out on a limb and probably made a nuisance of himself in some areas, with his will to ensure that the new railway line did not impact, or impacted as little as possible, on the heritage values that are contained in Adelaide River at the railway station and the old North Australian Railway line. What we have ended up with down there is a suitable compromise. I know Steve Sutton and others in the department have worked very closely with him, and there is now a conservation plan either being developed or in place and moneys flowing from grants to enable work to be done.
Whether or not the vision of the Friends of the Railway at Adelaide River have – and that is to have a rail connection from Adelaide River on the old NAR to Snake Creek Armament Depot – will succeed, who knows? There are a lot of hurdles to jump yet in access to the corridor, insurance, all of those technical things, not the least of which might be to have a train of their own. There has been a dispute of late over the locomotive that was based at Larrimah that is now at Pine Creek. There is a bit of bitterness between Adelaide River and Pine Creek in terms of that loco. However, the loco will be put to good use, I know, at Pine Creek, for the construction of their rail line, which is one of their major tourism proposals in development as we speak.
It was great to see ADrail and the rail proponents working very closely to ensure minimal impact. I know we will see good things out of ConocoPhillips, as good corporate citizens, to minimise any impact that might occur at Wickham Point with that oil and gas development.
I have mentioned Strauss and the 11 places that the minister has declared. I would like to make a point. I am very proud, as the former minister, in two years to have listed and declared 30 new places in the Northern Territory as heritage places. The minister makes quite a mention of Albert Namatjira’s church and the village. I was able to list Albert Namatjira’s memorial, house, the old Hermannsburg cemetery, the Hermannsburg historical village, as well as many more places. As I said, 30 of them, including the Darwin Cenotaph and Escape Cliffs. Most people think it is just objects that need to be declared, but many times it is places as well. I was able to do that in terms of places and I am proud of that.
I put out a newsletter to that effect, and it would be nice if the minister were to do something similar. A newsletter from time to time, so that we can see what it is that you are doing, rather than waiting for the annual report, would be a good idea from the minister’s office, and a good way to get your face back out in front of people. Probably not that you need it, because it seems to be in the paper a fair bit, for one reason or another.
I was trying to look up the Heritage Grants Program in the budget papers just as the minister was speaking - whether or not that has been maintained at an appropriate level. I believe it has been, which is good to see. As I said, that money is put to good use and there is never enough of it.
I commend the minister for bringing on the review. I will complete my comments with saying to the minister that I look forward to the discussion paper. I would like to see that discussion paper come in to this House for some debate, rather than just waiting for legislation to drop in here. It might be appropriate to point out that this is always what the Labor members used to call on when they were on this side of the House; that is, let us have some debate on framing the legislation. So, perhaps the discussion paper, once the comment period closes, could be brought in here, tabled as a statement and opened up for some debate prior to legislation being framed. That would be up to the minister to do. I know it is his prerogative to run the process in whatever way he wants. I look forward to a discussion paper, disappointing as it is that it is not here today. I certainly commend the minister for progressing the review.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Mr Acting Speaker, in an adjournment debate a few days ago, I spoke of the honour I had to attend the 75th commemoration of the Coniston Massacre.
As I mentioned, it happened at a place called Yukurru in the Warlpiri language and Brook’s Soak in English. Although he was not buried there, for a number of years a stone monument has marked the place where dingo trapper Fred Brooks was killed by some Warlpiri people. There is now a second marker, erected a couple of weeks ago, to commemorate the series of massacres that ensued, leading to the deaths of 100-odd Aboriginal people. Brook’s Soak is not on the Northern Territory Heritage Register, as perhaps might be expected of a place that marks such a pivotal moment in our shared history in the Territory. I got to thinking why this might be the case.
The Northern Territory Heritage Register, as has been explained by my colleague, the Minister for Environment and Heritage, is an important asset for the Northern Territory - important because of its value to the tourist industry but, more importantly, in the ways it helps us to understand our past. However, with all due respect for the work carried out previously by the Heritage Advisory Council, the Heritage Register as it currently exists does little to help understand the totality of the social, economic and political history of the Northern Territory.
There is a simple reason for this. Of the 175 declared heritage places and objects on the register, only nine could be said to be on the register because of primary Aboriginal connections to place. Of these, only two are in the Top End. Of the seven in the Centre, five are directly related to the old Hermannsburg mission at Ntaria and its most famous resident, the late Albert Namatjira. The registered sites at Hermannsburg - Namatjira’s house, the Namatjira memorial, the old Hermannsburg cemetery, the Hermannsburg historic village and the Kaporilja Springs - are undoubtedly of enormous importance to our histories here in the Northern Territory. But where is the rest of it? Two other sites in the Centre, the N’Dhala Gorge Nature Park at the Ewaninga Conservation Reserve, are similarly important; but in this case, for painting and rock engraving. The only two sites in the Top End are the mudbrick houses at Millingimbi and the Munmalary Homestead near Kakadu.
For the rest, officially recognised and registered indigenous heritage appears almost non-existent. I take issue with the former minister when he was patting himself on the back some moments ago. Although I am advised there are some 19 other Aboriginal-related sites that have been nominated, clearly the Heritage Register, as it has been administered in the past, has largely failed to reflect the indigenous history of the Northern Territory, let alone the interaction between indigenous and non-indigenous sites and objects. What we are talking about is what the anthropologist Deborah Bird Rose has referred to as ‘the Northern Territory’s hidden histories’; the stories that are not necessarily bound up in the built environment, contained in monuments, or gracefully ageing buildings.
I am thinking here about the beach at Rapid Creek, where people such as Robert Tudawali and Dexter Daniels held meetings to discuss equal rights in the 1960s. I am thinking about the bed of Gordy Creek where those who walked off Wave Hill Station dug for water on their way to Warnkut or Policeman’s Hole on the Victoria River, and thence to Daguragu. I am thinking here of Karu Park in Darwin, site of the former Retta Dixon Homes which the previous government bizarrely wanted to call Queen Mother Park. Retta Dixon Home, as you are aware was the place where many of the Stolen Generations were accommodated. I am thinking of the many histories - part of all our shared histories - that for so long have been ignored.
This is why I am so pleased that our government, with our minister, is taking heritage issues seriously, and pleased that the new approaches will not necessarily be so focussed on objects and the built environment. Beneath our buildings, roads, highways, and indeed now, beneath our railway, are countless thousands of other stories which all have heritage values and which are a part of the land we now share. Part of that, is the gift to our heritage here in the Territory of our many languages.
We should know, for example, that the low level crossing in Katherine also bears the name Gawutjwutjmar, and is associated with ideas of boiling and bubbling. Or that Knotts Crossing is also called Marndarpa, and it is associated with the travels of the left-hand kangaroo. We should be proud that the ways we name our country, in English, have counterparts in local indigenous languages, and we should celebrate this as part of our heritage. Uluru and Nitmiluk, for example, are now internationally recognised as names entirely unique to the Northern Territory. While names such as Katherine Gorge and Ayers Rock both have links in more recent history, these ancient names have a resonance with our heritage that are irreplaceable. Perhaps we should start thinking about this in more creative ways, both to badge the Northern Territory as an important destination for visitors, as well as to reflect our unique society here in the Territory. It is what makes the Territory and our way of life unique and what gives us a competitive edge in the marketplace. This is certainly recognised in centres such as Tennant Creek, where now local maps are produced giving the Warumungu names for many prominent sites around the town.
Things like this give all of us insights into the world around us that are far richer for knowing that the Northern Territory is a multi-layered landscape with a multi-layered heritage. It is for this reason, I believe, that the renewed approach to heritage legislation signalled by the minister is an important step ahead for the Northern Territory.
Before I conclude I just want to make some comments on the former minister, the member for Daly. Interestingly, because last week was my eighth year in this Chamber, I was witness to the debate. I was in this Chamber. I was here as the member for Arnhem when we had the debates over the amendments to the heritage legislation, as my colleague stated in his ministerial statement. I was also around and followed with interest, as most of us in opposition did, when the historical event happened - when the bulldozers went in just after midnight to bulldoze the Darwin Hotel. I tried to find out where the member for Daly, the former minister, was. Nowhere to be seen. The decision was made by his mate the former member for Katherine, Mike Reed. I have no doubt that they would have had a bit of a conversation like this: ‘Look, Tim, you had better go bush. You should go and hide. Pack your swag, take your wife, go and camp out bush for a couple days because, leave it to me, I will get the bulldozers organised, don’t you worry about that’ - a bit of Joh Bjelke-Petersen about him. And they sent in the bulldozers.
You can laugh, but if you go back and check the records, that is what I believe happened because he was nowhere to be seen. This member who prides himself on being a very good minister in the CLP government, went bush, with his tail between his legs, and left it up to the former member for Katherine to authorise the bulldozers and to do all the publicity - and a lot of bad publicity at that - at that point in time.
Whilst he can pat himself on the back for some of the things that he may have been able to successfully do, he certainly botched it in respect of the Hotel Darwin. People still talk about that today. People will never forget that. That was an icon. I was born and bred in the Territory and have lived in Darwin for 50-odd years. I remember it vividly, and I have fond memories of it. People who have been around for quite some time who have a passion for those types of buildings will never, ever forgive the member for Daly. I conclude by commending the minister’s statement to the House.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I am pleased to provide support to the minister’s statement.
The heritage legislation review is a good move. It is timely; the legislation has been around for a while. It will be great to have a look at it and have the community investigate it to see what changes ought to be made. We all acknowledge the importance of preserving our heritage, whether it be items, places or buildings.
Here in the CBD of Darwin, I can tell you that tourists really enjoy having a look at our older buildings. Our locals enjoy it, too. The more people who become committed to Darwin and the Territory - say, southerners who have come up, like many of us - the more interested they become in the Territory’s history. For those of us who become passionate about the Territory, it is when you start to learn about the history that you can understand how difficult it has been for people in the past to live in the Territory.
As I drive through the Territory from time to time, and look at the land around or occasionally get out of the car in the odd spots and go for a walk, makes me appreciate the Aboriginal people who were here many thousands of years; how they survived in the climate and landscape, and survived well. I recently had the absolute delight of going to visit a property on the Arnhem Highway – a friend of mine has bought some significant acreage there - and you could go into that property, up onto the top of a hill, and look out across the landscape and the rivers. While you were there it was no trouble at all - as the member for Blain was with me at the time - to have a scratch around and find arrow heads and things like that - cutting implements from our Aboriginal ancestors here.
It is all across the Territory, whether it is, for example, Lyons Cottage down the road here or out on a vast property, where you can find evidence of human endeavour and triumph. Maintaining and retaining our heritage is vital for us as we gain an understanding and appreciation of that, and put ourselves into the picture of life here in the Northern Territory.
Years ago, I went to the Northern Territory University and studied primary school teaching. There were many joys in that education experience, but one of them was that, as novice teachers, we were taken out on excursions because, when you are a teacher in an area and you are going to take your school kids on an excursion, you need to go to the places first to gain an understanding of them. It was in the light of that that we were being taught by our educators at NTU on how you would conduct a school excursion. I had spent probably a decade nursing here before and, quite frankly, really did not give much of a toss about the history of Darwin, I was just into nursing. However, it was at that point at NTU, because we had to study under some great lecturers anthropology, history and similar subjects, that we honed in on Territory history.
David Carment, who many of you will know and respect, was one of my lecturers there for several units, and it was through my interaction with people like him that I gained a passion for the heritage of the Northern Territory. I had some delightful excursions. I mentioned yesterday that one of them was to the leprosarium, and I am disappointed to hear that the buildings appears to have gone. Another great excursion was to the Pioneer Cemetery on Goyder Road, just near the Motor Vehicle Registry, and it was wonderful to learn about some of the characters who are buried there.
This sort of heritage is throughout the Northern Territory. This evening, we have had tabled in parliament the Heritage Advisory Council’s 11th Annual Report. By going through this report and the declared heritage places that we currently have in the Territory, you can see the vast range of places and types of things that have been declared. I will just read into the Hansard some of them to give people reading it an idea of the range of things that we have here.
We have the Adelaide River Pioneer Cemetery; Anzac Hill Memorial in Alice Springs; the Barrow Creek Telegraph Station; the Cape Don Lighthouse Complex; Daly Waters Aviation Complex; the Edgley Memorial Cemetery; Fannie Bay Gaol; the Gardens Road Cemetery; Harts Range Mica Mining Complex; Hermannsburg Historic Village; Katherine Railway Precinct; Lyons Cottage; the BAT House; Newcastle Waters Township; O’Keith House; the RAAF Explosives Storage Area; the silver bullets at Timber Creek School; the Tree of Knowledge; and World War II shipwrecks.
Therefore, you can see, just from picking out a few of those places, the huge range of the sorts of things that have been declared here in the Territory - ranging from a tree, to a building, to a cemetery. The sort of things we have is very vast.
One of the things that works against us in the Northern Territory with regards to retaining our heritage is our severe climate. It is very unfortunate that, from time to time – and, hopefully, very rarely - Darwin experiences severe cyclones. Although I was not living in Darwin before Cyclone Tracy, I am quite sure that a number of significant buildings would have been lost during that cyclone. It is a shame that these sort of things do happen. Fires would probably be a risk that some buildings face as well. Certainly, we will lose some from time to time.
As members know, my electorate is the electorate of Port Darwin. This is the area which was the second part of the Territory that was settled by European settlers. It has had a long, diverse human settlement, going back to the first Aboriginal people who lived in this area. The CBD, in which this building we are currently in is sited, is a very complex area of the Northern Territory, and it has some problems and issues arise, from time to time, with regard to heritage. The hidden situation, of course, is that, because it is the capital city of the Northern Territory, the land values in the CBD are very high - the highest in the Northern Territory. That means there is a great deal of competition for the use of that land, and that creates a clash of views and values.
We see this, and we will always see this, because there will be a constant pressure to change the use of any particular block of land. One day, probably hundreds and hundreds of years from now, there will be pressure to knock this building down and to build something else. We have all seen the futuristic movies like Blade Runner and things like that, which show an amazing metropolis of thousands of story buildings. You and I cannot look into the future of 1000 years from now, but who can say that that sort of thing will not be happening. There will always be pressure on the land, particularly in the CBDs, to have this change. That change will happen and must happen because of the pressures to use that land.
Despite the pressures - and they will be on right now, today, and we know that from what happened in town yesterday, and I will get onto that in a minute – this pressure will constantly be there from the various forces operating within our community to use that land for various purposes. However, often what is needed is compromise, and there are elements in the CBD of Darwin and in my electorate of Port Darwin that demonstrate that compromises have been made; that there is give and take. That is fantastic, because it would be heart-breaking to lose some of these things - in fact, any of the ones that I will now talk about.
We have the Old Town Hall across the precinct from here which was knocked down during Cyclone Tracy, and efforts have been made to salvage what is left of the Old Town Hall. From time to time, there are moves and encouragement given to either rebuild the Old Town Hall or to create a similar edifice in the vicinity so that people can see what it looked like. You would all be aware of the fantastic work that Allan Garraway and his family have done in literally building from scratch buildings at this end of Smith Street which reflect the character of that bygone era. The Old Town Hall ruins have been kept and they are fantastic. I am sure all of you have been to plays in the night time there. With the right spotlighting it creates a marvellous effect. I have been very pleased that, over the last couple of years, both the previous and current minister have been able to see fit to help retain those ruins.
A very dear person who will not be mentioned now, took the liberty after Cyclone Tracy - he told me this himself - of planting a banyan seed in the walls of the ruins. He thought it would make it look marvellous to have this old banyan tree growing with the roots going through the building. The end result, for those of you who may have seen it, is that the roots have now started to break up the brickwork of the remaining walls. It has been wonderful that the minister and the department, over the last year or so, have given permission and done work to literally kill that banyan tree because, quite frankly, it was a choice of either a marvellous crumbling ruin and eventually nothing left, or to save it. There have been steps made to kill the tree and preserve what we have left of those walls.
Lyons Cottage at the corner of Knuckey Street and the Esplanade, known also as the BAT, which was the British something Telegraph. It was the old Telegraph Station where the telegraph cable came in on the foreshore here; marvellously retained and restored. I used to live opposite there in the La Grande building for quite a few years, and you would always see a steady flow of visitors into the Lyons Cottage, enjoying the precinct and understanding more about how people lived here in the Territory in years gone by.
Government House across the road here - which I know is an environment that many of us enjoy when we are invited to functions there - is a marvellous structure that has that lovely atmosphere. I am sure many of us can imagine ourselves decked out in the attire of days of old with our long flowing dresses and wondering how on earth you would survive there. But, if you had to live in Darwin that would have obviously been the place to be. The various Administrators we have had over the years have done a marvellous job in keeping that building as it is. Of course, many of us enjoy going to an annual dinner which is very popular and raises money in working to preserve that house.
We also have the Administrator’s Office, which was severely damaged in Cyclone Tracy, beautifully restored and is a credit to the Territory and our history.
Similarly, we have Brown’s Mart. That also was severely damaged in Cyclone Tracy. It has some unusual structural additions - that is my personal view. However, it has been restored and is well utilised by the community.
Recently, there has been a fair bit of comment and concern over the Myilly Heritage Precinct. It has been wonderful to see that compromises have been met with the Commonwealth government on this issue. The very significant architectural structures there, the houses, are going to be preserved and kept on that precinct. I know that will be a relief to many people who have been involved in the discussions about whether or not that precinct was to be sold and, if it was to be sold to private enterprise, the concerns that raised.
Another area that we have here is the Commonwealth and Westpac Banks, and that is from a much more modern era. Members will be aware that that those buildings sustained significant damage during the bombings in World War II. Once again, they have been rebuilt and I am quite sure there would be an amazing hue and cry if anything were to happen to those really beautiful buildings - particularly the Commonwealth Bank with its art nouveau style. Another area is Chinatown, the shopfronts in Cavenagh Street. My father was here through World War II and tells some fairly colourful tales about the services that a young man could obtain in those buildings in the early 1940s. I hope it is his imagination - and it may well be - but I have photos of my father at those buildings years ago and he had big smile on his face.
This brings me to an issue that is very current. Admiralty House, as members know, is on the corner of Knuckey Street and the Esplanade. It is a building which was moved to that site in 1952, and there is a fabulous garden that surrounds the house. As members will know, this is the current contentious issue which would put the minister into the spotlight, just as previous ministers have been in the past. There has been permission given to build a 14-storey building on the site comprising offices and accommodation units. Additions and changes to that initial approval are currently before the public, and people can lodge objections to that before the 17 October, which is only a few days away.
Yesterday, a public meeting was held and about 30 people attended, which is a reasonable indication of a certain level of concern for a public meeting here in Darwin. At the meeting, a variety of views were expressed. One was to build the new development with a great deal of care and with consideration to Admiralty House, which members must be aware is to be preserved on that block as part of the current deal. Another view was to move Admiralty House. As I just said, Admiralty House has been moved before, and there is a view that it could be moved down to the Botanic Gardens and restored, just as the Wesleyan Church was, to commence a type of heritage precinct in that lovely setting. The other view expressed yesterday was to leave it well alone and to do nothing to the site except to maintain it and restore the house.
One of the concerns expressed was that the developer is currently unable to say how Admiralty House will be used once the new buildings have been built around it. That is concerning some people and it is important for the minister. I know the minister will be quite involved in this issue over the months to come. I am sure he will receive deputation from various people and groups on the issue. The type of people involved - and many of us know these people - are people who have a long-term passion and care for the history of Darwin. Naturally, they are concerned about Admiralty House; what will happen to it and how it will appear to people when they visit it when it is tucked in amongst a 14-storey office and unit building. In the future, I gather, there is also a proposal to build a hotel on the other side of it.
This is a very significant building and site; the site because of its historic gardens. These are the pressures that a minister in this particular area will face. My view is that, given that the development permit was issued by the current government on 8 April 2002 and, in the light of the minister’s chest beating today in the statement as to how good he will be, it will be very interesting to see how he handles what will be a very sensitive issue. We will all be watching it. I am sure all the members who expressed their passion with regard to Hotel Darwin will also be watching what sort of compromises are reached with regard to Admiralty House.
Speaking of compromise, the shadow minister, the member for Daly, spoke at length about the Wesleyan Church. I concur with the comments he made. As the local member at the time when this issue was well and truly hot, and as a local resident living opposite that site, it was an issue of great concern to me. I feel that the compromise that was reached - the moving of the building to the Botanic Gardens and the restoration of it there - has been a really wonderful compromise. It was in a very sad and sorry state where it originally stood. No one wanted to spend any money on it. To be able to move it down to the Botanic Gardens and to do significant restoration work on it – unfortunately, the white ants had had a lovely time for many years in there – has been a great outcome for this situation.
The final heritage site, but not by any means the least, because there are many in my electorate, I have not mentioned, is Christchurch Cathedral. It has had problems with its roof. I am hoping that next Wet Season we will not have the drips that came through - unfortunately, during George Brown’s funeral in the past Wet Season. Minister, I congratulate you on the statement and I wish you all the best with the review.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the Minister for Environment and Heritage’s statement on the review of the heritage legislation and congratulate him. It is about time that heritage legislation was reviewed. I served as the minister for Heritage for a period of time and am fully aware of the shortcomings of the legislation. The statement reflects the Martin Labor government’s commitment to recognising and preserving the cultural heritage of the Territory.
I am a very strong supporter of preserving heritage. At the same time, one of the problems we face - not only in the Territory, but all over Australia – is that a lot of people want things to be preserved as heritage but, at the same time, there is a significant lack of funding to be spent on items that have been preserved as heritage. It is not uncommon for heritage buildings or items to deteriorate and degrade and suddenly collapse because nobody is prepared to put their hands in their pockets.
Europe has many heritage buildings and heritage cities. Governments have found different and innovative ways to support heritage, not only declaring or slapping an order on a building so that nobody can touch it, but also providing low interest loans or funding. Even having private companies support new heritage buildings for preservation in order for them to remain. Some areas in central Europe have houses dating back to the 12th century, cathedrals dating back to the 8th or 9th century. Recently, when we visited Turkey, we visited the Church of Hagia Sofia that was built by Emperor Justinian as the biggest Orthodox Christian church in the world, later to be converted to a mosque. Now, under the auspices of UNESCO, the building is being restored.
Unfortunately, we found that the Territory was the last jurisdiction to adopt heritage legislation in the 1990s. Not that it helped a lot. It did not save many things, because a number of areas recognised as heritage by the people of the Territory, like the Hotel Darwin, the former Nurses Quarters on Lambell Terrace, the Z-Special training area in East Arm, the Hughes Airfield and Stella Maris complex, had never been declared under the previous government.
Of course, there has been a lot of discussion about the Hotel Darwin. It is very sad that the Hotel Darwin is not there any more. I recall that, when I first came to Darwin and I visited the Hotel Darwin’s Green Room, I was astounded that such an art dco building could exist in a small place like Darwin. I remember some people calling it the Raffles of Darwin. It really had the atmosphere and the looks of the Raffles Hotel in Singapore.
I can remember Cowboy Bill, who died recently, sitting in the front bar; he was part of the furniture. He did not move much from the bar. That was part of Darwin, and a lot of people still feel very sad about the demolition of the Hotel Darwin. It is very easy now to blame people: who did what, and why he was not here, and why he was not there. The fact is that the Hotel Darwin is no more. Some people, like the previous minister, blame the owner. You have to consider the owners and what they want to do. The reality is that the Hotel Darwin was such an icon for Darwin that the government should have stepped in and provided assistance for the owners to maintain the Hotel Darwin.
In other countries, old buildings like those in Darwin, if they are not functional as modern buildings any more, the owners are assisted by the government to demolish the complete interior of the building and maintain the facade, and redevelop it. Therefore, you have a modern building behind the faade of a very old building still functioning and in existence. The reality is that the architecture of the Hotel Darwin was unique. I suppose a lot of the things inside - rooms, carpets, and the divisions - could have been removed without affecting the general architecture of the building. Something like that could happen. Now we have a resort with some demountables and palm trees, and the only thing left of the Hotel Darwin is memories and some old photographs. It is very unfortunate.
Mr Kiely: Nothing wrong with golden canes.
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes. Use golden canes, but in a different environment.
I agree that it is time that Darwin has a legislation review to strengthens the process and protection of our important remaining heritage places. I would like to take this opportunity to recognise the contribution of tireless advocates for the protection of our heritage. One of them was Barbara James, who dedicated many hours of her incredible energy and talent to the National Trust to preserve the heritage of the Territory.
I also welcome the decision of my colleague, the Minister for Environment and Heritage, who declared the Strauss Airstrip and placed it on the NT Heritage Register. That was the easy part. Now starts the hard work; we have to persuade John Anderson to cough up the money to realign the Stuart Highway in order to avoid running it over the Strauss Airstrip. I happen to know that the Strauss Airstrip was not recognised by the previous government - completely abandoned by them – and, as a result, was used by road trains and truckies to park their trucks, or dump loads of sand or gravel and, as a result, completely deteriorated it to being a big stretch of bitumen with many potholes in it. It is about time we started looking seriously at our heritage in Darwin.
Our heritage dates back to the beginning of the white settlement, and was certainly strengthened by the presence of the Army and the World War II events in Darwin. A few months ago, I was very fortunate to re-open a heritage site at Mandorah where the American Superfortress Milady crashed during World War II with the loss of a number of American airmen. It was very moving to see that part of the aeroplane still lay where it crashed - the tail, some of the wings, and the engine mountings. The government dedicated money and the whole area was landscaped, some explanatory signs were erected indicating what had happened and the contribution of the American airmen in the defence of Darwin. I was very surprised when, a few weeks later, I received a magazine from America, which mentioned the association of old pilots who used to fly these Superfortresses from Darwin. They got together in America and have an association, which puts out a magazine every month or two. In this magazine, there were four pages dedicated to the memorial of Milady. They had a number of photographs of the different models made, and that one. That was a recognition by those people of our efforts to preserve part of our heritage, and theirs as well.
The member for Daly mentioned the Adelaide River train, the Adelaide River Station and other heritage places in the Territory. Probably you have noticed lately that the old Commonwealth engine from outside Darwin has been relocated now in front of the Adelaide River Station. The Friends of Adelaide River Railway Station have cleaned, sandblasted and painted it. You can see it as you are driving up and down the highway. It is a memorial and a symbol of the railway history of the Territory.
The Hughes Aerodrome is another one that was mentioned before. As a member of the Royal Australian Air Force 13th Squadron City of Darwin, there were many times I actually camped in this aerodrome. It is still in very good nick. It is one of the few remaining aerodromes in the Territory that was used during the World War II, and it can still be used, believe it or not. I remember a few years back, some developer had the idea of developing the area for aeroplane enthusiasts to buy blocks of land, and have direct access to the airstrip, and fly in and fly out from this airstrip. Thank God we mobilised very quickly, the RAAF and people who want to preserve these kinds of heritage sites, and we managed to persuade the then government to stop any development plans and to declare it a heritage park. Well, it is was not declared a heritage site but, fortunately, the plans were shelved and the Hughes Aerodrome survives as a memorial to the men and women of the Australian Air Force who used that base for the different missions around Darwin, Timor and Papua New Guinea.
The member for Port Darwin mentioned Old Admiralty House. The lease for this particular site was given to Jalouise Pty Ltd by the previous government, and Jalouise put an application for development of a hotel and a combination office/residential tower and it was approved, subject to declaring. The garden and the house was declared as a heritage place and they had to put in place a plan to preserve the house and the garden, which they actually accepted. Part of the work that took place at Admiralty House was some excavation to find out where the caprock is. I draw the attention of members to the statement made by Mr Andrew Liveris, one of the partners in Jalouise, where he actually said that the company is not going to touch the house. Their idea is to preserve the house as a symbol. There is another application now – and rest assured that the Development Consent Authority will consider that application for the preservation of the house and the garden. There is no way that we can touch Admiralty House - demolish it or destroy it. However, let us not forget that Admiralty House was actually relocated to that site from somewhere else. The house is heritage; the site where the house is standing is not heritage, it was just a convenient place to put the house.
As for the garden, there are conflicting opinions. Some people say it is a heritage garden, some other people say they believe it is not that old because some of the plants there did not exist in Darwin at the time. However, the garden is a unique garden around a house in Darwin and, very appropriately, was declared a heritage garden.
It is good to see that we are actually moving now to strengthen the act. It is about time we started to think seriously about heritage sites in the Territory and, when we say that we are going to protect heritage sites, our protection that we provide is meaningful. It is not at the whim of the minister to one day declare something as heritage, and the next day to remove the declaration and see a skyscraper in its place. I commend my colleague, the minister for Heritage. I know that he has the preservation of heritage sites and heritage in his heart. As the minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Development, I stand side by side with him in committing ourselves to preserve our heritage in the Territory. We certainly commit ourselves to not be away in the Territory so some heritage buildings are demolished. We are going to be here and we are going to make sure that heritage buildings and sites are protected and, certainly, among them, Admiralty House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would also like to talk on the minister’s statement. I just noted that the minister’s statement is headed Heritage Legislation Review but, I suppose to be honest, it deals mainly with the history of heritage in the Northern Territory over the last 10 years or so, and looks at various other issues. It actually does not speak at great length about what the review is all about.
I thought the minister might be able to tell us what is going to be in the review. I get a bit of a hint, because the minister talks about, I suppose what he calls the experience under the current heritage regime. He talks about it being highly centralised, invests a great deal of power in the minister, has a lengthy and rather complex procedure for registration of heritage places, and has limited provision for interim protection of places under threat. I would presume, minister, that some of that will be in the review. You also mentioned a little further on about the processes which enable the minister to have certain power. In one case, you mention that the minister actually has power to destroy a place that has been given heritage protection. I ask the minister if he can tell us if that is what is going to be in the review, and what else he believes might be there for discussion.
On one of those issues that the minister raised - the issue of ‘has a lengthy and rather complex procedure for registration of heritage places’. Minister, there are a couple of things I would like to say on that. You may remember I wrote to you regarding the possible protection of the old railway line between Birdum and Larrimah. It is probably the only intact section of railway line of any significance from the old North Australian Railway. In fact, I travelled on it about two years ago on a little train - not the one that has been taken to Adelaide River but on another little train they had there. I know that when they are talking about the trains at Larrimah, there is a fair bit of politics in that town, even though there is a population between 11 and 13. It is split three ways. Part of the reason that that train was sold was because somebody had control over that piece of train. There is another train that someone else has control over. It has been a touchy point in Larrimah about who owns what. However, be that as it may, the …
Dr Burns: You want to send me down there!
Mr WOOD: Yes. Be that as it may, there is this terrific piece of railway. It is about 14 km long. It goes across the Birdum Creek and, when I travelled across there in the little motor rail, the Birdum Creek was full of water. There were brolgas walking through the water and it was just a beautiful little trip. When came into Birdum, which I had never been to, but it was a place that I always wanted to go to. When we talk about Birdum you certainly are talking about history because it was the end of the railway line, at least up to the war time. It is one of those forgotten areas.
Minister, when I asked about whether the place could have some heritage protection you sent me a form which, I must admit, I should have brought with me. For the average person to fill that form in, you have to do a degree in heritage, because you have to know so many facts and figures and you have to have photographs and all this sort of stuff. That would put people off trying to apply because, for a lot of lay people, they simply do not have the time or the background knowledge. However, they do have enough knowledge to say: ‘This is heritage’. You do not have to be Einstein to know the railway line between Larrimah and Birdum is not very old. You know that both sites were heavily populated during the war, so there are some basic reasons why the government at least should be making note that this is a possible heritage sight.
Perhaps the other way to deal with heritage sites is under the new Northern Territory Planning Scheme. The new Northern Territory Planning Scheme is not in existence presently, but it is proposed under that scheme to have a heritage zone, H zone. It surprises me that, in the proposed Litchfield area plan that is subject to some public comment at the present time, although that plan introduces a number of new zones from this Northern Territory Planning Scheme, it does not introduce the H zone. If it did then, possibly, the planning people would not have marked tourist commercial over Strauss Airstrips, as they have done at present.
Minister, it would be worth looking at zoning some areas under heritage, as a means of not having to necessarily go through a large bureaucratic process.. I am not saying when are you going to declare a heritage site that there should not be a reasonable amount of background material developed before you declare that site, but there are a lot of sites which could just be zoned heritage for the time being. In other words, they are not doing too bad just standing there as they are. I will give you one example, it might be the North Australian Railway that runs through Litchfield Shire.
I have been up and down that section of rail and there are quite a large number of historic bridges. Some parts of the rail are left but, in general, you have a piece of land that would have been cleared and developed around about 1886 onwards. Therefore, we know straightaway that it is old. We know that it is important because it was part of the old North Australia Railway line. Automatically with that, you can think of the uses from the point of view of who built it, who used it at the beginning - the gold from Pine Creek – and the uses of the rail later on, especially during the war. There is an enormous amount of history just on the World War II use of that railway line. So, without costing any money, but giving it some protection, a heritage zone would be an easy way to protect some sites.
Presently, in the Litchfield Shire, you have an OC zone, open conservation. However, basically, that does not exclude Transport and Works putting a road through an airstrip or PowerWater building a pipeline through a heritage area. That zone is not tough enough to deal with any development in that manner. Having raised those two issues, minister, as you said yourself, there is a lengthy and rather complex procedure. Maybe that is a method of getting around that until you can look at the particular issue in more detail.
I go back a little in history also. There is no doubt that heritage certainly causes some controversy. Perhaps not even all of it is even heritage. I must admit, I was disappointed with the previous government when they pulled down the powerhouse. I concur with the Chief Minister that, when that was pulled down there was a great opportunity for a building to be used for something else. All that is there now is a concrete floor. After all the talk and the arguments as to why it had to come down, you probably would not have minded if something had gone up. But nothing!
It is the same with the nurses quarters. It all came down, but then nothing went up. You would have to say that, even if the building had reached the stage where perhaps people could not live in it, you could have left it there just for the time being until you actually had a reason to do something with it, or you could perhaps have looked at alternatives.
The Wesleyan Church has been mentioned here. It appears, from what the member for Daly said today, that there were two options: one to pull it down and one was to shift it. I would be interested to know whether there was another option: to include it within the building that was built there. Could it have been encapsulated into the new building, done up, turned into a coffee shop, or something like that? In other words, it was behind glass, it was done up, the white ants were taken out of it, and that building could have become a useable building within that shopping centre. Not only would it have been a coffee shop that was a little different, but it would have added a little history to that part of Mitchell Street and still been something that would have had commercial value. I have always wanted to know why that option was not considered. Maybe it could not fit in the style of the building, but that part of the building now is just shops. It would be interesting to know whether there was another process.
I had arguments with the previous government, for instance, over the North Australian Railway, the old line. I have been a long-time promoter of the old railway line being a bicycle path. That concept, to some extent, has come from America, where they call these things greenways. It is the idea of using a disused railway line for recreation. One good reason for having bicycle paths on that particular line, was simply to preserve the history and heritage.
I remember going back along the highway one day, and I saw the bridge at Knuckeys Lagoon being dismantled. I thought: ‘Here is a cast iron bridge built in about 1886 or 1887 being dismantled for a bicycle path!’ The answer I got back from the then Minister for Transport and Works was that it was unsafe; it could not take the load. I thought: ‘We are talking about bikes here on a bridge made out of cast iron’, and the cast iron lasts for yonks. Anyway, it is now somewhere. I do not know whether the person who pulled it down has kept it, but it was replaced by two concrete culverts.
Again, there was no sensitivity to what we were trying to do. The bicycle path was there for a reason, but it was also to preserve history. I know that bicycle path has interpretation signs on it. We could develop that a lot further because, if that bicycle path can eventually get to Humpty Doo at least - and I know it is a low priority because I had a recent meeting with the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure’s staff. There is a lot of history sites people could visit. Wishart Siding would be on that bicycle path if it went right through, along with Sattler Airstrip. The preservation of that would certainly help the heritage in my area.
A couple of other things. I would be the first to congratulate you on declaring Strauss Airstrip a heritage site. It is a great decision. It certainly makes me feel good. I hope the cricket pitch is included, because, if anyone has played down there in the Anzac Day cricket match against the Army, you certainly do feel a connection with those people who built that airstrip, and those members of the Air Force and Army who would have worked there during the war. In fact, I picked up a book the other day - unfortunately I did not bring it. It is in Angus and Robertson, where I bought it. It is about the aviation history of Darwin during World War II. When you open it up, there is a whole series of coloured photographs of 1942. The rest of the book is black and white. There is a pilot, I believe his name was Bartlett. He had taken these photographs, and he was an American Air Force pilot. It has a picture of the Spitfires, in the colours, all stuck amongst the woolybutt trees. It looked as though it was taken yesterday. This was the Strauss Airstrip.
It really came back to me when I saw it, that we had forgotten all that and how important it is. In fact, we really have not treated Strauss Airstrip, Sattler Airstrip, or Livingstone Airstrip very well at all. I blame government departments - put it straight down to that. Sattler Airstrip had the major water pipe from Darwin River straight through the guts of it. You would have to ask: why? There is about 60 m or 70 m of road reserve where it could have gone, yet it went right down in the middle of the airstrip. When I came to Darwin, it was actually a working airstrip. It was the emergency airstrip for Darwin. It was marked out in its proper markings, and had signs on the side: ‘Please do not drive on this airstrip, it is the emergency airstrip’ …
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Mr WOOD: That is right. Also a government department decided to put a weighbridge site on one end of it. Then, if you go down to Strauss: a weighbridge site again put on it. It is used continually for mixing of bitumen and blue metal. At the moment, there is an enormous pile of gravel dumped there, I presume with the approval of Transport and Works. If you go into the bush, you will see this mountain of gravel. Yet, Strauss Airstrip, at the moment, is actually zoned open conservation. Nobody cares, that is the problem.
Livingstone was a perfectly good strip until the government at that time decided to widen the old road. When they widened the old road, the contract I believe, was let in the Wet Season. The poor old contractor could not keep the detour going along the road, so he used Strauss Airstrip. Well, that soon demolished the poor old airstrip; it was not made for large volumes of traffic. Of course, later on it was used for the drag strip, but I must admit I do not think the drag strip did a huge amount of damage. It was mainly damaged because of road works and other things.
It is sad to see that we have not really valued our heritage in the past, and I hope that, even though Strauss Airstrip and some of those airstrips do not look very nice at the moment, I reckon they could be done up a bit. They can be slashed and tidied up, and maybe swept clean of the rubbish, and make them look reasonable, even though, at the moment, I do not know what your plans are for them.
Minister, even though I am very happy about Strauss Airstrip, it does worry me that there is a road that has definitely not been designed to go to the left-hand side yet as you go south. I know it has been mentioned here that Mr Anderson has not given us $20m. I hope that you can say that the value of the Strauss Airstrip heritage listing is now going to be higher than Mr Anderson’s lack of giving us $1.3m, because that is what it is really going to come down to. I would be interested if you could say whether there is definitely no road going to go through the airstrip.
On a couple of other matters, again about the airstrips, I still think we should have a heritage precinct. You mentioned Hughes Airfield, and you say it definitely should be preserved. One of the places that did not make it on to the register under the former government include Hughes Airfield. You went on to say it beggars belief that Hughes Airfield has not been declared - or it has been declared, but it was never signed off by the minister, I gather. Hughes Airstrip has a bit of a colourful history as well. It was going to be used for a stock feed plant at one stage. It was also going to be revitalised as an airstrip with a lot of small blocks around it, but the neighbours there believed that was inappropriate, and there it sits. At the present time, it would be great if that was declared a heritage site.
Even if Sattler Airstrip and Livingstone Airstrip are not regarded as good enough to be heritage listed, that is where you can put the heritage zone over them and include them in all in a heritage precinct. If that was on the map for tourists and historians who come up, so they knew where those strips were, that heritage zoning would give those some protection. I also believe that you have to look at any of the old embattlements around some of these strips, if you can save of those as well. I know Reidy’s Lures is near Wishart Siding. He has actually kept the 44 gallon drums that we use for the AkAk emplacements. Tourists love to go there and just have a look. He has mowed the lawn around it now so you can see it, so it is not buried in the long grass. People can go and see it.
There is that and also the land next to Bees Creek Primary School where the planes used to park. The camouflage wires are still there. You only walk just past the school and there you have it, just as it was there yesterday. It has grown over a bit, but that is where the planes were. There is probably room for even a heritage park there of some sort.
I mentioned the other day the East Arm Leprosarium to the minister for Health. Whilst it has gone, and it is very sad that it is gone, it is sad that no one said: ‘Oi, some of this perhaps should be left’. It has a strong history with many Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. Even though, as you say, a plaque is not what we really like, but maybe a plaque could be an appropriate memorial for what happened there.
The member for Port Darwin has mentioned Admiralty House. I am interested to hear what the minister has to say. I know it has been in the paper in recent times. It would be nice if he could make a clear statement about what its future is and what its status is as regards heritage.
I would also like to mention the Adelaide River Railway Station, and Trevor Horman, as the member for Daly has. He has done an enormous amount of work promoting the preservation of that area. That area has great potential for tourism.
One other thing that perhaps you may not have mentioned here - and I do not have time to cover everything - heritage is also important for our education. When I talk about trying to save the airstrips, I do not talk about just the heritage or just the tourism. It is important for a lot of our young people to recognise what happened previously - that could be Aboriginal, World War II heritage, or just Darwin’s general heritage.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.
Mr WOOD: It is important. Thank you, minister, for your statement and I will be listening for your answers on those questions.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member, your time has expired.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the minister’s statement this afternoon about, in his words: ‘The historic and significant places that give the Territory its unique character’.
This is a subject very dear to my heart and one that I personally feel very strongly about. Before I entered politics I was, in fact, studying for a post-graduate diploma at the then NTU in Heritage Studies, with Professor David Carment. I could not work out whether I was disappointed or not when I won the by-election at Fannie Bay and had to give up studying. I was disappointed not to finish the course.
The minister’s sombre roll call of those historic and heritage sites that have been destroyed serve, certainly, as a lesson for all of us, and a lesson for the future. The current review of the Heritage Conservation Act - the excellence of Peter James as the consultant undertaking this, the way in which the consultative process is being conducted, and the soon-to-be-released discussion paper - will mean that we will do this better.
However, this evening I would like to talk about heritage and what it means to me in an everyday sense. As Chief Minister, I probably do not get as much opportunity to exercise as I would like, but one thing I do cherish though, is my daily walk. Where I love to walk most is the area that I live, and that is the Fannie Bay and Parap area. That is my point: heritage is not something special behind a glass case, remote from people or the community. Heritage is what ordinary people value and wish to preserve: vistas, buildings and landscapes that we see every day that remind us of our history and our shared community memories.
The Northern Territory is rich in a wonderful and unique history, and our built heritage reminds us of this every day. There is so much here that I hardly know where to begin, and we have heard some of it referred to in previous speeches. I would just like to focus on this electorate of Fannie Bay in this speech tonight. Perhaps at the sea is a good place to start, at the famous Fannie Bay, named after an opera singer who visited Adelaide, because the sea is an integral part of the Top End lifestyle.
In the 1870s, there was a proposal for the Government Resident, as the Administrator house was then known, to take up land and built some salubrious seaside accommodation - a kind of holiday house at Fannie Bay. I wonder if today, His Honour wishes that this had come to fruition. By the 1880s there was, of course, the gaol: famous - or should I say infamous - old Fannie Bay Gaol.
A South Australian parliamentarian, when told of the location and move from town, said it was useless to site the gaol at Fannie Bay because it was so far out of town. How much does this tell us about transport conditions, isolation and the size of our town then? The gaol, of course, remains an intact and complete reminder of nearly a century of the administration of penal justice on the frontier. The gaol is recognised with a Territory heritage listing, as well as on the Register of the National Estate. It is the second oldest site of continuous same-site usage by Europeans in the Territory, second only to Government House, which is also preserved for the benefit of all Territorians.
Along the road, the Goyder Road Cemetery is a poignant reminder of life and death in early Darwin. In the headstones and memorials are the stories of our pioneers and early settlers. Sadly too, it also contains friends. Soon after I took office as Chief Minister, my old friend and wonderful Territorian, Eileen Fitzer, died and was buried there.
Up on Bullocky Point, the Darwin High School site, with the tank, is a reminder of Vestey’s Meat Works. The Darwin High School was built over the remains of the many and varied structures from the Vestey’s company, who operated the meatworks at Bullocky Point between 1917 and 1919. With the establishment of the meatworks and the cessation of the World War I, many came to Darwin seeking work. At this time Darwin, always multicultural, already counted numbers of second generation Chinese families as their own. After the influx of workers, particularly from Europe at this time, the multiculturalism of Darwin became firmly established.
Have you ever walked at the back of the grounds of the Museum and Art Gallery of the Territory? In amongst the trees and plants there is concrete drainage, fittings and infrastructure from Vestey’s meatworks which still remain. There is almost a sense of discovery as you wander around the concrete blocks shrouded in vines and creepers. The wooden posts at the front of the museum grounds indicate where some of the old yards or pens were located. How vast the land taken up for the Vestey’s meatworks enterprise must have been, and how comparatively short lived.
The lake on the other side of Conacher Street, known as Vestey’s Lake, with its permanent all-year water supply, reminds us that the Chinese market gardeners had extensive vegetable plots in the swamp. The Chinese grew the fresh produce that was such an essential supply to Darwin townsfolk.
As I walk down Ross Smith Avenue, I think about those prisoners in 1918 who cleared the road to create the main airstrip for entry to Darwin and, indeed, Australia. I am always reminded of those early pioneer aviators who crossed vast areas of the globe to touch down in Darwin, their first Australian port of call - Ross and Keith Kingsford-Smith and Amy Johnson, to name only a few.
Where the road meets the sea, there is a poignant memorial to the Ross Smith landing in 1919; poignant because the brave and distinguished Captain Ross Smith, later Sir Ross, veteran of the Light Horse and the most highly decorated airman of the war, was to die in 1922. He and J M Bennett, who had also made the historic trip to Darwin less than three years earlier, perished in England when their trial flight in a Vickers Viking Amphibian went into a spin. Always visionary, Sir Ross Smith was planning a flight around the world.
The airstrip remained contested ground. Douglas Lockwood points out that two years after the Ross Smith landing, both Federal houses of parliament were concerned that to allocate funding for the upgrade and maintenance of the airstrip was ‘a wicked waste of money for Fannie Bay’.
Those who stroll to the end of Lampe Street can see the beautifully maintained Qantas Empire Airways hangar, which dates back to the early 1930s. Placement of the hangar and Ross Smith Avenue can powerfully recreate the placements and workings of the airstrip at Fannie Bay. Now, of course, the motor vehicles enthusiasts group tenants the hangar. This is an example of an appropriate and creative use for a heritage building that, for so many years after its aviation period, was used as a workshop.
As I walk around Fannie Bay and see the remains of Vestey’s, the airstrip, the gaol, the hangar, the memorial and all the wonderful houses and spaces that remind me of Darwin’s historic past, I am proud and pleased by the built heritage that has remained for all of us. We are informed by our past; it is what makes us what we are and, in many ways, points the direction to our future.
Sometimes people say to me, particularly of Darwin which has been destroyed by a number of cyclones and the bombing raids of World War II, that Darwin has no history or built heritage. People look to the pyramids of Egypt or the magnificent cathedrals of Europe and say that there is nothing here but concrete and corrugated iron. However, the built heritage is about how people use and adapt their environment. In the concrete, porcellanite, ironwood, or corrugated iron, we see how people lived, worked, developed and died. It is of the utmost importance that we protect that heritage, and we do it in the best and most strategic ways, because heritage is for all of us and it is democratic. It is everywhere; it is not just the old parts of the town.
The member for Karama could have taken you on a tour and talked about Holmes and his pastoral holdings, where Holmes Jungle is the most remote part. Minister Aagaard could tell of the coconut plantation that became Coconut Grove, or the World War II rubbish and bottle dump.
Care and protection of our heritage will promote a strong sense of history and community identity. It is an excellent investment for the future. However, we must not let it be survival by accident. The memory of those places we had, and have lost, is still strong within our community. We cannot lose another Hotel Darwin.
We have a wonderful heritage in the Territory and I have just briefly touched on what it means to me personally. I commend the minister for this review of the Heritage Conservation Act, the consultation, and I look forward to reading the discussion paper. I look forward to a new approach that is smart, strategic and consultative because heritage, Mr Acting Speaker, belongs to us all.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Speaker, from the outset, I have really enjoyed the contributions from pretty much everyone this afternoon. Heritage is not the domain of one single party or politician. All of us, although in different ways, have a shared commitment to the preservation of heritage in the Northern Territory.
For my own part, I come from Bendigo in central Victoria, one of the great gold mining towns of Australia. Growing up in a place like Bendigo, it was very difficult not to be into heritage or supportive of preserving the history of country towns.
The Territory, of course, is not quite a country town. It is a bit bigger. When I first came to the Northern Territory, what struck me was the fact that, from a tourism point of view, we had fantastic icons that attracted tourists not just from interstate but from around the world. However, when I scratched below the surface, it was quite difficult to find things other than the Territory’s great icons. That is an ongoing challenge for any government.
Even now, although I do not know the Top End terribly well - clearly I have spent a little time here - I cannot honestly say that the heritage of Darwin jumps out at me. It has been the case for some years that people have told me things and my response has been: ‘Oh, I did not know that that existed, I must go and see that’. The contributions of all members this afternoon has been a further education for me.
What we all need to do is to ensure that we pick up the challenge to market the heritage that we have in the Northern Territory, and which I do not think is well recognised by other Australians, let alone visitors from overseas.
I liked what the minister said in his statement. I do not know whether this statement is copied from somewhere but, on the basis that it is not, I found it quite pleasing. The minister obviously has a challenge before him. I am pleased to say that it appears to me that he seems genuinely committed to doing what he can, to making a mark and preserving the Territory’s history - both our Aboriginal and non-indigenous history. Both of those are very important.
I found parts of the statement, in particular relating to tourism, of great interest. I suppose not surprising in many respects, because it is the case that some of the figures quoted are not new to me. Certainly, in the context of a ministerial statement on heritage, it was very pleasing to see the tourist and tourism perspective included in the statement. I have had a look, again, at my well marked Northern Territory Tourist Commission strategic plan. There are various references to the Territory’s history and heritage. There are some statements there that, for any reader, are encouraging, such as:
There is a partial outline, I suppose, as to the role the Northern Territory Tourist Commission can play in that. No doubt, the commission is working very hard to maximise the heritage value for our tourists. I do not know any detail of that work. Perhaps the minister might, at some point, make a ministerial report to the parliament because, clearly, this is important. As I said, I am pleased it has been included in a ministerial statement on the heritage legislation. However, for the benefit of the people who listen to the parliamentary broadcast and of all members, it would be of some assistance to provide us with information as to what the Tourist Commission is doing, because I can say with some confidence, that all 25 members of this parliament will take that information and distribute it to those interested people in the electorates.
Although I said at the outset that I hail from Victoria, I have spent quite a bit of time in South Australia. I hope the minister, if he has not, will at some point take the time to go to the South Australian town of Burra. Burra markets and manages its heritage probably better than any town in the country. It is an outstanding presentation of a very small town’s heritage. They have a very interactive experience on offer for the tourists who go there, in a very practical sense. You pay your $20 and pick up a key, along with a map which you follow around. You use that key to enter into the various sites that are on offer in Burra.
Something like that may well be something that we could trial in the Northern Territory. It is cheap, do-able, appeals to pretty much everybody, and it could be considered the best way of inviting people to see, not just one or two places of interest, but to follow perhaps 15 sites so you can make a day of it. I, like so many other people in the Territory, have had over the years friends and family travel both to Darwin, Alice Springs and pretty much everywhere in between. They do not put it to me in terms of a real criticism, but the message that has come through to me is that we do not seem to have our heritage assets well enough in the faces of our visitors. There is a real challenge there for the minister - who I know is committed to this – to perhaps make his mark; he can be dynamic. There is room for a dynamic minister in heritage.
The members on the other side may disagree but, on balance, there have been some good ministers in the past. We may not all see eye to eye on what is heritage, what should be preserved and what should not be. Of course, so often it is a case of balancing competing interests. That is a constant for any government, whether in the Territory or elsewhere in Australia. People will say, from an historic point of view, that governments do not always get it right. I would go along with that. However, this government has a chance to make its mark and I hope, for the benefit of not only the people who live here, but for our tourists, both domestic and international, that the government can do what it can not only to preserve and maintain what we have, but to entice others to see it. Some people would happily subscribe to the view that we can just preserve and maintain our heritage and that is enough. The other school of thought, it seems to me, is that we need to maintain and retain our heritage. But wouldn’t it be great if people could go to see it and enjoy it?
In my experience, not only with friends and families, but with the tourist who I talk to in the Territory, they want to lap up a full range of experiences - and in the Territory we have them. In the Territory, we have everything from Ayres Rock, Uluru, in Central Australia to Kakadu in the Top End, and marvellous places in between. We also have plenty on offer if we scratch below the surface. I would encourage the minister to play his part, as he thinks fit, along with the advice, not only of his colleagues, but from representatives of the community. People who are strong believers in maintaining our heritage tend, in my experience, to be very passionate. That is marvellous and I am sure those people will passionately put their views to the minister on a regular basis.
I welcome this statement from my position as the shadow minister for Tourism. I wish you well, minister, in doing what you can to preserve, maintain, retain and encourage others to see what the Territory has to offer.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Acting Speaker, I welcome the review of the heritage legislation statement before us. The heritage legislation came into force in 1994, so it is some 10-odd years old. There was a significant amendment to it in 1997. As the minister said in his statement, it is important that we go back and have a look at this legislation and those amendments, particularly following the case of the former Alice Springs Gaol.
The member for Stuart is a keen advocate of heritage and heritage listings and he is a strong supporter, particularly for heritage in Central Australia. He has actually brought to my attention the Parliamentary Record of Thursday, 19 February 1998, and his participation in the debate at that time. In that debate, he put forward a letter from Josie Petrick, a respected and conservative person in Alice Springs, on her thoughts of the amendments that were going through. This is just one paragraph in that letter to the then Chief Minister in 1997, Hon Shane Stone. Josie said:
I seek leave to table this document.
Leave granted.
Mr KIELY: That gets right to the crux of why this legislation needs to be reviewed. It is also very timely. It is important; it is about heritage. We use the past to inform us of the future, to anchor us and our culture. It is important to look back and see what occurred in the Territory, and to see the passion of the people on a vigil around the old Alice Springs Gaol to stop it from being knocked down. This is the significance that heritage matters have in the Northern Territory.
The opposition have said: ‘Okay, roll up and beat us over the head about what happened to the Hotel Darwin’. I was hoping that we would get an apology from the member for Daly for what happened with the Hotel Darwin. When I was first bringing my family up here in 1985, a friend who had been here quite a number of times before said : ‘Look, you have to go to the Hotel Darwin. It is like Raffles. You go into a place called the Green Room and you sit under those fans. There is nowhere - absolutely nowhere in Australia - like the Hotel Darwin’. So, I went there and I could not believe it. I came from Canberra at that time and I had never seen anything like it before; it was impressive. It was a real shame that such an icon should be demolished, much to the everlasting shame of the CLP.
I have searched under the Northern Territory News of that time, and there are what could only be described as poignant photos. I have here from an Northern Territory News - I believe it was 11 September 1999. It has an excavator sitting in the middle of the Hotel Darwin site with concrete rubble and reinforcement pulled down. That particular photo is heart-rending. I have another one from the Sunday Territorian around the same period, 12 September. The poignancy of it all; it has a picture of the Hotel Darwin that says ‘As it was then, last week, and as it is now’. Those of us who have seen the photos of the aftermath of cyclones ripping through Darwin, and of the bombing of Darwin - well, this is the same calamity.
It is a real shock. It really got into the psyche of the population, not only of Darwin but of the Territory, and also, I put it to you, of a lot of Australians and overseas visitors who came here and remembered Darwin for the Green Room and for the accommodation there. If you have a look at the letters to the editor of around that time - and I have some here, but I will not incorporate them in the Hansard. I have here handfuls of letters to the editor which deal with the passion, the despair and the grieving of citizens of Darwin and the Territory. It was actually a grieving process that people were going through, because the Hotel Darwin went straight to the psyche of the people of the Territory. Once again, it was just a shocking thing.
I would have liked the member for Daly to get up and say: ‘All right, it happened, we are sorry. Let us move on, and get closure to this’. I do not think we will ever get closure until that happens. Because as long as news headlines like the one of 13 October 1999: ‘Baldwin defends hotel demolition’ and those stories are still there defending the indefensible, this thing will never close. I would just like to say that when I went past the site, when it was being demolished - nearly all of Darwin went past that site when it was being knocked down, because we could not believe it - there were people coming up and putting flowers and cards on the fence. It was more than a building. It was much, much more than a building.
I have seen the Shot Tower in Melbourne which has the Daimaru complex built around it. They managed to save that. I have seen facades of buildings all over Australia that they have managed to save. There were things that could have been done to preserve that site. From a tourist point of view, a great chance for a great earner went out the window, and it was demolished with no real concern for the future. If you do not respect the past, how can you possibly respect the future?
At that time also, there was a large spread in the NT News by the National Trust of Australia (NT Branch). It said:
It goes on to say:
So, yes, while the previous government did conserve some things, they went a long way to not conserving others, much to their everlasting shame. That is all I will say on the Hotel Darwin.
It is good to see the review happening. It was good to hear the minister mention that, incorporated in the review, we will be having a good hard look at heritage from the indigenous point of view and recognising those sites and features. I lived in Arnhem Land at Maningrida and I had the honour and opportunity of going to quite a number of outstations with the traditional owners. I was shown around some of their places of significance and they are awe-inspiring. They are stunning. I can understand the feelings they have for their sites, and they deserve as much protection under this legislation as any European site.
I have gone on walks through Kakadu - which is a bit more game than my wish to go on a li-lo down Rapid Creek - with a hand-held GPS and had a look at some magnificent sites and art. These too, will be sites that will be picked up in this legislation. I commend the minister for taking the legislation down that path.
I was similarly amazed when the member for Port Darwin spoke about her visit to the property at Humpty Doo with the member for Blain. I did not know indigenous people around here used arrows, but you learn. That site should definitely listed as a heritage site. A significant dig should be done there. We have opened a whole new chapter of indigenous culture that was not known to the rest of Australia, but the member for Port Darwin has discovered it. She will probably go down in the records for that one.
There is some tremendous heritage in Darwin itself. If you look at the location of Stella Maris - and I am talking about the older house - it is well worth preserving. I commend the minister for looking at that. I have attended a couple of social events there. I tell you, if you could have put half the people who drank in there on the heritage list, that would be well worth it, too. However, it is a great location and a great house. If you look at its siting in town, we really must preserve this. This is part of the seafaring heritage of Europeans in Darwin. It is well worth saving and protecting. It will be another functional centre and an asset to the waterfront project. With this listing, we will not lose it; I am confident it will be part of the waterfront development. Again, tourists and locals alike will benefit.
While we talk about the built environment, the stone kerbing in Smith Street between the Town Hall ruins and Browns Mart, which was constructed in the mid-1880s, is a rare remnant of some of the early civic works in Darwin. The remaining section of the kerb illustrates the use of locally available porcellanite rock that was used extensively in the early years of Darwin’s settlement. The porcellanite is from the cliffs around East Point. It is a great stone. You will see it used throughout the older buildings and the Town Hall ruins. If you have a look, on the kerbing, the guttering, you will see it. In some places it has been bituminised over, or with cement, but underneath is the stonework. It does give you a feeling, if you look at the Town Hall ruins. I was there this morning preparing for my contribution today, having a look at that. I had a good look at kerbing and the Town Hall ruins, and you could really get a feel for the streetscape. This is what the tourists and locals want - they want the real thing. And standing there, you can get a feel for it.
I am also pleased to say, there is a stonemason in town, Tom Finlay - you cannot miss him, he on the highway going south – who does a lot of work with porcellanite. He is constructing stone houses and features all around the place, but he does not try and say: ‘This is authentic old stuff; this is heritage’. He is doing it as a link. He is keeping the skills and the crafts going with the stonemasonry work that went on in this town. People like him need to be commended for the work that he does, and also need to be encouraged. It is great if we can build in the old style and people have a taste of it, but it is not the genuine article, and that is what people want.
When we talk about the Wesleyan Church being moved to the gardens, they did a great job - it is fantastic. However, I have some issues as to whether this is a replica or whether it is a restoration. They said it was a significant amount of work, and I believe it is. For my money, it is a replica, it is not a restorative feature. The government could have moved in earlier on that site. It would have been a wonderful cultural precinct, something like in Alice Springs, if we could have had the BAT, the British Australian Telegraph Office, the Wesleyan Church, Admiralty House - yes, I take the point that it was moved up there. We would have had a beaut little precinct right in the heart of town. We should learn from the other capital cities’ mistakes; we should capitalise on what we have in built heritage.
Never forget, Darwin has been bombed, blown away, eaten away by termites, which will eat just about anything that sits around, so our built environment is important. Our built environment is not like Naples, Milan, or Bendigo; it is uniquely Darwin. Yes, it is a little different, and is not old. Very few things in this town are old. Let us treasure what we have and protect it. Let us go with it. When we talk about things not being old, and look at the Reserve Bank, we might say: ‘I have seen some better looking pieces of architecture in my day’. Let me remind people in this House and listening that the ICI building in Melbourne was one of the first major skyscrapers of its type that was built. I do not believe that is one of the prettiest buildings in the world. It certainly is not one of the prettiest buildings in Melbourne; it is glass-fronted, square, old, just a sky scraper - bang, that is it. However, in its particular architectural style reflecting the times, it is iconic of Melbourne now, and they are preserving it. The are knocking down many other skyscrapers in Melbourne, but they are preserving that site. The Reserve Bank in town here is much in the same vein as ICI. At the start, you might not think it is too flash, and not to your architectural taste. But who could say that the Californian bungalows in Melbourne, the old Federation houses around Kensington, the places around Redfern and Surrey Hills in Sydney - they were all run down and people were neglecting them. We should get into our built environment and look to save it.
I live in a Grollo. It is one of the reconstruction houses, from after the cyclone. I honestly believe that those reconstruction houses - the Grollos, the Barclays, all those ones that went - have significant historical attachments. In years to come, people will be modifying them everywhere. I tell you that I think we should be looking to list one in its original condition, if at all possible, because they do mean a lot. These are the places that were built after the cyclone. They are built in such a way that they will last forever.
I am aware that the Darwin City Council is upgrading footpath and kerbing in the area by the Town Hall ruins, and I commend them for that. The stone kerbing, as I understand, is not currently protected as a declared heritage place, but the heritage listing is being considered. There will be public consultation processes to be followed. I would like to add my support to the listing.
I also talk about the Strauss Airfield. My colleague’s statement mentioned the recent listing of Strauss Airfield as a declared heritage place. The heritage assessment report for Strauss Airstrip indicates that it was used by the RAAF, the RAF, and the USAAF in wartime operations, and was critical in the defence of Darwin, especially during 1942 and 1943. P40 Kittyhawk and Spitfire aircraft were stationed at Strauss. The listing of Strauss is fantastic news, and I wholeheartedly support the conservation of this and other former military sites associated with World War II.
There is a rich story to be told about the Allied efforts to defend Australia in the Territory. With the bombing of Darwin commemorations, younger Australians have come to understand some of the story, and this is reflected in the increasing attendance at Anzac Day ceremonies. However, there is much of this story still to be told, and much to be done to conserve and interpret the sites to give meaning to the story. There are literally hundred of sites in the Top End associated with the story. I am advised that there are over 160 World War II sites along the Stuart Highway from Larrimah to Darwin, most of which are unsigned and unknown to the public. There are, in addition, over 70 World War II aircraft wrecks across the Top End.
The minister made mention of the number of military sites that the former government rejected for heritage listing - Hughes Airfield and the Z-Special training areas - and indicated that he will referring these places back to the Heritage Advisory Council for review and advice. Hughes Airfield was a medium bomber place, and is certainly in good condition, and I support this move. With the review of the Heritage Conservation Act, I hope these sites, as well as the hundreds of other World War II sites, can be given increased protection and recognition.
Once again, when I first came to Darwin, I went to Casuarina Beach - not to the same part of Casuarina Beach that the member for Macdonnell goes to with his camera - but this side around Dripstone, where there is a machine gun cement fortification in the middle of the beach. That is fantastic; you do not see that on Melbourne beaches. Those sites are all over the place. They do need recognition and some form of protection. I am glad that the review is occurring, and that the minister is leading us to that place where our future generations who live here will be able to find out what was it like in the past - and the tourist will also.
I finish with the words of a little ditty. It sums up this whole review and how we feel about it. It goes like this, and I believe it was by Joni Mitchell and Counting Crows just did a cover version of it:
Dr BURNS (Environment and Heritage): Mr Acting Speaker, I would like to thank all members for their contribution to this statement. By and large, the contributions have been very constructive. There has been a consensus here amongst most who have spoken that it is time that there be a review of the act; it is timely. People are very interested in that review and, as I foreshadowed, the discussion paper will be coming forward very soon for the members of the public and of this Assembly to comment on.
With that overview, I have made pretty copious notes here. I hope I can get through it all, because members have raised some very important issues. I will try and address those that have been raised by a number of members - and with a theme, because members have raised some fairly important issues. The shadow minister acknowledged the need for review, and talked about some of the achievements of the former government. That has to be recognised. On the question of the Alice Spring Gaol, he acknowledged that the minister’s power are probably too strong. However, in relation to some matters - he mentioned the Wesleyan Church - some power needs to be in reserve to ensure that developments can go ahead. That is probably something that the public will want to comment on. I do not want to comment on it at this stage, but I take on board the suggestion by the member for Daly.
He mentioned that the Heritage Advisory Committee can recommend and that the minister can not declare, and that I work that into my speech. I do not really recall that, but that is probably something that needs to be taken up within the review.
There has been a lot of discussion about the Hotel Darwin; there is no doubt about that. The member for Sanderson probably summed up the feelings that a lot of people had when the Hotel Darwin was destroyed. A lot has been said in this House about the Hotel Darwin. I notice that the member for Daly talked about the rights or the weight that should be given to the owners of the building in relation to its future. However, the member for Sanderson demonstrated that really, the family that owned the building in law were the owners of the building, but the ownership of the Hotel Darwin was a hell of a lot wider, and a lot of people in this community felt they had ownership.
A member: Oh, that’s good! Communism is what that is called.
Dr BURNS: Well, they felt strongly about it and they felt upset when it was demolished.
I actually have some sympathy for the member for Daly, because it was not actually he who really paved the way, in an administrative sense, to allow the building to be demolished. It was the former member for Katherine - that is my understanding - Mr Reed. I believe that, obviously, the member for Daly continues to bear the blame for it. The member for Arnhem talked about how the member for Daly went away for a while and the acting minister’s role was assumed by Mike Reed. I get the feeling from that particular story that really, the member for Daly may not have been comfortable with the whole issue of demolishing the Hotel Darwin, and he stepped to one side and just did not want to be part of it. The dirty deed, so to speak, was done by the member for Katherine, but the member for Daly still wears that opprobrium, so to speak - which is probably unfortunate. Anyway, that is political life and we all wear these things.
I suppose in the last week, a lot has been made of the fact that in a statement on horticulture, that I happened to use some sentences, paragraphs and sections that have been used by Mick Palmer some years ago. Well, at the end of the political day, if the worst that people can say about me: ‘Oh, he used some same paragraphs as …
Mr Dunham: Plagiarised! Plagiarised you did.
Dr BURNS: … Mick Palmer, weighed up against: ‘He was responsible for demolishing the Hotel Darwin’, I know which one I would much rather have. I know which one carries more weight with the community. That is all I have to say about that.
The member for Daly made some constructive suggestions regarding the publication of a newsletter letting people know - those who are interested probably on a mailing list - about what is happening in heritage in the Territory. That is a constructive suggestion that I have taken on board.
There are many things that we can talk about - many personal stories. I talked in my statement about the people all through the Territory who really contribute to preserving the cultural heritage. It was my privilege a few weeks ago to meet Ruth Murphy of Katherine and the Murphy family, and see the fantastic job that they have done in preserving that site near Knotts Crossing: the Sportsmans Hotel and the former Gallon Store. You could probably take up and adjournment debate talking about that. I really commend people like Ruth Murphy, who have done such a great job in preserving that great part of our cultural heritage. There are many stories. You could just feel the history around that Sportsmans Hotel and the Gallon Store. It is a great area, with the bomb crater and the shrapnel that has obviously cut through some of the rocks there - it is a fantastic site.
The member for Daly also suggested further debate on the discussion paper on the review of the act when it comes to fruition, and that is something I will consider very seriously.
The member for Arnhem talked about Aboriginal cultural heritage and said, apart from a few instances, there are only a few Aboriginal sites on the register. That is something, as I have said in my statement, that I have asked the Heritage Advisory Council to look into. As the member for Arnhem outlined, there are a number of important sites. Probably some of them are not built sites, but they are certainly part of our history and cultural heritage. Aboriginal people should be recognised for their great contribution to our history and cultural heritage.
The member for Port Darwin gave a very positive view of things. She talked about her electorate of Port Darwin. She also spoke about how she has had a growing appreciation and knowledge of heritage throughout the Northern Territory. A very important issue that she and the member for Nelson raised was in relation to the leprosarium. It is proper that I put something on the record about the leprosarium, because a number of people have raised the issue. There were three leprosaria established in and around Darwin: Mud Island near Wickham Point; Channel Island; and on East Arm just near the TDZ.
The old leprosarium on East Arm was run by the Catholic Church and was abandoned in 1983. The buildings there were used for a time and left derelict and fires and termites destroyed most of it, unfortunately. I am advised that the Heritage Advisory Council had a look at the site in 2000 and decided it was not worth nominating to the heritage register. This reflects the position of the Commonwealth and the National Trust, who did not include the site on the Register of the National Estate or the Heritage List kept by the trust. The site has now being cleaned up as part of the works associated with the railway, so there is little on the site to preserve.
There are many Darwin families with connections to this part of history - and beyond Darwin. I know plenty out in Arnhem Land who have unfortunate connections, but still talk of those connections with the leprosarium at East Arm. It is very important that we acknowledge their story, particularly those who suffered with the disease, and I have known a few of them in my time. Also the work of Dr John Hargreaves, the many Aboriginal Health Workers - and you meet them in so many walks of life. Some of them are still health workers and some of them are doing other things in their lives, but they always remember that experience in the leprosarium. The schooling that they received from Dr Hargreaves is always held in the very highest esteem. We need to acknowledge that. It is not feasible just to provide interpretive information spread across the three sites.
The Channel Island Leprosarium is a declared heritage place, and I agree that more could be done at this site to acknowledge the story of leprosy over the past 70 to 80 years. I will be directing the Heritage Advisory Council to look into what further measures we can take at Channel Island and to advise me on these measures. The long and the short of it is, unfortunately, that East Arm is no more. I have given you the history. What we have to do now is focus on the Channel Island site and see what we can do there. I have made a commitment here in the House to do that.
Getting back to what the member for Port Darwin said about appreciating heritage across the Northern Territory, when she was talking about that I could not help but think about what I call the Daleks out at Maningrida. Back in the Harry Giese days, there were these great plans of having a forestry industry across the Top End on Aboriginal communities. I guess the vestige of that, or one aspect of it, is on the Tiwi Islands. I remember when I first went to live and work at Maningrida, there was still quite a lot of the old sawmill there. There are still the fire towers and the Daleks, which were where all the sawdust used to be burnt. Although that site has been built on, it probably might not be a bad idea to look at what could be done with the poor old Dalek there. It is pretty indestructible. It is an interesting looking structure. People who come there think: ‘What the hell is that?’, but that is what it is. Cabinet is going out there to meet in the next couple of weeks, so they will see the Dalek there for themselves as they go down from the airport.
The member for Port Darwin mentioned her commitment to the Old Town Hall and the Banyan Tree, and I commend her for her efforts there. That is a very important site, and I believe that tree was very destructive. You are to be commended for your efforts there, member for Port Darwin. You mentioned the Myilly Heritage Precinct. Well, I suppose there was a bit of political argy-bargy there, which I could never understand. I was at the Bombing of Darwin celebrations when minister Vale made a big announcement about handing back those heritage sites to the Territory. Then, somehow, it went nowhere. Hopefully, that issue is now resolved and those sites will be preserved - they are fantastic sites.
The members for Port Darwin and Nelson, and I think others, have raised the issue of Old Admiralty House, and that is quite topical. I would like to place some things on the record in relation to that. I will not go back into the history, because the member for Port Darwin said that it was moved on to its current site in the early 1950s. It originally was constructed in 1937 and 1938, and it was declared a heritage place in February 1994. The history up to now is pretty well known. Expressions of interest in purchase and development of Lot 2291 were called by the former government in 1998. It went through a process, and the successful bidder was Jalouise Pty Ltd. They were offered a Crown term lease in 2001.
The lease required the development of that part of Lot 2291 not declared a heritage place proceed before expiry of the lease on 8 March 2004. They subsequently obtained approval through the Development Consent Authority to construct a multi-storey office accommodation up to the margins of the declared area. They are currently undertaking geotechnical investigations on Lot 2291. None of those geotech investigations are within the boundaries of the declared heritage place, and there is absolutely no threat to Admiralty House. However, Jalouise have also applied for a permit to excavate in the corner of the declared heritage area to provide for future services into the heritage building. The application contains concept designs for the refurbishment and conservation of Old Admiralty House. The permit application has been forwarded to the Heritage Advisory Council, which will advise me in advance of my consideration on whether to approve the works. Jalouise have prepared a draft conservation and management plan for Old Admiralty House, and my office is continuing to work with them in order to finalise a plan.
I acknowledge that there are community concerns about the future use of Old Admiralty House. However, as a declared heritage place, I can reassure the House that nothing physical can be done to the building without my approval, pursuant to the Heritage Conservation Act. I understand the community’s desire to have some input into the plans for the building. The Heritage Conservation Act does not formally provide for public comment to be sought on applications made under the legislation. I believe that community consultation is appropriate where it is in the interests of conserving the heritage values of a property. The lack of formal legislative capacity to seek public comment is certainly a problem that needs to be considered in the review of the legislation, and I will have more to say on this later when the results of the review come forward. Notwithstanding the shortcomings of the legislation, I will be using my best endeavours to ensure that the community has a chance to comment on the plans for Admiralty House, and that this view is communicated to the company concerned. In addition, any development on the heritage site will almost certainly require development consent, providing another avenue for community comment.
In summary, there are community concerns; there has been a process; there are some further proposals regarding the area. I have given guarantees about conservation of Old Admiralty House and public consultation. I certainly will not making any decision without listening to what the community is saying, or that will harm, in any way, Admiralty House, because we do not want a repeat of Hotel Darwin.
I do not have a lot of time. I appreciate the support from my colleagues. I have picked up a fair few of the issues the member for Nelson commented on such as the heritage zonings, and the complex procedure for heritage listing. I am prepared to take all those on board regarding the review of the act. I take on board what he said about Strauss. I want to place on the record again that, at the recent meeting of Commonwealth, state and territory Heritage ministers, I was very forthright in telling them about Strauss Airfield and the need, the national interest, and the importance of preserving it. I know my colleague has written to Deputy Prime Minister Anderson on the issue. If we can have solidarity on both sides of this House, we can put a very strong case to the federal government about Strauss. We have declared it. Also, the member for Nelson mentioned Trevor Horman and the great work that he as done in Adelaide River, and I commend him for that.
The member for Araluen mentioned what is beneath tourist icons; how a lot of work has to be done to market heritage. I am very interested in what Queensland has done. They have actually produced some books about heritage for tourists. Those books have become best sellers; the tourists love them. That is an idea we should carry forward, and I appreciate the constructive suggestion by the member for Araluen.
I have already mentioned the member for Sanderson. The Chief Minister mentioned a lot of the history and heritage around Fannie Bay. In summary, she talked about heritage in the Northern Territory as being smart, strategic and consultative. That is the way we have to be, because heritage is just so important. As the member for Sanderson said, it teaches us about our past so that we can look forward to the future. Without a past, we have no reference points.
I commend all members for their contribution here today. I am deeply appreciative. Certainly, there have been a lot of good ideas and comment come out, and I will be taking them on board. I commend this ministerial statement to the House.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Mr Acting Speaker, I move that government business order of the day No 2 relating to the Interim Report on Issues Associated with the Progressive Entry of Cane Toads into the Northern Territory be discharged forthwith.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the Assembly at its rising adjourn until Tuesday, 25 November 2003 at 10 am or such other time and or date as may be set by Mr Acting Speaker, pursuant to sessional order.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Mr Acting Speaker, I table Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report for 2002-03 in accordance with section 9 of the Financial Management Act. I am pleased to table this report. This statement forms part of the 2002-03 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report and presents the Territory’s first year of fiscal management on an accrual basis. The report also satisfies the requirements of the final fiscal results report as set out in the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act.
The outcome for the 2002-03 financial year: as members will be aware, the government inherited the financial position that was widely described by expert competitors as unsustainable. Since that time, the government has been intent on getting the fiscal position of the Territory in order. If we fail to do that today, we place the future of the Territory at risk. We are striving to bring the Territory budget out of a cash deficit and into a surplus. The Territory committed to a cash-based deficit reduction strategy at the time of the November 2001 mini-budget, that would bring the budget into balance by 2004-05. The August 2002-03 budget anticipated a deficit of $94m.
In May 2003, at the time of the delivery of the 2003-04 budget, we predicted the position for 2002-03 improved and would be in the order of a deficit of $31m. The cash outcome has been better than our predictions, resulting in a cash surplus of $9m. However - and it is a big however - the underlying deficit at 30 June 2003 remains at the predicted $31m. It does so for a number of reasons, which I will explain, but principally because $40m of expenditure has been carried forward to 2003-04.
The cash improvement since August 2002 can be explained in the following terms: $39m was due to increased receipts. Of this, $18m was an increase in Northern Territory tax receipts, the biggest part of which comes from one-off increases in stamp duty on a number of commercial conveyancing transactions. That means we experienced a number of one-off additional revenue payments resulting from one-off events; for example, stamp duty on conveyancing from some unique large transactions. Other receipts and receipts from sales of goods and services account of $15m of the increase. This means the government received a greater amount of revenue from activities than anticipated. It includes $4m of recoverable works receipts and a number of other small increases across several agencies.
The nett increase in Commonwealth grants is $5m from addition specific purpose payments, offset by lower GST revenue, and will result in increased program expenditure in 2003-04.
The three factors account for $39m better than expected improvement in the cash position: $64m improvements from nett reduction in payments - the figure explains the remainder of the cash improvement; $38m was due to nett reduction in capital payments, as compared with the August budget; $10m capital works was transferred into 2003-04 at the time of the May 2003 budget and announced at that time. As a result of the end of year outcome, another $10m of capital expenditure transfers into 2003-04. It includes $3m of delayed payments associated with railway associated infrastructure; $3m in medical equipment ordered, but not delivered before 30 June; and a further $3m in capital works. Another $13m originally classified as capital was reclassified to operating during the year and included $10m for the indigenous essential services capital program, which was provided as a grant to the Power and Water Corporation. $3m that was budgeted for land acquisitions was not required. Despite some delays in capital expenditure, 2002-03 capital expenditure remained higher than average and excluding expenditure on the railway, was $45m higher than 2001-02.
Operating payments reduced by a nett $25m since August 2002. It is made up of a $9m reduction on interest payments due to debt re-financing. It shows good work done by Treasury in improving our position in this area. There were increased payments of $25m, largely in Education, Health and Community Services, offset by approximately $30m in payments transferring into 2003-04, and approximately $10m largely due to reduced expenditure in superannuation benefit payments. The $30m in operational payments which will transfer to 2003-04, does so largely because of timing. It includes $15m Commonwealth special payments received late in 2002-03 that will be spent in 2003-04, and $10m in grants payments that did not occur in 2002-03.
In summary, the improvement in the cash outcome is gratifying, but needs to be put into context. We have come out of the 2002-03 year with an underlying deficit situation, albeit a reduced deficit, and we enter 2003-04 still tracking toward an underlying cash deficit of $24m. In accrual terms, the nett operating balance improved through the year by $27m to a small deficit of $1m, which is a good result. The improvement in the nett operating balance is similar to the underlying cash improvement.
The Martin government adopted a new fiscal strategy for the 2002-03 year. In line with the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act, it was based on three key principles: sustainable government services, a competitive tax environment and prudent management of liabilities. Specific targets were identified for each of principles.
Sustainable government services: the targets for the principle of this strategy are to achieve an underlying cash surplus by 2004-05, to achieve a positive government finance statistics operating balance within 10 years in the general government sector. Based on the government’s financial performance to date, the targets of achieving a cash surplus in 2004-05 and a positive nett operating balance within 10 years will be achieved.
Maintain a competitive tax environment: in 2002-03, Northern Territory taxation revenue per capita was $1248 less than all other jurisdictions except Tasmania. The Commonwealth Grants Commission assessments show that the Territory’s tax effort is closer to the Australian average than the simple per capita measures imply, but indicates that Territorians are paying taxes at a level below the Australian average.
Prudent management of liabilities: the effective management of liabilities gives considerable focus to targeting, monitoring and reducing nett debt to prudent levels. It should be noted that, for benchmarking the Territory against other jurisdictions, the broader non-financial public sector scope is used, rather than the general government sector. This broader focus is appropriate because of substantial differences between the states and the allocation of debt and liabilities between the general government and the non-financial public sector.
Debt is defined as those liabilities which carry a contractual obligation to service or repay principal and, in the Territory context, broadly comprise Territory borrowings, both domestic and offshore, Territory bonds and advances received from the Commonwealth. Currently, Territory debt levels are high relative to the states. However, due to the cash surplus achieved in 2002-03, Territory non-financial public sector nett debt decreased from $1753m in 2001-02 to $1723m in 2002-03. Over the same period, the ratio of nett debt to revenue declined from 67% in 2001-02 to 64% in 2002-03.
The addition of the employee liabilities to nett debt, enables a broader assessment of government liabilities. Nett debt, plus employee liabilities as at 30 June 2003 for the non-financial public sector, was $3508m, an improvement of $115m on the original budget. This comprised $1723m in nett debt and $1785m in employee liabilities. The Territory’s nett debt and employee liabilities rose slightly between 2001-02 and 2002-03, and this is projected to continue to rise until 2005-06, due to emerging costs associated with unfunded superannuation liabilities.
In summary, it is a good result consistent with the government’s fiscal strategy and an improvement on the original 2002-03 budget. This government will continue to manage the Territory’s finances responsibly, maintaining an appropriate balance between community needs, the needs of the Territory economy, and maintaining a sound fiscal position.
I wish to turn to public financial corporations. The operating balance for public financial corporations was a reduction of approximately $38m in the August 2002 budget, primarily resulting from the Territory Insurance Office increasing its prudential reserves. I believe the Territory Insurance Office released its 2002-03 financial outcome today. As the only remaining Australian insurance company operating under government ownership, Territory Insurance Office does not have to meet the requirements of the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority. However, despite tight trading conditions, the Territory Insurance Office Board has chosen to move progressively towards Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority standards and to increase reserves held against possible future claims. However, this does involve absorbing book losses today to provide for unresolved claims resulting from past events.
The government has agreed to convert a $16.5m deposit to equity to improve Territory Insurance Office’s nett asset position. This has no impact on the Territory’s 2002-03 outcome, but will be reflected in the 2003-04 year. It is referred to in Note 28 in the Total Public Sector financial statements.
I turn now to the presentation of the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report. With the move from a cash framework to an accrual framework, the format of the 2002-03 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report differs significantly from that in previous years. The information contained in the report has been enhanced in order to improve accountability and transparency and provide a more user friendly document. This Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report presents the 2002-03 outcome in a single reporting format, with comparative data provided for the 2002-03 final budget estimate and the 2001-02 outcome. It also includes further information on items of significance in the form of notes to the Total Public Sector financial statements.
Although the cash-based information was audited in previous years, this is the first time audited accrual numbers have been presented in the report. I am pleased to announce the Auditor-General has issued a clear audit opinion on the statement. A technical qualification still exists in relation to compliance with Australian Accounting Standard 31, Financial Reporting by Governments, as has been the case for the last three years. The Territory has chosen to conform with uniform presentation framework requirements rather than with Australian Accounting Standard 31 in this and in previous years. However, the information presented in this report is largely consistent with what we anticipate will be the new requirements under the harmonisation of uniform presentation framework and Australian Accounting Standard 31 reporting standards.
The report comprises an overview and an audited section, followed by an unaudited section. However, unlike previous years, the majority of the information provided is in the audited section of the report. The overview provides users with an analysis of the whole-of-government information presented in the report, and the outcome of the government’s fiscal strategy for 2002-03. It also meets the requirements of the final fiscal results report, as set out in the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act. The audited section includes financial statements, operating statements, balance sheet and cash flow statement by UPF sector, with notes to the statements provided for the total public sector. Actual data for 2001-02 and 2002-03, along with final budget comparisons are presented for the general government, public non-financial corporations, and non-financial public sector financial statements. Budget comparative data is not provided in the total public sector and public corporation statements, as this is not a UPF requirement.
Notes for the public sector financial statements provide additional information in regard to accounting policies and significant items. As 2002-03 is the first year for which such notes have been included, it is expected that these will be enhanced and expanded to include financial information for other sectors over the next two to three years. Additional tables required by the UPF relating to general government operating expenses by function, general government purchase of non-financial assets by function, new UPF requirements for 2002-03, general government sector taxes and loan council allocation for 2002-03 are provided in this section.
The unaudited section includes summarised agency information on appropriation changes through the year, and explanations for any variations of appropriation. Explanations are also included for any significant variations in the key components of the financial statements that have occurred between the 2002-03 final estimate and the actual outcome for 2002-03. This information is not required under UPF, or the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act, and agencies will present full financial statements in their annual reports. However, to present a comprehensive and informative document, it was considered appropriate that summary agency information be provided.
The 2002-03 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report is the Territory’s first accrual report, and demonstrates considerable and ongoing improvement in the Territory’s financial reporting framework. I table the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report for 2002-03, which incorporates the 2002-03 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement. I commend it to the House. I move the Assembly take note of the report and that I have leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Debate adjourned.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Acting Speaker, pursuant to the resolution of the Assembly dated 27 November 2002, I table the Sessional Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development’s report entitled Issues associated with the progressive entry into the Northern Territory of cane toads. It is in four volumes.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the paper.
Members will recall that on 21 August this year, I tabled in this House the committee’s interim report on this matter. At that time, I stated that the tabling of that document had been brought forward to facilitate the early consideration of some matters that are time sensitive, which required being placed before parliament in advance of the major report - in particular, that cane toads are likely to reach greater Darwin and Palmerston during this coming Wet.
Accordingly, the committee urged that the Northern Territory government consider a number of recommendations that required immediate attention to ameliorate the significant impact the cane toads are likely to have during this coming Wet. In particular, we recommended the construction of a cane toad-proof fence on Cobourg Peninsula; increased use and enhancement of existing ranger and care for country programs to pursue cane toad control methods; the development and implementation of a multimedia public awareness campaign to educate the community about cane toads; and the development and management of quarantine regimes between the Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments to protect offshore islands currently with cane toads.
I am happy to report to the House that the government has, indeed, listened to this committee in respect of the development and implementation of a multimedia public awareness campaign to educate the community about cane toads, with the production of information sheets and the holding of public displays in key areas such as shopping centres, markets throughout Darwin and Palmerston, and the Smith Street Mall.
The committee notes, as part of the governments public awareness program, the Parks and Wildlife Commission of the NT has produced two information sheets: Cane Toads - The Facts and Making Your Yard a Toad-free Zone. These information sheets are shown at Appendix 4 within Volume 1 of the committee’s report. The committee encourages the government to continue this public awareness program, and it hopes that it will be expanded into communities in the western Top End prior to the arrival of cane toads in those areas.
Having provided an update on the interim report, I now turn to the committee’s major report tabled this evening. The report is a combination of many hours of work put in by the committee. Before I go into detail on that report, I would like to state at the outset my appreciation to the members of this committee and to the staff of the Secretariat for their contribution in producing this document. In particular, I would like to thank the committee Secretariat, Rick Gray and Maria Viegas, who were ably assisted by Kim Cowcher and Anna-Maria Socci.
This report would not have been possible had it not been for the many people – citizens, specialist, local communities, and government organisations and authorities - who willingly and generously shared their information with the committee. The committee, prior to commencing this inquiry, received a number of excellent briefings from a variety of people and organisations, and it has assisted the committee to understand the nature and habits of the cane toad. Details of those who provided briefings are at page 5 of Volume I, and transcripts of those briefings in Volume 4, Briefings.
The committee also advertised for submissions. As Chair, I signed hundreds of letters to parties we identified to have an interest in this matter. We received a total of 25 written submissions. Many of them were of a high standard and they helped our committee to arrive at a series of recommendations. Copies of those submissions are in Volume 2, Written Submissions. The committee received two excellent submissions from Environment Australia and chose to attach them as separate appendices to the major report.
The committee also conducted a number of public hearings in Borroloola, Katherine, Jabiru, Darwin, Palmerston and Litchfield, where 54 people gave direct oral evidence. Transcripts of those proceedings can be read in Volume 3, Public Hearings. Copies of the committee’s report are available from the committee Secretariat and will be on the committee web site shortly.
At the time of the culmination of this investigation, the committee identified some 47 findings relating to the risk and impacts of cane toads in the NT, managing those risks and impacts, public education and awareness, and cooperation and collaboration with other governmental bodies. At this stage, I would like to point out that a key recommendations of the committee goes to cooperation and collaboration. Given all the evidence received, the committee is of the view that cane toads are, indeed, a national issue. Throughout the inquiry, the need for cooperative and collaborative arrangements between key stakeholders at local, regional levels in the NT, the states and Commonwealth was continually raised. Such coordinated arrangements would serves as a focal point for coordinating management and research strategies to address issues regarding cane toads that would offer a concerted approach towards effective control or even, dare we say, possible eradication.
In the more immediate term, the need for the NT to forge links with Western Australia to attempt to control cane toads spreading across the border and into the pristine Kimberley, was identified. During the course of the inquiry, the committee raised a question as to the merits or otherwise of a possible formation of a national cane toad task force. The committee heard substantial evidence identifying the need to establish a national task force. Many of the submissions highlighted a number of factors:
there is a need for a comprehensive management approach towards the control and possible eradication
of cane toads in Australia;
the Commonwealth that are tied to research and monitoring the environmental impact of cane toads; and
stakeholders in the community in the monitoring, research and control of the environmental impact of the
cane toad.
The report goes into detail in respect of the above, and I encourage members to read the report. The committee has recommended that, in respect of establishing a national task force, the Northern Territory government pursue with the Commonwealth, the states of Queensland, Western Australia, New South Wales and South Australia, the establishment of a national task force to coordinate efforts to control, and possibly eradicate, cane toads. The membership of the national task force should include, but not necessarily be limited to, representatives of key stakeholder groups, such as CSIRO, Parks and Wildlife Commission NT, the Cooperative Research Centre Tropical Savannas Management at Charles Darwin University, interstate academics, Environment Australia, Frog Watch NT and peak indigenous organisations.
The role and function of the national task force could include: to coordinate efforts to control and possibly eradicate cane toads in Australia; to identify and pursue funding; to ensure ongoing consultation and collaboration with the three tiers of government, environment groups, tertiary institutions and other relevant bodies, relevant corporations and industry; and any other roles and functions agreed to by the membership.
The committee heard evidence that Western Australia is next in line in regard to cane toad infestation and there is great merit in establishing bilateral agreements between the Northern Territory and Western Australia to coordinate the research, control and possible eradication of cane toads in Australia’s north-west. Given this real threat of the cane toad moving to the north-west, there are very good reasons why Western Australia should be engaged. We recommend that the Northern Territory government approach the Western Australian government for the purpose of establishing agreement on a coordinated program to research and control cane toads.
From the findings, the committee has made 17 recommendations that should assist governments and the community in providing mechanisms and approaches to control and manage cane toads. Cane toads have been present in Australia for almost 70 years, and in the Northern Territory for some 20 years. Research has shown that there are substantial short-term impacts on the decline of many vertebrate predators; in particular, goannas, most snakes, and the northern quoll, but also including some crocodiles, turtles, fish and birds.
The committee, throughout this inquiry, heard a wide range of evidence on what is known about the cane toad. Page 8 of Volume 1 provides an extensive list of what is known. However, the following are some of the more pertinent points:
adult cane toads are nocturnal, terrestrial and ground dwelling;
rocks or sheets of iron etcetera.
in Australia, the cane toad has no known natural predators or parasites;
cane toads compete effectively with other insect eating animals for food;
It became evident to the committee that the extent and distribution of the cane toad within the NT and its impact on native fauna and habitats has now become quite extensive with serious consequences. In particular, the committee found that cane toads are expected to arrive in the urban areas of the Top End of the NT, including Darwin and Palmerston, during the coming Wet Season and we will see a high level of cane toad colonisation. Cane toads have already colonised some NT offshore islands and, indeed, scientist-led evidence shows that cane toads have the potential to infest and affect all Australian states.
The seriousness of the incursion of cane toads into the NT is an issue the committee is concerned about, and must be addressed while there is still an opportunity to protect certain areas of the Territory, and properly inform the general community about how to deal with cane toads. The committee found that the toxin is potentially lethal to humans and domestic pets if ingested. It poses significant risk to humans and their pets, but this risk can be reduced with eradication, education and awareness. Until recently, there had been little research conducted on the indirect and long-term effects of cane toads on our native species and ecosystems. As a result, there is little quantitative baseline data on the possible long-term effects of cane toads on native species and our ecosystems.
The committee received substantial evidence regarding potential socioeconomic impacts. These include the effects on indigenous communities, the wider community, power and water, business and tourism. While the socioeconomic impacts are widely discussed in the evidence and research collected by the committee, further research specific to these issues is required to accurately quantify the full extent of these impacts.
The committee identified a series of findings in respect to the risks and impacts of cane toads. The rate of spread of cane toads is approximately 30 km per year, and this is greater than what was previously expected. The northern quoll is a vulnerable species threatened by the cane toad. There is a lack of information on the potential socioeconomic impacts in the NT, including those I mentioned before: water, tourism, business, agriculture, and indigenous food sources.
We found the experience and knowledge of indigenous communities already affected by cane toads should be used to enhance the work of existing ranger programs, such as those established by Parks and Wildlife Commission NT and the Northern Land Council’s Caring for Country Unit.
We received a great deal of evidence regarding the impacts of cane toads on indigenous communities; in particular, the decline in numbers of bush tucker species such as goanna, water monitor, lizards, snakes and turtles. We found this would primarily affect the important and strong relationships indigenous communities have with their country. The committee heard compelling evidence during a visit to Kakadu in respect of the impact the cane toad had on indigenous communities there. In part, I quote Mr Russell Cubillo, the Deputy Chairman of the Kakadu National Park Board of Management:
The committee has recommended that ranger programs such as those established by Parks and Wildlife and the Northern Land Council’s Caring for Country Unit could be supported and enhanced to pursue cane toad control methods. In particular, we note evidence received from Environment Australia which identified what it saw as the main ways of managing the environmental impact of cane toads:
identify one or more biological controls to reduce cane toad populations;
institute strict quarantine measures in designated areas, eg, islands or peninsulas, to keep
them toad-free as long as possible;
through translocation or captive breeding if necessary and appropriate;
impacts in order to best guide priorities for future impact mitigation measures; and
The committee also heard considerable evidence about erecting a cane toad-proof fence across the Cobourg Peninsula in order to quarantine the peninsula’s unique and historic flora and flora from cane toad infestation. The Chair of the Cobourg Peninsula Board of Management, Mr Christophersen, in his evidence to the committee, expressed concern about the impending infestation of the peninsula:
The committee also received considerable evidence in regard to the impending impact of the cane toad to offshore islands, including Bathurst and Melville Islands. A submission from the Tiwi Land Council raised concerns about the cane toad coming on to the islands and damaging the fledgling aquaculture and forestry enterprises. The Tiwi Islands are taking active steps to mitigate the intrusion of the cane toad by erecting a quarantine facility on the mainland at one of the local shipping and barge enterprises in Darwin. This approach is the first attempt in Australia to provide a cane toad barrier of this type, and the committee supports the Tiwi Island Council’s endeavours.
The committee identified a series of findings in respect of managing the risks of the impact of cane toads on our community and, apart from what has already been mentioned, there are some more of particular note. We note there are no effective biological or chemical control methods yet found for the cane toad. The CSIRO is researching biological control of cane toads, but the project could take a further 10 years, and its final effect is unknown. There is limited baseline native fauna and flora data, before and after the arrival of cane toads in the Territory, making it difficult to gauge their long-term impact on our native species. In managing the incursion, a number of control methods and approaches ranging from continued monitoring and research programs; biological and chemical control, including eradication and physical removal; quarantining; physical barriers; and the relocation of threatened species to offshore islands, are all aspects for consideration. There are a number of physical and manual control methods and measures in managing the containment of the cane toad that may prove effective in localised areas, for example, townships, caravan parks and specifically targeted areas.
In regard to the funding for cane toad research and monitoring over the past 20 years from both the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory governments, and what is predicted for the future, the committee found it was difficult to get clear and accurate figures. We did find there is no formal Northern Territory plan of management for cane toads and, hence, the committee has recommended that the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment develop and implement a plan of management for the control of cane toads.
There may have been missed opportunities in the past in attempting to control the spread of cane toads. However, evidence the committee received now points overwhelmingly towards further action. We found cane toads are not currently listed as a threatening process under the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act of 1999. Therefore, the committee recommends that the Northern Territory government lobby the Commonwealth government to reclassify the cane toad from a pest to a menace under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, and the Northern Territory government nominate cane toads as a threatening process under this act.
The translocation of populations of the northern quoll to offshore islands requires ongoing research regarding the impacts of the quolls on the islands’ ecology. The committee recommends that the Northern Territory government and relevant Commonwealth agencies continue to monitor the effects of the quolls on the offshore islands.
There are no comprehensive quarantine measures or facilities to guard against the transportation of cane toads. We recommend the Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments continue with the development and management of quarantine regimes to protect offshore islands currently without cane toads.
It became evident during the course of this inquiry that there was a great lack of knowledge within the Northern Territory community in respect to cane toad advancement, particularly in Darwin, the rural areas and national parks in close proximity to Darwin and Palmerston. Community groups and volunteer organisations, we believe, should be encouraged to undertake control methods such as adopt a water way - this could be one way of managing and controlling the impact of cane toads. We heard anecdotal evidence of people in Queensland who had taken it upon themselves to combat cane toads in specific areas such as billabongs and dams and that, single-handedly, they have been able to eradicate cane toads from such areas.
At the Jabiru public hearings, the committee heard compelling evidence from Mr Murdoch, the Public Relations Officer of the Jabiru Town Council, in respect of the community concerns and expectations, and I quote:
The committee is of the view that there is a need for a series of education programs aimed at indigenous and non-indigenous communities and organisations to encourage people to actively participate in the management and control of cane toads. The committee is of the view that, given the real threat of the cane toad to infest Australia’s north-west, there is much action that can be taken, on a collaborative basis, between governments.
The committee, throughout the inquiry, has heard an enormous amount of evidence in respect to the impact the cane toad will have on the environment, our communities and urban centres. We heard evidence about the research and monitoring, control methods - biological or otherwise - and the importance of public awareness and education. Throughout the inquiry, the committee has asked the question: ‘Given all the issues associated with the progressive entry of cane toads into the Northern Territory, what needs to be done to mitigate, control or eradicate the cane toad on the broader scale?’
The committee has heard comments on which level of environmental priority the cane toad incursion should be given, and has noted that there may have been missed opportunities to attempt the control and spread of cane toads. However, the evidence provided to the committee in the submissions and briefings received, points overwhelmingly towards further action. In that regard, the committee has recommended that the Northern Territory government make the management and control of cane toads a high priority in respect of monitoring the cane toad spread and of coordinating research, and that the government report to parliament on the progress of implementing this inquiry’s recommendations.
I encourage all members and the government to study the report in detail. As you can see, there are four extensive volumes of this inquiry. We have tried to keep the language in as simple English as possible but, given the nature of some of the scientific evidence, that was difficult. The recommendations and findings are early in the report, so people can turn their attention to those pretty quickly.
I just want to finish my comments tonight with a quote that a US scientist studying in Kakadu National Park gave to the committee. I feel that it perhaps best sums up the situation we are confronting. Dr Dan Hollands said:
To me, that signifies that there is an opportunity for us to save some of the biodiversity of the Northern Territory. Certainly, with collaboration and assistance in research and funding, importantly from other jurisdictions, we could, in fact, save the biodiversity of other regions of Australia through what we are able to achieve in the Territory. That presents a major challenge to our governments; it presents the need for a coordinated approach which all researchers agreed on in their submissions to our committee.
I believe the inquiry was worthwhile. I thank the government for referencing the committee to undertake the inquiry. The inquiry certainly was greeted with a lot of enthusiasm from the scientific community, with many people commenting that they were very pleased the inquiry had occurred.
Broadly speaking, everyone was of the view that a national task force would be the best way forward in coordinating the approach to combat the cane toad. There are a range of research proposals that scientists have put on the table that require funding. It was the committee’s view that we are not the experts to say which research proposal had the greater merit, but we believe that a national task force with significant stakeholders and experts on the subject could be the forum in which such decisions are made. I urge all members of the Assembly to take note of the report, and I look forward to further discussions on this subject.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Acting Speaker, it is my intention to speak quickly to this and to adjourn this debate on the basis that it is a comprehensive set of documents, and it is probably best that the opportunity be taken to mull over this in the intervening period between sittings and the debate continue again in November.
From my point of view, the destination this report got to was entirely predictable, but the route we took to get there was educative - if I could say it like that. We have come pretty much to the finding as the American doctor in Kakadu said - that this is a Titanic. There is an inevitability about the advent of cane toads in this place. However, that does not mean that you cannot know more about them, we cannot inform ourselves more, that we cannot provide some safety and other lessons to our young folk and those who might vulnerable, and there might some educative things we can provide for other jurisdictions.
So, I thought tonight I would talk about bufo marinus ‘This is your life’. Here he is here – that is the cane toad – and it is my expectation that cousins of this critter are hopping around Darwin as we speak. I have absolutely no doubt that this species of animal will be in the Darwin environs over this Wet Season.
They are a formidable animal, as you well know. They have two poisoned glands on their back that excrete bufo toxin. The bufo toxin is toxic to many mammals, fish, invertebrates and others. It is toxic at all stages of its life cycle - as a metamorph, an egg, a tadpole and an adult. I do not think, if you went throughout the globe, you would find a more formidable animal than this dude. He has been found in fossilised remains. In the fossils, it is almost identical to the species that we now have before us. So, we know that he has been around a long time and, from those fossilised remains, we have been able to establish that he has barely evolved in that time. Why would he? He is omnivorous and, although he prefers insects, he will eat anything. The ones that have been studied in the Northern Territory have had grasses, small mammals, bugs, and all manner of things in their gut. They are toxic to most species. They are very hardy in terms of their habitat. If one goes to page 10 of Volume 1, there is the predicted distribution of the animal.
It might surprise members of this House to find that every Australian state, including Tasmania, will one day have this particular beast as part of its fauna. They exist on pretty much every continent. They are well studied and, despite evidence from some people we knew very little about them, there is an ample body of scientific evidence on this animal. Obviously, that does not mean we know everything because they will have a different impact in different places they go. However, this is a beast that has come across the Barkly Tablelands and it can adapt to extremes of temperature. The only thing that seems capable of pulling them up is lack of water.
There is some good news and bad news about them, I suppose. The bad news is that they are here to stay and they have a deathly impact on the ecology of this place. But there is some good news. We received some evidence from people who are knowledgable that it is likely that no species will become extinct as a result of the cane toad coming to the Northern Territory. That was very heartening evidence to me because I had received lots of information, including from scientific people, that there was a likelihood that a variety of species would become extinct as a result of the cane toad.
There has been some 60 years since this beast arrived in Queensland. I note that the chairman of the committee, the previous speaker, said that there were missed opportunities to prevent the spread. There was one opportunity, and it was in 1937 when they brought this thing in and they took it around. Failing that opportunity, there is no opportunity, I believe, to halt in a major way the advance of this species. There are opportunities to quarantine certain areas - areas that are geologically, or in some other way formidable, like islands for instance, or Cobourg Peninsula. There may be some hope there. But bufo marinus will be in every state. He will be eating native flora and fauna; he will have an impact on the environment. We have to talk to the people who voted us into this place about what effect it will have on their lives.
For people who do not like Death Adders and King Browns, they are particularly toxic to those two beasts, and they eat cockroaches. If you were looking for the very few ticks on the credit side of the ledger for this beast, they are among them.
It is sad that a creature like this has arrived. We took evidence in the committee that there are significant other issues out there. While I would not suggest that the work we have done has been in vain, I would suggest that there is significant environmental work in front of this committee. Feral animals are among that work: camels, donkeys, pigs and other invasive species. I hope we can turn some of our intellectual gaze to some of those animals.
I was pleased to discover that the Northern Territory has a proud and formidable record in scientific work in this area, given that this animal arrived into the Northern Territory in the 1980s. In 15 to 20 years, for a small jurisdiction, the vast bulk of the information gathered comes from the Territory. Our counterparts in Queensland have adopted a nonchalant attitude to cohabitation with this beast, and that attitude has translated into acceptance and a parochial sense of ownership: ‘He is one of us; we are used to him and don’t you bash up our cane toads’.
It is that attitude that has helped advance the spread of the toad. There is absolutely no doubt that the advancement from the Roper through to Katherine was aided by humans, either accidentally or intentionally. That is why I am so pessimistic about my scenario for their arrival here. They are notorious hitch hikers; they can hop on and off heavy plant and other vehicles. We now have a railway line running through Pine Creek and other toad infested areas. I would suspect that vehicles and fisherman going up and down the track will provide a ready means of transport for this animal.
It is important that we educate our people. I have taken this beast here to a number of schools and talked to school children about it. There was a document produced that is, unfortunately, now out of print. It was a colour document and provided some really good advice, particularly about mistaken identity. There are some local species that, when small, can be mistaken for the cane toad. It would be a dreadful crime to see these species being on the sharp end of a blunt device such as a golf club merely because they resemble this beast. Those documents should be available.
One of the things the committee talked about was making sure we got that advice out to schools and the community. I find when I talk to schools that those people from Queensland are very nonplussed about the fact that the toad will be here. I will admit there is some shock among them about the fact that it is here in Darwin, or will be in the next year or so. I canoed down the Katherine River last year and saw some crocodile deaths, which I did not attribute to anything other than someone who was trigger-happy. It was not until we came back to Katherine that someone said it was obviously cane toads.
My father canoed for several days down the Katherine River this year, and he is someone who has probably done that a dozen times. He said the effect it has had on the fauna on the river, including birds, is quite remarkable. He said they did not see crows, goannas, or frilled-necks. There is now no doubt that the invasive front, when it comes through, will take a great toll on animals that have never seen this before.
It is heartening to know that, if you go to places like Borroloola, there are two species of bird that have learned how to attack and digest this animal by coming in through the gut which is not toxic - the toxic glands are on the back - and there is a re-emergence of goannas. When we talk about the evidence we have, for instance about goannas, there is scientific evidence to the contrary that the goannas do reappear - the big animals die and the smaller animals either learn how to avoid them, not eat them, or eat them without peril.
Some of those tests should be replicated, certainly in the west of the Northern Territory, maybe through Yarralin and places like that. We have to make sure that we do not get tied up between anecdotal and emotional stuff and science. There was some discussion about how they kill crocodiles, and I believe that to be the case. However, there have been empirical studies where hungry freshwater crocodiles were put in a cage and their only food source was cane toads. The mortality rate was zero. So, while they will kill crocodiles, there is nothing to say they will kill them all. While they will goannas, the same holds true.
We were heartened to receive scientific evidence from somebody who had studied them in Queensland. There are toads on islands where all the species are still evident, and there are places where there were no toads, and the same held. There is a capacity to look at a control and experimental situation. We should take some heart from that.
The business about translocating the species has some difficulties attached to it, and are exactly the same difficulties that were attached to bringing this species to Australia in the first place; that is, that we really do not know the effect of bringing one species into an area where they have never been and setting them loose in that population mix. I understand there was some significant work done in translocating the quoll, and I hope that that is robust science and is monitored.
We found out a lot about this animal. For instance, Bufo marinus means marine toad. I, for one, was unaware of its capacity to live in a saltwater habitat. That is obviously what marine means, and we took evidence that people had seen them swimming in salt water. They are on the islands off Borroloola, and are a significant way away from the mainland. It is some effort to get from the mouth of McArthur to the centre island, and that is what they have achieved.
Therefore, we should look at these books. We should look at some of the evidence we have. I particularly would draw members to the evidence that was given by Bill Freeland. It is good that he provided both a written submission and oral evidence. I would suggest that he is probably among the more knowledgeable people about this particular species. Certainly, his name is a frequent reference if you look at early documentation and, particularly, early Territory documentation. There is no doubt that there is a debt of gratitude to Bill Freeland’s scientific work. He has put a very good thinking submission to the committee that should be good reading for people who are interested. It also provide some pointers, and those pointers are for the committee, maybe more than parliament. However, we certainly must take our reference from parliament. He has provided some pointers as to where we should go with our efforts with this committee in the future.
I shall not go further other than to seek to continue my remarks at another time. However, I cannot finish tonight without thanking the committee. I believe that the work that has been put in by Mr Rick Gray has been nothing short of exceptional. He has put an immense effort into this. Although this report has our various signatures and faces shining out of the pages, members would well know it largely bears the thumbprint of Mr Gray. He has done an exemplary job with this and I commend him for it. Maria Vegas, likewise, provided very good support for the committee. I will name the other three: Kim Cowcher, Elizabeth McFarlane and Anna-Maria Socci. That committee, although small and committed to other tasks of this parliament, provided a very good and powerful assistance to the committee.
The report is in the form these four volumes you see before you. I believe it is one of those things that will be called on frequently from various libraries, our electorate offices, or here in Parliament House offices, or in the State Library, because it is the stuff that students of the Territory’s native flora and fauna will be interested in for a long time to come. They will have much more opportunity, obviously, to see the beast in its natural – or unnatural habitat, certainly here in the Territory.
It is with some sadness I say that, on embarking on this committee, we already established its destination. Its destination was to say: ‘We will come up with a recommendation to say it is inevitable that it will be here, but there are some amelioration techniques’. Those techniques and recommendations are in the report. I thank also my colleagues on the committee. Members will note that there is no dissent in this report; it is a unanimous report of the committee. That goes to the fact that, with matters relating to the science and other issues of curiosity that we started off with, we were well and truly provided with answers as we went along.
I, therefore, seek leave, Mr Acting Speaker, to continue my remarks at a later date.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Mr VATSKALIS (Ethnic Affairs): Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
I speak about an issue of grave importance to the Greek community of the Northern Territory, to all ethnic communities of the Territory and to myself - both personally and as the Minister for Ethnic Affairs. That is the continued campaign of racial vilification of persons of Greek descent being conducted through the pages of our local newspaper. Today, another letter was published. The writer has smeared all hard-working Territorians of Greek - and particularly, Kalymnian - background, by basically asserting that thousands of Australians of Kalymnian descent are welfare bludgers and tax cheats. Nothing could be further from the truth.
For more than 50 years, Greek people have contributed to the growth of the Territory. Greeks, particularly Kalymnians, built Darwin. Now, a number of these people have decided to retire in or to return to Kalymnos and, in most cases, they are self-funded retirees. For your information, Greece and Australia do not have a pension agreement, so people cannot claim their pension there. If some senior Territorians of Greek descent move to Kalymnos, due to the change of the federal legislation, they can only claim their pension there for 12 months, and then they have to return to Australia.
Today, I have been contacted by many Greek Territorians who were outraged by this letter, and the ongoing campaign of vilification. I am also very disappointed at the NT News for having printed such grubby rubbish. I fully authorised my office to assist in the drafting of letters to the editor from the representatives of the Greek community, to express their disappointment. Today, I am proud to stand in support of Greek Territorians against the racist campaign; the same way I will stand in support of any other Territorian, irrespective of their background, creed, or origin.
The letter writer is a sad person, someone who thinks that the tragic drowning of two people in our national parks is an appropriate political platform to launch an attack on the government about pool fencing; and who thinks making slurs against hard-working members of our community is somehow clever. Territorians have always welcomed and accepted thousands of people - migrants and refugees - from many countries. These people have lived in the Territory, and have contributed, and continue to contribute, to the growth and development of the Territory. Territorians will continue to accept migrants and refugees, but will never accept attempts by sad people to damage the peace and harmony of our multicultural and accepting society.
Ms MARTIN (Fannie Bay): Mr Acting Speaker, I would like to say goodbye this evening to a real Territory icon, with the passing of Lionel Gray, of Motorcycle Haven, who died on 26 September.
Motorcycle Haven, just outside Adelaide River, was in some ways a strange name for such an eclectic place, with an extraordinary collection of historical objects. The amazing motorcycles guaranteed that at least every male - and probably some females - spent a fascinating time looking, admiring and dreaming over the fabulous collection. There was a whole lot more, though, to Motorcycle Haven than motorbikes.
The ancient film and cinematic poster collection could absorb you for hours, looking at the celluloid stars of yesteryear. Lionel’s dream of having a mobile cinema travelling through the Territory showing pictures was interrupted by ill health and other considerations, but he was always as passionately devoted to film history as to motorbikes. Then again, to talk about the cinema collection or motorbikes would not cover Lionel’s amazing collections of household bric-a-brac, old magazines and implements. His Motorcycle Haven was a miscellany of wonderful objects from another time. Lionel did not go in for display cases and the idea that visitors were kept at arms length from collections. Visitors felt almost as if they were discovering the objects rather than just looking at them.
Motorcycle Haven had an international reputation that possibly exceeded Lionel’s Territory, or even Australian fame. Particularly for Japanese visitors, Motorcycle Haven was the magnet for those interested in exploring something uniquely Territorian, off the beaten track.
Sadly, as the years went by, Lionel’s health started to cause him trouble. Increasingly, he found the climate here difficult and travelled south regularly. I was greatly saddened to hear of his death.
Lionel Gray’s Motorcycle Haven was unique in the Territory, and probably in Australia. It was an Aladdin’s cave of treasures, illustrating our social history. A real part of the experience of a visit was Lionel himself – laconic, humorous, brewing coffee and talking to visitors. All Territorians will sadly miss Lionel Gray and our condolences go to his family, particularly Alan, Cary, Mark and Hellaina.
This month we also mourn the passing of another great Territory character, Margaret Fairweather. Margaret was born on 26 October 1915 and came to live in the Territory in 1939. After living and working in Darwin over the next 21 years, she and her husband, John Fairweather, bought a block of land in the Daly River region, 150 km south of Darwin and, a year later in 1961, built the Daly River pub. Margaret Fairweather ran the Daly pub, mainly single-handed, for 26 years until 1987 when she was then 72 years old.
There are many stories told by friends of Marge and John’s that I could relate, but none of them capture the energy and strength of Marge during this time at the pub, than those told of how the Fairweathers pulled together through the devastation of the 1974 Daly River floods. In an extract from the publication Daly River Story, a River Unconquered, John Pye writes, and I quote:
Another friend, Hugh Bradley, put into words that which so many who knew her would think: ‘Marge was a hard-working, hard-headed woman who was larger than life with a wonderful spirit’.
Margaret Fairweather remained active throughout her life, even though she was profoundly deaf and battled many illnesses. She was a 1963 foundation member of Quota International, the Darwin club which, incidentally, will celebrate its 40th year of charter on 2 December this year. Through Quota she conducted lip-reading classes for the deaf and, as always, despite her own disability, was keen and determined to help others in need. As a grandson, Derek, said at his grandmother’s funeral service: ‘Grandma may have been deaf, but she missed nothing’. Carol Wilson, who is past president and long-time member of Quota, relayed: ‘Marge saw that there was a very great need for a Quota Club in Darwin and, not one to let the grass under her feet, walked the pavement for 12 months calling on business and professional women of Darwin’. Bearing in mind Marge lived at the Daly River, she was very determined in her efforts to give Darwin the great gift of a women’s service club. Once the club was chartered in 1963 with 25 members, Marge travelled from the Daly River region to Darwin to attend two Quota meetings every month.
Marge was always ready to help others, and always on the look-out for those less fortunate than herself. In 1989, Marge Fairweather commenced studies at the Northern Territory University for a Certificate in Fashion Studies and, in 1995 was the oldest Territorian to graduate with an Associate Diploma in Fashion Technology. Orna Bennett, who is head of the school, and Armida Monteith who was the course coordinator who tutored Margaret over that seven year period, said: ‘When Margaret first started, because of her deafness which she played on, she had a lot of difficulties with pattern making and course lessons. When asked if she had completed project tasks, she would say: ‘Oh, I did not know you said that’. Armida came to work with Margaret on a one-to-one basis and copied all lessons into carbon copy books which, unfortunately for Marge, never allowed her to get away with not knowing again. Orna Bennett has retained these notebooks, which have now become valuable resource material for students of the course.
In 1996, at the age of 81, Margaret completed a solo world tour and, being the International Year of Peace, took a large bag of Australian coins depicting the peace motifs and, throughout her travels, handed out the coins to many lucky recipients.
Margaret Fairweather was a long-time Territorian who will be long remembered as a hard-working, feisty lady with a wonderful spirit who added life and character to the history of the Northern Territory. She is survived by her daughter Nola and son John, along with her eight grandchildren Derek, Leith, Rendall, Robert, John, Penny, Debbie and Jason.
I would also like to speak tonight about some local electorate issues. On Sunday 21 September, I officiated at the opening of the Ludmilla Landcare Environmental Park. This was an activity that I was most pleased to be involved in, having had a great personal interest and association with the Ludmilla Creek Landcare Group and its activities since its first work day eight years ago on Sunday, 11 June 1995 - which was a day I will not forget. It was six days before the by-election that brought me into this place.
In the past eight years, the Ludmilla Creek Landcare Group has grown in both size of membership and the complexity of the projects that the group has undertaken. Projects have ranged from small plantings of 150 trees to the re-birth of what is known as ‘coffee bush corner’, with 4000 trees planted.
The Ludmilla Creek Environmental Park is a significant achievement for the group. Ludmilla School first undertook a project in Ludmilla Creek way back in 1998 when teacher Robyn Maclean cleared the area nearest the gate for some plantings. She organised many lessons around the creek resources, from maths to English and environmental issues, and her project won a Northern Territory Landcare Education Award in 1999.
This project has seen collaboration by many government agencies and departments, with in-kind assistance, advice and materials. I would also like to acknowledge the ANZ Staff Foundation which provided funding for this major project. The Landcare section of the Department of Infrastructure and Planning, with Libby Benson as Manager, continues to provide essential overall support to the group through the urban Landcare coordinator, currently Steve Popple. Their help with technical advice, coordination, and on-ground works and materials have been essential to the success of the project.
The Power and Water Corporation removed problem trees and advised on-site constraints. The large piles of woodchip mulch they donated gave the Landcare group an excellent start to the plantings. Darwin City Council was also involved, providing plants, mulch and important safety features such as railings.
Greening Australia NT has consistently been easily available for advice on identification and suitability of plants, and has produced high quality plants, as it has for this and other projects.
The Mosquito Control Team from Darwin City Council and Territory Health Services gave the group an important start on the right-hand area by filling a swampy section so that we could plant trees in it. Support and advice came from Nemarluk School staff, and it certainly made the park accessible to people with various disabilities.
Peter Truman and the Community Corrections Unit have helped at various important times with intensive hard work, notably during initial construction of the pathway through the Ludmilla Creek area.
Tony Hillier of Earth Built has always given the group a good deal for path building and remodelling, and has given much good advice, generally, over the years.
The future looks very bright for the environmental park. There is no doubt that we will benefit from a much more active association with Crown land managers who manage the adjoining land. We also have a close link with the neighbouring Anglicare Backyard Project, which provides post-school options for young adults with disability. Their nursery has the potential to provide us with natives to augment and infill plantings to the park, and their on-ground work will complement and extend this park.
Last, but not least, I want to thank all the residents, ANZ Bank staff and others who have come to work days at the Ludmilla Environmental Park over the last two years. Without such community participation, this project would not have got off the ground.
By mentioning the Ludmilla Landcare Group, I must recognise the tree planting event that was held on Dick Ward Drive, near the racecourse, in July. In conjunction with National Tree Day, the Landcare group came together to plant nearly 300 trees, and then spread mountains of mulch to support the new growth area. I would like to acknowledge those who were involved with the National Tree Event for Ludmilla Landcare, including staff from Greening Australia, members of the Casuarina Coastal Reserve Landcare Group, and the individuals: Graham Symons, Alistair Thomson, Leisa Baldwin, Noeleen Beckett, Jane Keddie, Joe Faggion, Kerryn Atwell, Simon James, Anita Jansen, Stephen van den Nieuwenhof, Carolynne Yates, Rebecca Tunks, David Griffiths, Christine Bach and Andrew Mitchell.
I would also like to acknowledge one of the landmarks of Parap, the Parap Family Centre. The centre has provided care, devotion and assistance to the children of our community for the past 24 years. As part of Children’s Week’s celebrations this year, the Parap Family Centre will recognise outstanding service by their staff, with the presentation of certificates at the end of this month, 30 October. I am honoured to have been asked to present those certificates, which acknowledge the contribution staff have made to ensuring the care of children at the Parap Family Centre. Receiving their long service certificates will be Patricia Woodside, who has been with the centre 10 years, Pat Ross - 14 years, Wannapoen West - 10 years, Mary Rogas - 13 years, and Rebecca Noble, who has dedicated 20 years to the centre.
The extraordinary thing about all those women is that they also cared for my children when they were at Parap Family Centre. One of the real strengths of Parap Family Centre is that there have been long-term carers who my children still, when they see now, are delighted to see and feel real affection for. It is a great tribute that the wonderful staff I have just mentioned feel so attached and so much part of our local community that they would dedicate so many years to the centre and take such an ongoing interest in the children they have cared for.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I wanted to acknowledge in this House the wonderful talent of businesswomen from Katherine who have been rewarded in the Telstra Small Business Awards 2003. Four businesswomen entered the awards this year. Fe, who owns and operates a really great dress and variety store, called Fe’s Variety Store; Sue Flynn, who is operation manager of Allan King and Sons Constructions; Joanne Holden, who has worked tirelessly for the Jawoyn Association, and Lyn White, owner of Jalyn Ford.
Sue Flynn, in the category of Commonwealth Government Private and Corporate Sector Award; and Lyn White in the category of Westpac Group Business Owner Award, were acknowledged as the winners in their respective categories, and I congratulate them both on such a fine achievement.
Lyn was ultimately acknowledged as the overall winner of the Northern Territory Telstra Small Businesswoman of 2003, and will attend the National Award Presentation in Melbourne on 25 October. Lyn White started her career as a school teacher in South Australia, but took a change in career direction to work as a used car dealer - quite a brave move at that time. Following Lyn and her partner, Jane’s, move to Alice Springs, Lyn worked for Centralian Motors, moving to Katherine in 1997 to establish and manage the dealership for Centralian Motors, opening in April 1997.
In 1999, following the clean-up after the dreadful 1998 Katherine flood, Lyn and Jane purchased the business and named it Jalyn Ford. By August 2002, the business expanded with the addition of Wyn Holden, becoming only the second dual Ford and Holden dealership in Australia. Their combined dealerships provide employment for 19 local people. I consider the achievements of Lyn and Jane in a predominantly male-oriented industry are outstanding, and I congratulate them for their determination and commitment to servicing the people of Katherine and surrounds. I wish Lyn White the very best at the national awards in Melbourne. She is a great ambassador for women in business, and for Katherine.
Sue Flynn works as the operations manager for Allan King and Sons Construction, and is responsible for the smooth running of a business that has contracts operating, usually at great distances from Katherine; for example, road works near Adelaide River, as well as road construction and maintenance near the Western Australian border. Sue’s efficiency as operations manager is imperative to the successful outcome of these contracts. I congratulate Sue on winning the Commonwealth Government Private and Corporate Sector Award at the 2003 Telstra Businesswomen of the Year Awards.
The achievements of Lyn and Sue at the 2003 NT Telstra Small Business Awards, mirrors the successful outcome of the 2002 awards, when three women from Katherine and one from Pine Creek were finalists. Julie Newton, from Jeff Newton Saddlery, Katherine, was the 2002 NT Telstra Small Businesswoman. Julie has spent a very busy and productive year and has been a great ambassador for, not only Katherine, but the Northern Territory. Julie has just been appointed Chairman of the Katherine Region Development Board - an excellent choice and I know she will work tirelessly to achieve the best outcomes for the region.
I am very proud of the achievements of the business people of Katherine, with the challenges that they faced since the devastation of the 1998 floods, but I am especially proud of the successful women who have been acknowledged from such a small community.
In finishing tonight, I would just like to acknowledge that 20 Year 6 students from Casuarina School in Katherine, with three supervisors, visited Parliament House yesterday - very excited to see their new member sitting in parliament. I had a lovely time talking with them regarding what parliament is all about. I said I know very little; that I am still learning. It was refreshing to listen to their questions and see their eagerness to learn how parliament works. I thoroughly enjoyed having them on the balcony of the Leader of the Opposition, Denis Burke’s, office for morning tea; spilling cordial all over the balcony. I look forward to seeing them all when I get back to Katherine.
Dr TOYNE (Stuart): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the member for Araluen spoke in adjournment last night about the workload of the DPP, as reflected in statistics obtained by the CLP through an application under the Information Act. I really wonder why the member bothered to waste time and taxpayers’ money on such an application, when she could have obtained the information simply by asking for a briefing, or looking in the DPP’s annual report, which came out during these sittings. Despite this, the member for Araluen carries on as though she has uncovered some great conspiracy or big secret.
It is no secret to me that the staff of the Victims Support Unit and the DPP, generally, are very hard workers. It is no secret to me that they do a great job prosecuting offenders, and that they support many victims of crime, witnesses, and families of victims and witnesses.
The member for Araluen would have us believe that there is some sort of direct relationship between the number of cases the DPP handles or the number of clients the VSU assists, and the crime and justice statistics released by the Office of Crime Prevention every quarter. The member for Araluen would have us believe that, if the numbers of clients of VSU increases, we must be misleading Territorians about crime statistics. This is rich coming from a member of a party that was too gutless to release dependable, reliable, professional statistics on crime when it had a chance to do so.
What is more, the member for Araluen has it wrong - yet again! The DPP’s Victims Support Unit does a fantastic job for Territorians. They increased their services to Territorians by over 23% this financial year. It is probably hard for the member to understand that this is good news. It reflects the government’s commitment to support victims of crime. The increase in services shows the work of the VSU has been done to promote their service. Contrary to the claims of the member, they have not just sent out letters inviting people to make contact; the VSU have been out there letting people know about their service. This year alone, they have attended 12 training sessions at the Police College. They have also attended a number of schools to talk about their services, and they have even managed to increase the bush court work that they are doing. When you market a service, you get more clients.
What the member for Araluen also failed to acknowledge in her misguided attack last night, is that not every client of the VCU is the direct victim of a crime. The VSU count amongst their clients - and appropriately so - all the people for whom they provide a service. This often includes family members of victims, witnesses to proceedings, and families of witnesses. It can also, regrettably, include families of deceased persons.
As to preferring these figures to the quarterly crime and justice statistics produced in the Office of Crime Prevention and audited by Ernst & Young, these figures cannot show us the level of crime in our community. Following the formula of the member, we would be back in the dark ages of the former government with scant information being released to the public about the true rate of crime. Those figures can only come from offences reported to the police, something that everyone except the member for Araluen recognises nationwide. This is an accepted way for measuring crime rates right round the country.
What about the increase in new matters handled by the DPP prosecutors this year? The member for Araluen says this must mean that crime statistics are wrong. There have been …
Ms Carney: 113% increased workload! How do you explain that, Minister for Justice?
Dr TOYNE: Oh, here we go, I can hear a bug farting!
There has been an increase in new matters handled by the DPP this year - 958 compared to 429 the year before. I am surprised to have to spell this out for the member but, clearly, I do. This means the police are actually catching more criminals. Charges are being laid and criminals are being prosecuted, all good news for the community.
Clearly, crimes prosecuted is not a measure of the crime rate. The member for Araluen needs to get some rigour into her examination of statistics if she is going to be effective in her role.
This reply provides me with the opportunity to recognise the work of the Office of DPP, and for that I am very grateful. It is clear to me that the staff of the ODPP are very professional, very committed and very hard working.
Ms Carney: Absolutely, which is why we can trust their figures!
Dr TOYNE: This government thanks them for this and the community should be grateful we have such diligent people in this area. The member is correct when she says that she can trust the information coming from the ODPP. There can be no doubt about that. However, where the member has it wrong is that she accuses the equally professional and diligent people who collected statistics on reported crime - our police force, and those who collate and publish our quarterly crime statistics at the Office of Crime Prevention - of being less accurate and less trustworthy. The member accuses me of using incorrect figures …
Ms CARNEY: Rubbish! Point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker!
Dr Toyne: Oh, look, for heaven’s sake. We have really got to you, have we?
Ms CARNEY: The minister well knows that, at no point in my adjournment speech last night, did I seek to marginalise or criticise the very good officers from the Office of Crime Prevention …
Dr Toyne: Come on, hurry up.
Ms CARNEY: … and it is utterly dishonest again for the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General to make any such assertion.
MADAM ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will just seek some advice. There is no point of order, minister.
Dr TOYNE: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. The member for Araluen accuses me of using incorrect figures. The member used the words ‘slippery’ and ‘rubbery’ in relation to the figures I am trying to use publicly. Well, I am pretty sorry for her. I am sorry that she has to resort to such innuendo and insulting language to try to present to the community that the CLP knows where it is going with crime in the Territory. Well, Territorians know better than that. Territorians can look at the record and see who is making inroads on crime in the Territory. he member finds the crime statistics confusing, or maybe she is the slippery one. Whichever is the case, the press release she put out in September about the latest quarterly crime statistics for Alice Springs was about 100% inaccurate.
It is worth going through her claims. She claimed property crime increased by 29% last quarter. Wrong! Property crime decreased by 3% or 24 offences from the previous quarter. Motor vehicle thefts, she claimed, increased by 10%. Wrong again! Motor vehicle theft increased by 9% or six offences. Other thefts increased by 5%. Wrong. It increased by 4% or 13 offences for the previous quarter. And here is the good one: sexual assault increased by 78%. Seriously wrong. Sexual assault fell by 11% or two offences from the previous quarter.
Ms Carney: On a quarter comparison, the figures that suit you better!
Dr TOYNE: I am concerned by her last ‘mistake’ and I want to draw attention to it ...
Mr Henderson: Have a look at the police report.
Ms Carney: At least I can read!
Dr TOYNE: She has a responsibility not to scare the public for her own political ends with statistics which are so completely at odds with reality …
Ms Carney: Unlike you, member for Wanguri. You big git!
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! I would ask the member for Araluen to withdraw that remark that she just made. I am not going to repeat it, she knows what she said.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, would you withdraw your remark?
Ms Carney: I withdraw the words ‘big git’, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen!
Ms CARNEY: Unreservedly, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker.
A member: Stand up when you address the Chair, please.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will you stand and withdraw, please, member for Araluen.
Ms CARNEY: Sorry?
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will you stand and withdraw …
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw the words ‘big git’ directed to the member for Wanguri, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Continue, minister.
Dr TOYNE: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker.
This government had the courage the CLP never had to release comprehensive crime figures. I have said repeatedly that this government will release those statistics regularly and faithfully, no matter whether they show crime is rising or falling. We believe it is critical that Territorians have access to full and accurate information so they can judge for themselves.
The quarterly crime and Justice statistics compiled by the Office of Crime Prevention and regularly audited by Ernst & Young are available in libraries and on the web at www.nt.gov.au/justice/ocp/. This means that people do not have to believe the member for Araluen. I encourage all Territorians to have a look at the crime statistics and judge for themselves.
I now turn to the member for Araluen’s claim that, because I have recently been talking about the number of driving offenders in our prisons, I was trying to mislead when I said that the people we are putting in gaol at the moment are serial property offenders. Let me present the facts. During the last financial year, 295 people were sentenced to gaol for driving offences. That is 295 out of the total prison population which can accommodate 800 prisoners and, for example, in April stood at over 745 prisoners.
It must be obvious, even to the member for Araluen, that the majority of prisoners were sentenced for something other than driving offences. The member for Araluen keeps getting it wrong. Maybe she cannot cope with what the quarterly crime and Justice statistics are telling her: overall crime is falling across the Territory and there are fewer victims. Maybe she cannot do her maths and simply does not understand statistics. Or maybe, more seriously, she is just doing a lot of misleading and adding unnecessarily to the fear of crime in our community. I call on her, again, to stick to the facts and learn to read the quarterly crime and Justice statistics issued by the Office of Crime Prevention. As the new shadow Attorney-General, this is her responsibility, and I wish she would start to take it.
Mr AH KIT (Arnhem): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to adjourn tonight on an Australian icon and legend, Slim Dusty. I note from the Internet that the funeral service was aptly entitled by his family ‘Travelling Still, Always Will: Slim Dusty, 1927-2003’.
David Gordon Kirkpatrick was born 13 June 1927 at a place called Nulla Nulla near Kempsie in New South Wales. It was a dairy farm. He passed away, after a long battle with cancer, at home on 19 September 2003. At his side was his beloved wife and soul mate, Joy, and children Anne and David.
He took his show name of Slim Dusty in 1943 and, in 1957, achieved national and international success with his hit A Pub With No Beer. From his family’s statement from the web site, dated 20 September 2003, it said:
He wrote his very first song at 10 years of age. It was called The Way the Cowboy Dies. His amazing career spans over six decades. Slim Dusty has won 35 Golden Guitar Awards, more gold and platinum record awards than any other Australian artist, Aria Awards and induction also into the Aria Hall of Fame. He had an MBE awarded to him 1970 and, on top of that, an Order of Australia for his services to entertainment. In 1999, he was named Father of the Year and Senior Australian of the Year.
Some other highlights included in 1979, he was listed on the Roll of Renown at Tamworth’s Country Music Awards. As we all know, Tamworth is the country capital of country and western music in Australia. In 1980, he recorded that super hit Duncan, which achieved gold status. In 1993, he celebrated 50 years of continuous recording in Australia. Also, as a guest of Yothu Yindi, Slim and his band put out some good songs and they toured together throughout the Northern Territory. I certainly remember the time they enjoyed on Bathurst Island.
At Slim’s funeral service in Sydney’s St Andrew’s Cathedral, the hand-clapping congregation sang that famous song, A Pub With No Beer. As was said in the Sydney Morning Herald on 26 September 2003:
My introduction to Slim Dusty was back in 1963, when I was fortunate enough to spend a couple of years of my life in the bush. I worked at places such as Litchfield Station, Douglas Station, Elsey Station, and then Elizabeth Downs. My introduction to Slim’s music was entertaining. His songs were about the land, its people, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. His songs were about battlers on the land, pastoral or farming. His songs were about the dinky-di Aussie. His songs about this sometimes harsh but beautiful country were well captured in the verses that he sang.
I had the pleasure of meeting him on a couple of occasions when he toured around the Top End of the Northern Territory. He was an Aussie legend and an icon who touched the hearts of thousands and thousands of Australians. I am sure many Territorians would join me in passing on our condolences to his lovely wife Joy, his daughter Anne, and son, David, and their families.
I would like to sing a couple of verses of some of his songs because he was that great man. I know that this probably has not been done in parliament here before, or anywhere else in Australia but, because we are unique in the Northern Territory, I have checked with the Speaker and it has been allowed. I do have my lovely cowboy hat here, but I will not put that on.
Members: Put it on!
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: We could indulge and allow you to put the hat on.
Mr AH KIT: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker.
Members: Bravo!
Mr AH KIT: Slim Dusty is a legend and, as most or our countrymen and countrywomen would say: Jilim Tusty, rest in peace.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, a bit of a hard act to follow, but there is some electorate material I want to put on the record.
The 2003 Rotary (GOCROC) Gove Bush Classic was held over the past weekend. The challenging nine-hole course laid out between Cape Wirrawoi and Giddies River rock holes covered 120 km. The four-person Ambrose was keenly contested, with a field of 51 teams. Gove Outback Charity and Recreation Organising Committee (GOCROC) is the driving force behind the Gove Bush Golf Classic and the annual Gove beach volleyball.
The committee’s aim is for both tournaments to raise money for local charities and sporting bodies, as well as provide a day of fun to the residents of Nhulunbuy. I was happy to contribute to the day by way of sponsorship. $30 000 was raised from the Gove Bush Classic. I congratulate the committee chairperson, Stephen Castelli, all the volunteers and the players, on this hugely successful weekend.
The Laynhapuy homelands have been working with Telstra Countrywide over the past 18 months to develop homeland visions for small community administration offices. This brings together issues such as health, CDEP, adult training and education, and small retail business at the community level. Three homelands, Gangan, Yilpara and Garrthalala, have received their first satellite broadband dishes and computers, to be installed by Telstra by the end of October.
This has been an initiative by the homeland people who, after many years of being nurtured and supported by the Laynhapuy Resource Centre at Yirrkala, have the confidence and insight into the future development and direction they want to take within their homeland communities. The establishment of their own administration offices allows for ownership and consultation with their own people at a pace they are comfortable with. An example of this was the request to have some training in filling out their own tax forms and understanding group certificates. To date, 15 completed tax forms have been lodged at the Tax Office for assessment.
Jonetani Rika and Jenness Warin represented Laynhapuy Homelands at the 35th Public Health Association of Australia Conference in Brisbane last month. They presented a paper on the links between communication and infrastructure, and the potential to improve health and education in remote locations. The paper was well received by the conference.
Galiwinku is a sea ranger’s workshop. A request from a Mala meeting at Galiwinku to set up ranger groups for sea and land initiated a sea ranger’s workshop at Galiwinku in September. The Northern Land Council was happy to facilitate the workshop and representative from Parks and Wildlife in Darwin were in attendance. Saltwater issues such as unwanted and illegal fishing, turtles and dugong caught in nets, wasting fish by catch, marine pests and pollution, and looking after fishing areas, as well as shellfish were discussed. Looking after sacred and significant sites, fire management, problems with Balanda going into areas without permits, and pests such as cane toads and pigs were on the agenda.
The workshop enabled a planning process to be set up and to include consultation with traditional owners and families, monitoring and research of the sea and land issues, and senior custodians and traditional owners to work with rangers. Training programs to be implemented include schoolchildren learning from the rangers and elders, the Translation Centre and Knowledge Centre to work with Parks and Wildlife to teach Yolngu about threats to wildlife, and how to manage equipment as part of the monitoring process. Further meetings have been organised to report and follow-up on the processes in place, and to eventually achieve the outcomes that have been discussed with the traditional owners and community at Galiwinku.
This government believes education training means opportunity. That is why we place so much importance on ensuring each Territorian has equal access to quality education and training. In order to build a better Territory, together with the major projects we have coming on-line we need to ensure we have a highly skilled, home-grown work force capable of meeting the challenge and opportunities ahead of us.
I recently attended the 2003 Northern Territory Vocational Training Award Ceremony where the Territory’s vocational training sector gathered to celebrate and recognise best practice in vocational education and training and acknowledge the Territory’s high achievers in the fields. The awards are government’s way of acknowledging and celebrating the contributions made by employers, apprentices, students and registered training organisations in the Territory. I want to thank the businesses and community organisations who contributed to the awards through sponsorship. I want to thank the judges and I want to thank the organisers for a great night. Territory winners will now compete in the Australian Training Awards being held on the Gold Coast in November.
Award winners were:
Winners of Employers and Registered Training Organisations Awards were:
My best wishes and congratulations go to everyone of those trainees and apprentices for the great job they do.
Recently a human interest documentary was completed which was filmed in Nhulunbuy entitled Lonely Boy Richard. It is from the makers of Mabo - Life of an Island Man. The director was Trevor Graham, the producer Denise Haslem, the writer co-producer was Rosemary Hesp and the executive producer Mark Hamlyn. Rosemary Hesp was a former anchor of the 7.30 Report here in Darwin. In fact, the first time ever I went on TV was the 7.30 Report late in 1990 following my election in October 1990, and I was interview by Rosemary Hesp. A couple of years ago, she rang me from interstate to say that they had sought and won Film Australia funding to produce a documentary and they were looking to come to north-east Arnhem Land to do it. Jenny and I helped out in a number of ways and we were very pleased that they were able to spend over 12 months in Nhulunbuy. This film, Lonely Boy Richard, is the result.
I will read from the back cover:
It just rips you apart watching this, because it is filmed in a most unsympathetic manner. It tells it like it is. There’s no pretending that Richard Wanambi is anything other than he is: a life tragically ruined by grog. He’s been drinking since he was 14. He is now 35. It shows his descent into hell and the outcome of the trial.
He was charged and found guilty of rape and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment, to serve a minimum of 8 - and you would say, a fair enough sentence. However, look at the tragedy behind this absolutely wasted life, and the fact that this is occurring to so many around him. Part of his own troubles are brought about by the fact that his older brother was speared in the neck by a shovel-nosed spear some two years ago - a trial has only just commenced now in the Supreme Court. This is the sort of trauma that these families live with when you have grog out of control.
It is beholden on all of us, as members of the Assembly, to really rev up the actions that this parliament and this government can bring to stem the abuse that is occurring right throughout the Northern Territory.
This brings it home in a manner that few media can. I know the family personally, and so it has probably an added effect on me. However, the same thing happens in Tennant Creek, Katherine, Alice Springs and to young people in Darwin.
I commend people getting hold of it and watching it. The ABC has bought the rights and it will be shown on ABC very shortly. It is highly recommended viewing. The Substance Abuse Committee of this parliament, and the alcohol framework review that we have occurring now, are vehicles that can bring recommendations in. The sooner we get that body of work done on both fronts and we get serious recommendations in here and a strong will of government behind tacking this problem, the better off we will be.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to talk about two matters. First, I would like to congratulate all of those involved in the Alice Springs Festival that was held last month. It was a sensational festival. Unfortunately, I happened to be spending a bit of time in Darwin throughout most of the festival, although I did manage to get to a couple of events.
Some people have said that the festival provided a smorgasbord of events and, indeed, it did. I received a copy of the calendar of events, and there was something for everyone. It was truly outstanding. It was unique, and is an event that has great potential in the future.
The festival had 60 events over 10 days, which brought people from all over Australia. It appealed to locals as well as tourists, and it was certainly the case that people from interstate travelled to Alice Springs for the festival. Some of the events included the Desertsong, which was particularly unique. It brought together 14 indigenous choirs from the region, some from remote communities as well as Alice Springs, which would not happen at any time other than the Yeperenye Festival.
The Desert Mob art exhibition is commonly regarded as the best of its type in the country. There was the Wearable Works of Art exhibition, hosted by Jeannie Little, which was a sensation. There was a choir from Tasmania. There was the Hermannsburg Ladies Choir. It was just sensational. Everyone involved is to be congratulated, and I know that that congratulations would be extended from both sides of politics. It is a marvellous opportunity for Alice Springs to showcase itself to Australia and, indeed, the world.
It is important that the event be assured of ongoing support, which brings me to a point I would like to raise. Perhaps I could put it this way: if government could give an indication that it intends to follow through in its continuation of funding the Alice Springs Festival, the government, or the Chief Minister, being Minister for the Arts, should make a public statement to that effect. To the best of my knowledge, none has been made. I know there are some concerns by those in Alice Springs that, perhaps, the fundraising may not be there in the future or, if it is, there is an expectation, it is fair to say, that the funding will be increased. My understanding is that, this year, the Northern Territory government provided $30 000 - $20 000 core funding carried over from last year, plus a $10 000 grant for this year. The festival organisers obtained funds from other sources but, in essence, the festival was completed on a shoestring budget of - the figure I have been told is $130 000. However, they will not be able to do that again. It was incredible that they could put together such an outstanding festival for $130 000. I am sure members of the Assembly will well appreciate that that is not much money to stage an outstanding festival such as this. There has been a suggestion made to me and, indeed others, that perhaps this is an opportunity for government to rethink its approach and strategies as to how it can best serve events such as the Alice Springs Festival.
It has further been suggested that there may well be a role for the Major Events Company. I received an invitation dated 1 October from the Major Events Company. It is clear from the letter that the Major Events Company plans to broaden its wings. I gather that the they are wanting to lend support and assistance to events in Central Australia which, of course, is of particular interest to me. My inquiry is whether the Major Events Company proposes to meet with the organisers from the Alice Springs Festival with a view to lending them a helping hand, if not from an experience and general resources point of view, then perhaps in a funding sense.
I note that the Major Events Company is having a launch. If I am understanding the letter of 1 October correctly. I am assuming that the Major Events Company is planning to think more broadly about how it can assist various organisations in the Territory. I really hope that it extends to assisting the Alice Springs Festival. The Major Events Company is, it is fair to say, perceived as essentially conducting the V8 Supercars and the Finke Desert Race. I know that that is not, strictly speaking, correct, but there is that perception out there. It would be wonderful for Major Events to get more involved in the arts; there is a natural synergy there. Certainly, any representations made by the Major Events Company would be very welcomed by those people involved with the festival.
Before I leave that topic, for members in the Top End who would not have had the benefit of attending any of the events from the Alice Springs Festival, it is important to realise how big this festival was. The best way to illustrate that is to mention the street carnival at the beginning of the festival. It was a very colourful parade which attracted hundreds of people. One journalist said that he has not seen a crowd as big since the Queen visited Alice Springs a couple of years ago. I do not mean to make a comparison between the Queen and the Alice Springs Festival. However, it does indicate that the festival has the broad support of many people in Alice Springs who were prepared to turn up, not only to a number of events, but to the street carnival.
Having dealt with that matter, I would like in the time available to turn to quite a different matter. Members will recall that, in June last year, I brought to the attention of the House an issue in my electorate which was damage caused to houses in the Gillen area caused specifically by the construction works of the Gillen Seniors Village. I met with local residents - in fact, I have done a lot of work with them. Some of them now have retained solicitors, and those solicitors continue to liase with the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment. This is becoming a bigger problem than it should ever have been. I will refer to what the minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Environment said in June last year. In this place he said:
This construction work.. He went on to say that, provided there was a report from an independent surveyor, attesting that the damage was caused by the construction works, the minister would ensure that people’s homes would be fixed. The minister said:
The particular roller was a method of soil compaction that was used which was the wrong method. It should never have been used in the first place. Not surprisingly, various damage was caused. A further quote from the minister in this place is that:
There are 10 residents who have retained the services of a local law firm, Messrs Collier and Dean. Some residents have not decided to retain lawyers. I understand that most of their homes have been fixed, but there is a feeling that those residents who have pursued their right to retain lawyers are being ignored by the minister.
The minister, it is fair to say, has dropped the ball on a promise he gave in this place to fix the damage caused to these houses by the construction of the seniors village. The minister promised to fix the damage last year, but 10 people have still not had their homes fixed. That is a disgraceful situation.
I recently received a letter from Messrs Collier and Dean dated 1 October, advising me that their last correspondence with the minister’s department was on 23 June this year, wherein they provided the department with a list of the damage to the 10 homes of the clients for whom this law firm is acting. The letter dated 1 October says: ‘To date, we have had no response from the department with respect to that letter’.
This is a dreadful situation. Most of the residents are senior citizens; they should not be disadvantaged. They had every right to rely on the word the minister gave in this parliament that he would fix the problem. Not only would he fix it, but he would compensate these people – two separate things. These people, through their lawyers, have been, it seems to me, relentless in pursuing or dealing with the department, and it seems that they have been put on the bottom of a pile. Why it is that the law firm has not received a response to a detailed letter – I believe it is about four pages dated 23 June - I do not know. I am making these comments in the Assembly because I know the minister will be listening or, if he is not, his advisers are. I urge him, in the strongest possible terms, to do something to turn his attention to this problem. He made persuasive promises – they were persuasive because he made them with great commitment and gusto.
If this minister is to be taken at his word, then the 10 residents and their families should be able to expect that their homes will be fixed, or at very least, that their law firm would receive a response to a letter dated 23 June. With those comments, I urge the minister to get on to this matter as a matter of urgency. It has been over 12 months since this matter surfaced. If the minister is to be taken at his word, then I would expect that he will do whatever it takes to ensure that these people’s homes are fixed and that they are compensated.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I recognise the work of Dr Norina Dragovic. Dr Dragovic is the longest-serving public sector dentist in the Territory and is retiring after working in Darwin for over 33 years.
Dr Norina Dragovic was employed by the then Commonwealth Department of Health in February 1970 to work in the new Darwin Dental Clinic in Mitchell Street. At that time, the headquarters of the Health Department were located in an old style Darwin house on the Esplanade. Rural Health and Aerial Medical Services operated from a couple of ex-Army Sydney Williams huts located between Mitchell Street and the Esplanade. None of these buildings were airconditioned. The Darwin Airport terminal was a converted corrugated iron Air Force hangar.
Initially, Dr Dragovic was accommodated in staff accommodation at the old Darwin Hospital on Myilly Point and, several years later, moved into one of the flats above the Dental Clinic, where she resided until the clinic closed.
During her working life in Darwin, Dr Dragovic saw many change. These included surviving Cyclone Tracy on Christmas Eve 1974 and the subsequent closure of the Nightcliff Dental Clinic; the establishment of the Children’s Dental Service; the opening and closure of the Casuarina Dental Clinic; Northern Territory self-government in 1978; the development of the satellite city of Palmerston; the opening and relocation of Palmerston Dental Clinic; and the closure of the Mitchell Street Dental Clinic.
Dr Dragovic has lived through a very interesting time in the development of Darwin and the Northern Territory. She has been a constant provider of dental services during times when dentists have been scarce. I wish Dr Dragovic a happy and healthy retirement.
I also advise the House on progress on this government’s election commitment on undergrounding power in Nightcliff – a very exciting project for members of my electorate. The undergrounding power project has started in Nightcliff this week with the first poles to come down over the next few weeks. The first section will be on Dick Ward Drive between Progress Drive and the Woolworths Supermarket. This small section heralds the beginning of the main project, which will start in earnest in the new year. Northern Power Services Pty Ltd will be doing the work on behalf of the Power and Water Corporation. The work started on Monday and is expected to be completed by the end of December this year. The main project is well on track, with the exhaustive tender and project management process getting closer to starting the main work. Once started, the Nightcliff and Rapid Creek area should have its power supply system underground within three years, something that I know the people of Nightcliff and Rapid Creek will be extremely pleased about.
I also inform members of some exciting things happening at the Nightcliff High School and, particularly, about significant changes to the school for next year. I am also pleased to advise that there appear to be increased enrolments for Year 8 next year at the school.
During the October school holidays, the Nightcliff High School Principal, Mr Paul Atkinson, joined a group of approximately 60 representatives of DEET who attended the Navcon 2K3 Conference in Adelaide. This was a truly international conference with most of the keynote speakers from other countries. This conference is about Navigator Schools, the equivalent of the Northern Territory’s Lighthouse Schools. The overall theme was Learning and Thinking, Learning and Leading, and Learning and Technology.
The conference gave the Northern Territory representatives an opportunity to learn about current effective schooling in the other states and territories. While in Adelaide, Mr Atkinson, together with Mr Greg Robson, Assistant Principal from Nightcliff Primary School, and the Lighthouse School facilitator, Mr Luke Hodgson, visited Elizabeth Vale School as recommended by the Nightcliff School review team. This is a truly innovative school that works with children from infancy through to Year 10.
The ideas that Mr Atkinson brought back are contributing to the plans for next year’s Year 8 intake. These plans are being developed by a project team drawn from the staff. The project is called ‘Innov8 at Year 8’. The whole of the Year 8 cohort will have a defined learning area. The students will have home rooms within this area and a large open space where all the Year 8 students will be able to meet and work. There will also be smaller rooms for small groups, which will be able to withdraw from the greater group. The idea is to have a range of learning environments. The learning areas will be able to be supervised easily with the more open plan.
It is envisaged the students will plan their learning activities on a day-by-day basis. They will be expected to cover the key learning areas, but they will have full flexibility in how they approach their learning. Technology will have an important role in the Innov8 program. Even the timetabling will be flexible. There will be a core time that students will have to be at school, but they will have an option of arriving and finishing earlier or later as they choose. The staffing arrangements will be flexible as well. Teachers and ancillary staff will be able to work with larger groups, with multiple staff, or work in smaller groups as required. The Innov8 teaching team is already working on the program, and have even used my electorate office conference room to conduct some of their planning sessions.
The Innov8 program is to give students a new and exciting way to learn and provide a more natural transition from primary to high school. The students will still have specialist teachers, but they will be available for a much greater part of the school day, so when they have unstructured time, they will have access to those staff. There will be enhanced pastoral care for the students as well.
Another big development that was recently announced is the joining of the Northern Territory Music School with Nightcliff High School. The music school will be relocating to the high school over the Christmas holidays in time for the 2004 academic year, and this is a truly exciting development.
The music school provides music tuition to a range of schools already, and having it relocated to Nightcliff High means it will be able to expand its operations, particularly in the VET sector. They expect to be able to offer courses to aspiring commercial musicians as well. Both Nightcliff High and the music school are registered training organisations and this will allow students at Nightcliff High to be offered advanced music courses that have not been available before. The performance facilities at Nightcliff are a significant improvement on the music school’s current location. I look forward to these new developments, and to informing the House on further matters to do with the Nightcliff High School.
There is already an active music program at Nightcliff under the guidance of Ms Lee. Anyone attending the Mindil Markets this Thursday evening - that is today - at 5.30 pm will be able to catch the school band and dance performance.
Some of the current students are doing very well. In particular, Alex Newman won the Westpac Australian Mathematics Competition medal, with a score in the 99th percentile; Aaron Motlop represented the Northern Territory in the Australian Under 18 touch championships in Coffs Harbour. Aaron was named as the most valuable player and the player’s player. Joseph Aberdeen has been selected for the Australian Student Minerals Venture over the Christmas holidays. The event is held at Queensland University. This young man’s achievements seem to have no end.
Nightcliff High is a really up and coming high school and it is going to be rivalling Darwin High for our young people in the Darwin area in the coming years. I know that there are many young people who are moving into Year 8 next year who are very excited about the changes that are happening at Nightcliff High School. I, for one, am looking to those changes. One of my sons is going there next year, and I look forward to reporting on other things happening at Nightcliff High School over the coming year.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I raise several issues, the first of which is, during the ministerial reports this morning, I asked a very brief question of the Minister for Local Government. As I sat down, I asked the minister whether he had heard anything in relation to the department’s intention to reduce the number of local governments in the Northern Territory to about 20. I asked the minister to confirm or deny. The minister stood up and said:
I wish to draw the minister’s attention to a briefing note that he received some time ago, back in June, and some of the key points. The first key point was:
The second key point was:
I do not have a problem with the thrust of that in terms of what is obviously intended to be a voluntary process. However, I do have some concerns with the minister knowing, or being briefed, of one aspect of his department’s actions - and presumably, I would suggest, the department has his imprimatur - and standing up in this place and saying another.
The local government reform process has caused some grief, especially in remote communities. I am sure you would be well aware of that, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, over recent times. I would urge the government to at least be honest about its targets so people know where they stand. The need to do this process honestly, openly and transparently is probably more important in a lot of these remote communities than it would be in non-remote communities simply because, in those remote communities, the level of trust that needs to be placed in government is much higher than the general cynical attitude that we see in the major centres in the Northern Territory.
I get the sense that listening to the minister is like watching a badly dubbed film. His lips move, but what he says is completely out of sync with the pictures. I bring this to the minister’s attention, and I certainly hope that the minister will start being honest with groups like LGANT and the public of the Northern Territory and this place, when he makes pronouncements regarding which he had no such intention.
I also raise one of my favourite subjects, which is roads. I put on the record a letter I have received from Steven Cadzow. I would like to quote his letter into the Hansard so that the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure can hear directly from Mr Cadzow’s lips to his ears:
I hope that the minister is paying attention to this, because Mr Cadzow has basically expressed what so many people have expressed. It is not just me causing trouble. I know that the beef industry has raised the issue with the minister for Primary Industries and several other ministers, and I know that lots of other people are complaining about the roads. So, this is nothing knew. I know that the minister threw a bouquet at me today saying that he is glad that at least one member on this side is prepared to go to Canberra hand-in-hand with him. I repeat the invitation - any time after the November sitting would suit me fine. I am happy to go hand-in-hand with the minister to Canberra to represent the Northern Territory to try and extract more money out of Canberra.
However, I also urge the minister in the strongest possible terms: open the purse and repair these roads. It is going to be cheaper if you open the purse now, than it will be for the repair job that is awaiting you around the corner. The repair job you are going to have to do on this road and so many other beef roads – these are the commercial roads of the Northern Territory – is going to be enormous and need much larger sums of money than a bit of R and M money now. Minister, I call upon you, urge you, plead, beseech, and beg of you to open your purse. Get these cattle roads open, as well as other roads in the Northern Territory, so the people in the Territory can go about their commerce.
I also raise another issue which is a letter I have received – or I know that the Minister for Parks and Wildlife has received - from a gentleman by the name of Alan Bell. Alan Bell has written to me about dogs on the Owen Springs Reserve. As I understand it, the Owen Springs Reserve has not been completely declared a park, but dogs are certainly prevented from going into our parks. Mr Bell writes to us that, surely there must be some space somewhere around Alice Springs where you can go camping with your dog, the family pet, and spend the night out. In reading the letter, it is clear that Mr Bell is a responsible dog owner and cares enough about his dog to take it camping. I know that dogs like going out to the bush.
I believe he has a legitimate request of government. It is not like we are so pressed for space in the Northern Territory that we cannot let Fido run around in a bit of scrub out the back. I am not suggesting that we throw open the national park estate to dogs - and there are good reasons to keeping dogs out of the national park estate. But there are places at Owen Springs where I imagine somebody should be able to take a dog, and that dog should be allowed to run free and have a bit of romp through the bush and enjoy the environment as well as its owners. Mr Bell has my support, in as much that he deserves to have a hearing from the minister. At least find some way of enabling a part of Alice Springs to become available for dog owners to have access and allow them to take their woofers out onto that particular part of land, simply because it is an entirely reasonable proposition that a man and a woman who owns a dog in the Northern Territory should be allowed to take that dog out for a walk and let it have a bit of run around in the scrub.
Other areas like Wrigley’s waterhole north of Alice Springs have been sign-posted that no dogs are allowed. Certainly, the park estate section of Owen Springs is in the same category, but there are other sections. I would urge, in the strongest possible terms, that the government contacts this gentleman and finds a way to deal with his problem, so that this gentleman and other dog owners can take their dog out and enjoy the Territory lifestyle.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I would like to pay tribute to Dr Jim Cairns, one of the much-loved men of the Australian Labor Party, recognised around Australia as a man of great compassion committed to the cause of peace.
Cairns, whose father failed to return from the World War I, was forced to suspend his studies to support his family and joined the Victorian Police Force in 1933, later becoming a detective. Studying at night, he completed an Economics degree from the University of Melbourne. He completed a Doctorate in Economic History in 1957. Jim Cairns served as a federal parliamentarian from 1955 to 1977 for the electorates of Yarra and later Lalor. He also held the posts of Deputy Prime Minister, Treasurer and Trade Minister. Jim Cairns came within two votes of securing the leadership of the ALP when Whitlam vacated and recontested it in 1968. Jim Cairns is well remembered for his role in the movement against Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam War. As Chair of the Vietnam Moratorium, he led an estimated 100 000 in the largest political protest ever seen in Australia in a demonstration in the streets of Melbourne.
Peter Botsman in today’s The Australian said:
Territorians will best remember Jim Cairns for his sympathetic and decisive leadership in the immediate aftermaths of the devastation brought by Cyclone Tracy and his role in the subsequent reconstruction of Darwin. Paul Strangio and his biography of Cairns, writes:
Jim Cairns was made a life member of the ALP in 2000. Jim Cairns signifies the great qualities of idealism, passion and a fervent belief that peace among human kind can be obtained. He is survived by his son, Barry. He will be missed by many - a great servant to the people of Australia and of the Labor Party.
This evening I also inform members of a significant but largely unreported event that took place in Alice Springs between 12 and 14 October. More than 250 delegates came from all over Australia and overseas to participate in the Australian Institute of Project Management’s annual conference. Participants included significant delegations from China, Japan, New Zealand, India and Europe, as well as practitioners from all states of Australia. The Northern Territory chapter of the AIPM worked hard to secure this conference for the Territory in the face of strong competition. I commend the institute for staging a successful conference and for helping to support local business in and around Alice Springs.
It is a measure of the significance of the event that the Chinese delegation was led by a Mr Zhang Qing Lin, China’s representative of ASEAN, and that the key note address was delivered by Mr Adesh Jain, the Director of Centre for Excellence in Project Management in India. I understand the conference was a blend of high quality presentations on project management, with a number of networking and social events.
These conventions are very important for the people of Central Australia, particularly at a time when international tourist numbers are down. It was great that the delegates were able to enjoy a taste of the Outback last Sunday evening at Ooraminna Homestead on Deepwell Station outside Alice Springs. I understand the evening, chatting over a barbecue in the bush, was very well received by all those that participated. This is what the Centre is all about.
Following this, on Monday evening, a gala dinner was held to present AIPM’s Project Management Achievement Awards 2003. I extend my congratulations to all the winners and to the organisers of the event, because these functions provide practitioners with the opportunity to showcase their projects of excellence. In my view, all the entries in these award processes are winners because of the benefits derived by the teams working on the submissions.
It was pleasing to note that the awards function was held this year in the Alice Springs Convention Centre, which was the winner of the NT Project Management Achievement Award last year, and went on to become a national AIPMA finalist. The project manager for this $25m PPP project was none other than Mr Pat Coleman of Savant, the man recently appointed by this government to be the Project Director for the Darwin waterfront redevelopment. So, Pat, congratulations. That is a great honour for you.
In conclusion, it is touching to note that the AIPM decided to leave a lasting token of its successful day in the Centre. As you would expect, they did it in a very practical way by presenting a substantial donation to support the operations of the Royal Flying Doctor Service. I applaud the members of the AIPM for their gesture, and I take this opportunity to let them know that they will be most welcome to hold a conference at the new convention centre in Darwin in the near future.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for being deliberately absent from his chair so that I can speak before he does.
I support the member for Macdonnell about the letter from Mr Alan Bell, who also wrote to me and, obviously, wrote to all members of parliament, but directed it particularly to the Minister for Parks and Wildlife. I shall read what he said:
A similar article was written in the Centralian Advocate of 10 October: ‘Pets banned at Centre reserve’. I will read that article:
In the NT News article reported:
I believe Mr Alan Bell has a real case. He has been visiting Owen Springs Station area for well on 25 years, enjoying the numerous waterholes along the Hugh River, for instance. I will read from his letter:
Then he referred to this document and others:
Having said that, you then tell them: ‘You cannot take your pet with you. Too bad. Leave it at home or put it in a kennel at extra cost while you go on a camping trip’.
It is important for the minister and the government to consider how they deal with Owen Springs Station. It was purchased by the CLP government for one specific purpose, and that was to provide Alice Springs with unencumbered, unhindered access to an area on our doorstep where they can enjoy themselves. More and more, this government is continuing to hamper Territorians; pulling them back from the lifestyle that they came to enjoy these past 25 years under a CLP government. Now they are told: ‘Too bad, too sad; you have to put up with it’.
Another matter I wish to raise to tonight is the Dominguez home at 46 Taylor Street, Alice Springs. I asked the minister a question this afternoon, the answer to which I found totally unsatisfactory. I will be sending a copy of his answer to the Dominguez family for them look at and to pursue further.
This family has had its lifestyle and amenity completely disrupted since the home next door was built. The owners commenced building some time late last year. I understand that, around November last year, they saw some stumps being placed in the ground on the vacant block next door. Just prior to that, some earthmoving equipment came on to the block and shifted a lot of dirt from the front of the block to the rear of the block. In doing so, the heavy machinery that went back and forth on the block crushed the edge of the block adjoining the two residences, between 46 and 48 Taylor Street. That cracked the rock that formed the wall there. Now that boundary needs to be reinforced with a retaining wall, or it will continue to crumble, with dirt falling into 46 Taylor Street, which belongs to Dominguez - a block that is significantly lower than the adjoining block on 48 Taylor Street.
The Dominguez family have sought assistance from the government, from the department of Planning, for almost 12 months. For a long time they were ignored, and it was not until the member for Daly brought the matter to the attention of the minister in April last year. In spite of the letters that the Dominguez had written to the government and approaches to the public service, it took the member for Daly bringing the matter to the attention of the minister before he even did anything.
The minister then went to visit the Dominguez family, some time after the April sittings in Alice Springs. At that time, he said to the Dominguez: ‘I will fix it’. I do not know what he meant by that, but I would assume that Mr and Mrs Dominguez would expect, from the minister’s comment, that he would actually do something to sort out the problems. When he spoke to them, they explained to him that they were trying to get some sort of mediation between themselves and the neighbours. There were issues that the Dominguez family had with the house next door.
Not only was the house not built according to plan, the plan, which I have a copy of, shows that the house was to be built on stumps about a metre off the ground. I visited 46 and 48 Taylor Street the other day, and the house is built on something like 3 m to 4 m off the ground on stumps that were, according to some photographs that I have seen, welded together. The garage, which was, according to the plan, to be sunk into the ground in the allotment on 48 Taylor Street, is now built on top, so no excavation was done to accommodate the garage. Therefore, several things were built into the house that were not consistent with the plans. When the Dominguez family complained to the building division, no notice was taken – nothing was done about it. Now that the house is completed, officials are saying: ‘Well, it is too late for us to do anything now. Sorry about that, you have to put up with it’.
The family has complained over and over again about the problem. The house is built of ZINCALUME. As we all know, ZINCALUME is a highly reflective material. The sheets of ZINCALUME are corrugated sheets. Those corrugations catch the sun at every angle. Because 46 Taylor Street is west of 48 Taylor Street, with sheets of ZINCALUME aligned parallel to the east side of the house, after lunch time, the sun is right on the ZINCALUME sheets, and the reflected light of the sun then falls totally on the eastern side of 46 Taylor Street. The Dominguez have to live with that all afternoon, with the glare shining into the eastern side of their house. They built their house to align in such a way that the eastern side, which would always be in the shade in the afternoon, would be a place where the family could enjoy summer afternoons in the shade of the house. Now, with the ZINCALUME reflecting all the sunlight off the house next door on to the eastern side of the house, it is not possible to go out there. I have been to 46 Taylor Street in the middle of the afternoon when the sun is shining brightly on the ZINCALUME, and I tell you, you need sunglasses to be outside the house; it is that glarey. I have seen photographs of the children inside the house where the reflected light shines right into the house and, in the late afternoon, about 5 pm or so, when the sun is nearly horizontal, the light was reflected off the ZINCALUME as if it were reflected off a mirror.
So, the Dominguez have a significant detriment to their amenity; to the way they can live in their home that they so lovingly built many years ago. This house is less than 12 months old and it has already caused significant problems, not only in the reflected light, but in construction of the house. In the earthmoving stage, the wall between the two blocks had been damaged, and now a retaining wall has to be built. Not only that, the house was supposed to built on one metre stumps; it is now on 3 m or 4 m stumps so that house towers over the 46 Taylor Street house, which is a single-storey built on a concrete slab. However, the windows overlook the whole of the backyard. I believe that the Dominguez family have a lot to complain about.
They sought an audience with the Chief Minister also, and the Chief Minister did deign to visit them. She then responded in this fashion - and I have a copy of her letter to the Dominguez. She wrote to Mrs Dominguez, her first name being Gloria. I quote from the letter from the Chief Minister:
Well, 46 is not theirs, it is 48. Anyway, it is one or the other. This letter was signed by the Chief Minister on 10 October 2003: I am quoting the letter still:
I have communication from Dr Dominguez, who responded in the following manner in an e-mail that was sent to me. Paragraph 2, in his comments are:
I come back to the Chief Minister’s letter. The third paragraph:
In his response, Dr Dominguez wrote:
There are significant issues. The Chief Minister’s letter has not resolved OR answered anything at all, except to shelter her minister from all the non-response that he has made to the Dominguez. The Dominguez family has now spent some $56 000 so far to try and ameliorate the problems they have with their house, and it appears that the costs are continuing to escalate. This minister, this government, has just totally ignored a poor couple and their two children and the home that they built so lovingly so many long years ago. They want to live in Alice Springs and they should be allowed to live in harmony with everybody else.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your time has expired.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, this evening I recognise the decades of hard work of a Northern Territory public servant who is known to many of us. Penny Baird retired from the Northern Territory public service on 1 July this year. Penny has spent the second part of the last century in Darwin primarily, with stints in Alice Springs as well. I first met Penny at about three years of age when I was babysat with her sons, as we both lived in the same street in Nightcliff. I have known the family for the most part of my life. Penny, at my request, provided me with a great deal of information about her employment history with the public service, because she was possibly our longest-serving public servant at the time of her retirement. That is obviously contestable; I have not checked all the details with the Public Service Commissioner.
She tells me that she arrived in Darwin at the age of two years in 1947. Her mother, Mrs Mac (Mavis) Wilson, along with other women evacuees from Darwin in World War II, was allowed to return to Darwin at that time. Initially, they were housed in the little fibro cottages at Bullocky Point which were there for the Vestey’s meatworks employees. The home in which her mother lived before being evacuated, at the corner of Daly Street, had been directly hit by a bomb and there was a huge crater in the ground.
The families were later housed in the Sydney Williams corrugated iron houses in Parap Camp which the Army had used. Her home had a ‘tinea’ in big letters, sign across the front. She can clearly remember that they had a flaming fury toilet and no refrigerator or fans. Her father, George Mackenzie, had a huge vegetable garden along one side of the house. He was a farmer from Harrowgate in Yorkshire.
Her father died in 1949, a month after a tragic traffic accident. It was a dreadful time for her mother, who was left to fend for three young children in post-war Darwin. The children were aged eight, four and two. Gladys Litchfield offered her mother part-time work initially, in a little shop in Westralia Street. Her mum used to cycle to work at A E Jolly’s store in Smith Street with her young brother in a baby carry seat on the back of the bike. He would be at work all day with her mother. Her mother also worked for Harry Chan’s Smith Street store, did the cleaning of government offices after her day job, and followed that by working at the Star Picture Theatre, selling tickets, at night. She also did dressmaking and made sponge cakes by hand-beating, on weekends. It was a very tough time for a young mother in post-war Darwin. Women did not get anywhere near the equal pay of men and, also, there was no such thing as a supporting mother’s benefit or assistance in any way. Her mother’s family was in New South Wales, so her mother was very isolated in Darwin with her three children.
Coming from this very harsh upbringing, Penny started employment in 1961, just a few weeks short of her 16th birthday, with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, on the corner of Smith and Bennett Streets. She had completed her Year 10 Intermediate Certificate. It was quite common back in the 1960s for parents to arrange employment for their children through social acquaintances and, in Penny’s case, her mother discussed the topic of employment while playing competition tennis at the Gilruth Avenue Courts with the then accountant, Mr Ansell Bogey. Penny describes the hours as being long, with late Friday nights and Saturday mornings, and the policy of the bank that no one could knock off for the day until everyone had finished their duties. Often, she would miss the 5 pm bus to Nightcliff and, with the next bus being around 10 pm when the picture theatre finished, her parents would have to drive all the way into town to pick her up.
Her rate of pay was half that of her friends who were working for the government, so she left the bank’s employment after three years. In 1964, her next position was with the Department of Health. She only stayed there for eight months yet, after working in the bank, she says: ‘I could not believe the amount of salary I received for so little work’. She says it was a difficult time for her. She was constantly asking for more work to do and asking: ‘What are you paying me for?’ I am sure today’s public servants would not express the same sentiments. From 1964 to 1966, she worked for the Attorney-General’s Department’s D Branch, which she described as ‘ASIO’ in an office services position. At the time, she was a very young employee, aged 21. As was the nature of the day, her employment had to cease when her first child became due. This was obligatory.
She then to work for her mother in the ladies fashion shops she owned that many of us old Darwin folk, especially from around the Nightcliff area, would remember: the Wilson’s Fashion Salon and Mac’s Material Salon. Penny worked there on a part-time basis after the birth of her two sons, John and Calumn Maclean, with whom I played as a child.
Penny was tragically widowed in 1971. Out of necessity, she sought full-time work when her sons were aged only five and three. That is the time when the boys and I were raised together because, at that time, my mother entered this Assembly. We were the kids with the rare working mothers in that era in Darwin. In those days, Penny points out, there was no such thing as a supporting mother’s benefit or a single parent benefit; she had no choice but to work.
From 1971 to 1975, she was employed as a shop manageress at her mother’s shops at Nightcliff. I remember plenty of occasions when the boys and I would go down there to visit their mother and my mother, who had the electorate office at the old Nightcliff Shopping Centre. The business was sold, she points out, after Cyclone Tracy and her daughter, Rebekah Baird, was born on 3 May 1975.
Penny lost the Nakara house she had purchased six months earlier during Cyclone Tracy. It was completely destroyed. The family was evacuated on the fifth day after Tracy and they ended up in the School of Artillery on the north shore of Manly. She was there with her two sons. They had been evacuated in a Hercules via Brisbane. She said the boys had a marvellous time at the barracks. They went to see the zoo and other sights in Sydney, which were eye-opening sights for young lads from Darwin.
In February, she received a signed letter from a doctor to say that she could return to Darwin. In those days, they prevented women and children from returning to Darwin post-Cyclone Tracy. I remember the arguments my mother had, as a member of the Assembly, to try and secure the rights of women to return. One of the things the government had decided was that the male would have authority to say whether women could return, to our eternal shame. Penny was fortunate. She received some help. Her sons were sent to Katherine to be cared for by Pat and Noel Buntine on their new property, Carbeen Park, out in the scrub of Katherine. She says she will be forever grateful to them for their unstinting kindness during this period.
Before long, Penny secured a job with the Department of Repatriation and Compensation as a clerk and she remained there until her daughter’s birth. However, quickly after the birth, she had to return to work because her husband broke his arm playing rugby – she says ‘thanks to Stem Edwards’. At that time, the couple were living in a couple of room at Stuart Park in what Penny describes as a ‘cyclone ravaged house’. I recall many people at the time living in cyclone ravaged houses, because houses were few and far between. So if we had digs in those days, they were well and truly beaten about. In August of that year, they purchased their previous home in Nightcliff and had it re-roofed and made livable.
In 1977, Penny commenced employment with the Public Service Commissioner’s Office, which had a founding staff of five.
In 1980, the family was transferred to Alice Springs for two years, and she enjoyed her position in Alice Springs with the Public Service Commissioner’s Office and Audit Bureau. In 1981, she was transferred to the Education Department in Alice Springs as an Examiner of Accounts.
On her subsequent return to Darwin in 1982, the department placed her with schools as a School Secretary. She describes this period as being one of the most wonderful of her life, being School Secretary variously at Anula, Tiwi and at Rapid Creek Primary School until its closure in 1991.
After the closure of the school, she was loaned by the Education Department to the Museums and Art Galleries Board division of History for the period of the 50th anniversary of the bombing of Darwin. This was an absolutely unforgettable time for Penny. It was meant to be a three-month posting, but extended to 20 months. It was her privilege to see many of the returned servicemen visiting Darwin and to listen to their wartime stories of the town. Her stepfather, Alan Wilson, donated a sight from a Japanese 8 inch gun from Nauru, taken out from Singapore when his battalion, the 38/51s took the surrender on Nauru Island. Her mother gave a wooden parquetry vase from the MV Zealandia for display purposes. Her mother had been evacuated from Darwin in December 1941 on the MV Zealandia, which was bombed and sunk in Darwin Harbour on its return in February 1942.
In 1994, Penny was transferred from the Education Department, here to the Department of the Legislative Assembly as a Hansard Clerk. This was short-lived as her husband took up a position in Broome as a regional manager for Far North West of DEET, the Department of Employment Education and Training, for two years. After two years leave without pay, on her return to Darwin in 1996, she was placed in the Travel Officer position within the Department of the Legislative Assembly, a position in which most members of this Assembly would come to know her and understand her due diligence and professionalism. She remained in this position until her retirement on 1 July 2003. She has had an extended association with the Department of Legislative Assembly, she writes, through Hansard typing for the then Legislative Council after her widowhood in 1971.
Penny says that a former resident of Nightcliff, Mrs Judy Ralphs, suggested she might like to have a go at Hansard typing as a way to supplement her income. She said the evening hours were ideal, as her two young sons were in bed early and cared for by her parents. She said they typed on manual typewriters, the old Imperial 66’s, high above the members in an elongated, cramped box of a room, and they could view the members below through glass windows. She said she immensely enjoyed all the Hansard work. She said it kept her in touch with what was going on in the Territory. Penny writes:
Penny, I attended your farewell at the Legislative Assembly and heard many kind words from people who were at that gathering. I certainly know that there are members here at the Assembly who have had a very long association with the Assembly. We all wish you well for your retirement. We know you are a very loving grandmother, and have put a great deal of effort into your stints in agencies and the public service.
You have my loyal friendship. I have known you since I was a child; I have enjoyed your kindness. I cringe at the stories you tell of when I was a child when we used to humbug your husband Stuart for rides on his postie bike, but those were the days in Darwin. We all, in this Assembly, to a degree, have fond memories of our childhood. I certainly have very fond memories of the effervescent, beautiful and engaging Penny.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I suppose I could headline my talk tonight, ‘Unfinished Business’, because I have two stories I want to tell and I do not think both have been finished. One is an issue that was raised recently. I know the member for Port Darwin will be interested, because it is an issue that will need debating, to some extent, outside of this House. I was talking to a policeman not so long ago, and he said: ‘You really ought to get into Mitchell Street at 4 am if you want to see what the real life is like. He said, in a lot of cases, it is just terrible what goes on there at 4 am. I suppose that was backed up by the headlines in September in the NT News: ‘100 Rampage through Streets’. It talked about police being deployed, and I quote from the NT News:
Further on they say:
In September, actually just a bit before that, was an articles under the headlines: ‘Pub Drinkers Breath Tested’:
It goes on to quote one person that the police had grabbed a person, an elderly tourist, from a dance floor, and frogmarched them across the road to be tested. It goes on to describe a little about what happened. It also quotes the Australian Hotels Association NT Executive Director, Greg Weller, who said:
Then, on 1 October, we had another headline which said, ‘Patrons Urged to Unmask Pub Cops’. Again, quoting from the NT News:
What came out after that was what was quite exciting. A member of the opposition was on the radio - I think the member for Drysdale – who basically said that this was a sign that people were being breath tested - not so much a sign of being breath-tested, he was basically saying that this was a threat to the average drinker whose lifestyle was being affected, and this could also apply to restaurants. There was an interview on ABC that morning.
Then my colleague over here, the member for Greatorex, put out a press release which said:
Okay. That certainly got things going because the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, Paul Henderson, put out a press release - it must have been pretty quick after all that came out - saying:
Of course, it just so happened that the day that all came out, or the next day - and I presume that perhaps the Police Commissioner had written this the day before. But, in the 2 October NT News, there was a letter from the Police Commissioner and he said:
But the Police Commissioner went on further to say - if I can find it:
I know the member for Greatorex has said to me that he has seen a tape of a person being basically frogmarched out of a pub because, obviously, he is disputing that that is correct. I have asked the Police Commissioner if he has any record of two policeman frogmarching a customer out of a pub. The member for Greatorex says he has seen the video, but he was not sure what pub it was in. I have spoken to the Police Commissioner and asked if he has any knowledge of this particular incident. So, that is where that stands.
I also spoke to Peter Allen of the substance abuse committee. I believe I am correct saying that that was at an open session of the meeting. I asked Peter Allen whether breath testing of patrons occurred in previous years. He said there were six breath tests that occurred previously and, when I spoke to him informally later on just to check when that had occurred, it appears over at least the last four or five years.
The previous government has allowed some breath testing in pubs. This government has allowed some breath testing in pubs and, all of a sudden because you get two headlines here, we have a hullabaloo about breath testing in pubs. It seems to me that we make a lot of noise about alcohol. We make a lot of noise about what happens in Mitchell Street. We know that police, as the paper said, had to fight off and control 100 drunken people in Mitchell Street.
Obviously, they are trying to do something about that, not only for the public safety but for their own. It disappoints me a little that the minister - and I have said it on radio - dropped his Police Commissioner in it. The Police Commissioner is doing something that the previous Police Commissioners have done. If you believe the Police Commissioner - and I believe him - there were only three checks in the whole of Darwin. There may have been checks somewhere else, such as Katherine, However, I presume he is talking about Darwin CBD. If that is correct, three is not a big deal, especially if they were doing what has been done previously.
We have a situation where I feel we have not given support to our Police Commissioner, on both sides of parliament because, to some extent it is a very touchy issue. Once this issue was blown up to the extent that politicians were saying that the average Joe Blow in the pub was getting breath tested, you can see the votes disappearing very fast. This was on dangerous country: ‘My average drinker is being affected by police breath testing’. Was that the truth? This is why a lot of questions need to be asked and the debate needs to come back to this parliament.
I have said before to other people: ‘Who complains about Aboriginal people who bought their liquor legitimately, but just happen to be within 2 km of a licensed store and get it poured out?’. In fact, just before the Katherine election the NT News had a page showing how much liquor is poured out every week. That is done to control antisocial behaviour. That is what it is all about. That is a lot of alcohol that gets poured down the drain. I suppose those people paid for their alcohol and, just because they happen to be within 2 km of the pub, it is poured away. However, here we have police who pulled up three people to get breath tested to try and stop violence in our CBD and, all of a sudden, we dropped it like a ton of bricks.
If I was to stand back and try to look at this thing fairly rationally, I would say one is the case of us being very sensitive about how it appears to the average Joe Blow - the average voter in the northern suburbs of the city - and the other one does not make any difference because it is not an issue that is going to effect anyone electorally.
That is an issue on which I would like the Police Commissioner to come back and explain what has happened. Was there a particular case that was on the video that needs explanation? Was that person frogmarched out of the pub for some reason completely unrelated to breath testing? It might have been something else altogether. We do not know. However, parliament requires an explanation of what has gone on. As soon as the minister issued that media release, everything stopped. It was all quiet. I believe there is some unfinished business, as I call it, and we need an explanation of why police were targeting the CBD. Why did the minister drop the so-called policy? Are there any other issues that we do not know about? Were the police targeting certain licensed premises in the CBD because they may have been the cause of trouble? I do not know. It would be interesting to see what the answer is to all that.
Finally, on my unfinished business, I had a letter from Val Cowan, who is the Secretary/Treasurer of Daly River Community Development Association. As you know, those people are concerned about clearing and development upstream from the Daly River. She sent me this e-mail the other day. I will not read it all. She said:
The reason I call that unfinished business is because Val Cowan wrote to the minister in July. All she has received is a notification that the letter has arrived. I call that unfinished business. I hope the minister can come back to this parliament and tell us that the business is finished, and he has replied to this lady. Otherwise, that is very slack on behalf of the minister or the government.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Year 6 and 7 students from Bakewell Primary School, accompanied by their teachers Rebecca Gunner, Carolyn Silva, Bernie Waters and Kerri O’Shaughnessy. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
PETITION
Gender-Based Services in Family Law Court
Gender-Based Services in Family Law Court
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Acting Speaker, I present a petition from 286 petitioners relating to services to separating families in the Northern Territory jurisdiction of the Family Law Pathways. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms to the requirement of Standing Orders. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the honourable Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory,
we the undersigned respectfully object to and call for the immediate ending of services to separating
parents in the Northern Territory jurisdictions of the Family Law Pathways being delivered on gender
preferences; such services being unlawfully contorted ‘in house’ by case officers during case conduct,
thereby ignoring acts of parliament like the Public Service Employment Act, departmental act, and other
prevailing laws in such actions deliberately intended to interfere with the course of justice in fathers and
children’s cases when such material is presented in the federal jurisdiction of the Family Court as trusted
evidence or outcomes of states’ and territories’ investigations and conclusions.
We further pray that the Legislative Assembly will ensure partnership laws finding parents of the
partnership entity (Commonwealth) in which gender is a legal irrelevance, and that the Northern
Territory Public Service and government-funded non-government organisations will observe these
interlocutory and other existing laws when providing service to separating parents on partnership.
Areas of notable concern are domestic violence administration; domestic violence legal help; family
crisis accommodation centres’; child protection; police domestic violence; sexual crimes and restraining
orders; Legal Aid Commission; the legal profession in family law matters, and your petitioners, as in duty
bound, will every pray.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
School Visits
School Visits
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Mr Acting Speaker, this morning I continue my reports to the House on visits to schools, training centres, and workplaces in the Northern Territory. I add my welcome, as minister for Education, to the students from Bakewell. It is a great school, it is big school, and it is terrific to see them all turning out in their uniform - and great ambassadors for their school.
Since my last report, I visited 17 schools across the Territory in Alice Springs, Katherine, Groote Eylandt, Batchelor, rural Darwin and Darwin, and hosted a visit to Parliament House by the Nhulunbuy Primary School. At Groote, I travelled to Umbakumba and met with the principal Graham Mathews and the teachers. It is a community not without its challenges. The teacher houses were handed back to the community a number of years ago. All non-indigenous staff now reside in Alyangula and travel each day to Umbakumba. I am pleased to report that the community is very keen for the teachers to be based at Umbakumba, and are committed to the safety and security of those teachers on their return.
I also visited Angurugu. The principal, Barb Wilson, has the school running well, though attendance remains an issue. I have asked DEET to report on how soon they can place an attendance officer to service all of the schools on Groote.
In Alyangula, staff housing issues brought to my attention were houses in poor condition and furniture not upgraded for many years. However, work is under way to address these issues.
Batchelor Area School celebrated its 50th anniversary. I had the pleasure of attending the ceremony for the closing of a time capsule to be opened in 25 years. Students made ceramic tiles for the floor of a new shade area, overseen by a most talented artist, Midge Coleman, potter. Thanks to Tom Ober and Tony Otway for a great day. There was a stunning performance by a young indigenous fellow on the yidaki. It would rival some of the best from north-east Arnhem Land. I would love to get him across there sometime.
Recently, I attended the Adelaide River Festival, a combined Top End Group Schools Living in Harmony event titled ‘Come Together Right Now’. The three-day event was held at Adelaide River Primary School, and brought together students, teachers and parents from 15 small rural and remote schools. It really was a credit to the group school’s principal there, Leonie Jones.
At Taminmin, I was escorted around the school’s farm and orchard by the Principal, Kim Rowe, the Deputy Principal for Vocational Education, Rose Calland, and Karen Young, a member of the school council. I was pleased to see the students actively involved in vocational education programs such as conservation, land management, agriculture, automotive engineering and multimedia studies. It draws secondary students from a range of schools and they are doing a great job.
At Humpty Doo Primary School, a terrific school with a positive atmosphere, I expressed my thanks to the principal, Glenda Sharp, Lu Steuart, the school council chairman and Cherie Holtz, the ASSPA committee chair for accompanying me during the visit. It has a special needs annexe to provide for students with disabilities from the area, but I have to describe the facilities as rudimentary and insufficient to cope with the expected increase in numbers over the next few years.
In Katherine, I visited Kintore Street Special School – again, a great school being run with facilities that could well do with an upgrade.
It is an issue that has been neglected for far too long; that is, options for students with disabilities once they leave school. As a result of my visits to these schools I have asked DEET to prepare for me a thorough report on all issues to do with students with disabilities. I have asked for an audit, in the first instance, on infrastructure at special schools and special needs annexes within other schools. I am keen to see this physical audit with costings and a program for upgrade or replacement of facilities. I also want an analysis of the special needs cohort that includes age, degree of disability, future options, current levels of assistance and strategies to address inequities. We need to have a clear understanding of the options for students with disabilities able to access the labour market, and strategies in place for those students who cannot. We have to facilitate very clear pathways with support and mentoring, to help those who can enter the labour market, to get in there with secure jobs.
Mr Acting Speaker, I want to compliment all school personnel for their work and their continuing commitment to students, and to thank them for their hospitality during my visit. They always make me feel most welcome and I am appreciative of that.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Acting Speaker, it is good to get a report on activity in our schools. At the outset, I also acknowledge the students from Bakewell and their teachers.
Minister, I would expect that you have had a look at the report that Dr Brendan Nelson commissioned, Australia’s Teachers – Australia’s Future. It is contained in three volumes and one volume is the Agenda for Action. It addresses the significant issue that holds our schools together - that being the teachers – and the concerns that teachers and we, as a community, hold, in looking forward: ‘How can we sustain our teaching profession?’. The report notes that teachers are leaving the profession in extraordinary numbers. Although there has been an increase in those taking up the profession through training, the numbers who are leaving the profession in their first year is 40%, once they begin work in the classroom. Why is that so?
I have also had the report locally that only 35% of those graduating in the Northern Territory continue on in classes in their first year after graduating. The amount of time and expenditure that we place on training our teachers, will necessarily draw our attention to issues related to sustaining our teaching profession; issues such as remuneration, the professional standing in the community, the size of classrooms and behaviour management.
I trust the school councils also consulted with you on your trip around the countryside and informed you of their concerns about the removal of powers, which has been in part reinstated. However, the management of capital works programs still is a serious deficit in the ability of school councils to manage their communities.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Mr Acting Speaker, I thank the member for Blain for his comments. The first and most important thing for Brendan Nelson could do, as federal minister, to sustain the teaching profession over the next few years is to create extra places in our teaching and learning institutions across the country. Because what is going to happen – and whilst teaching unions across the country have cried wolf a bit over the last five or 10 years, to say there is a massive teacher shortage looming, it is now a fact. Why that is, is because of the ‘baby boomer’. Our average age in the teaching profession in the Northern Territory is 47. It does not give them long. Over the next 10 years, we are going to see a mass retirement - and, indeed, it is common across the public sector. I am not singling out teaching here; we just happen to be talking about education.
Similarly, across Australia, the average age of teachers is rising, not decreasing. The reality is we are going to have to train, as a country and the Northern Territory, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of teachers, and we need to start now because the baby boomer exit from the work force is well upon us.
Commercially Produced Slingshots – Prohibition
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Mr Acting Speaker, today I update the House on government moves to ban commercially made slingshots in the Northern Territory.
For too many years, commercially made slingshots have been used to cause thousands of dollars of damage to both commercial and private property right across the Northern Territory, targeting the windows and doors of businesses, homes, cars and buses. Each time someone takes aim with a slingshot with the express purpose of causing this kind of damage, they are potentially putting lives at risk. Imagine how you might feel to have your car or taxi window fired on when you were driving; to have your shop or hotel window smashed. Members of this House would remember the most recent spate of attacks in August when $26 000 worth of damage was caused to businesses in the Darwin CBD in just one night.
The weapons being used to cause the damage are readily available to anyone. This very slingshot that I have shown to honourable members before in this House was bought for only $30 in Darwin. It has a range of 175 yards and comes complete with ball bearings and instructions on how to load and fire it to cause the most damage.
This government is sick of this kind of dangerous and mindless vandalism. In August, I announced that we would investigate ways through which to ban these commercially made slingshots, purpose-built to cause damage.
Currently, regulations for the sale, carriage and use of slingshots is covered by the Weapons Control Act which came into force on 8 August 2001. At the moment, only slingshots that have been designed or adapted to be used with an arm brace are prohibited weapons; that is, they are the only kinds that cannot be imported, manufactured, sold, possessed or carried in the Northern Territory unless the holder is exempt under the act.
I want to make it clear to the House and to all Territorians that the government is not moving to shanghais that are made in the backyard by children out of sticks, coat hangers and the like whilst they are playing and use to knock cans off the back fence. Overwhelmingly, commercially made, purpose-built weapons are the ones being used, and have been used for years, to cause thousands of dollars worth of damage and, in doing so, putting lives at risk.
Since the spate of slingshot attacks in the Darwin CBD in August, the government, through the Northern Territory Police and Department of Justice, have examined a number of means of banning these purpose-built weapons. I report to the House that, on advice from the Northern Territory Police on the best method of achieving this, amendments will be made to the Weapons Control Act to ban the possession and retail sale of commercially made slingshots unless the holder is exempt under the Weapons Control Act.
Paragraph 15 of Schedule 2 of the Weapons Control Regulations will be changed to include a catapult, shanghai or slingshot without an arm brace and intended for commercial distribution, and a slingshot intended for commercial distribution.
Paragraph 8, Schedule 1 will also be amended to allow for homemade slingshots for use by a child in the course of play. Therefore, homemade slingshots being used for play are not affected by these amendments. Children can still use shanghais during play.
The government has already received support from across the community from people who are sick of the mindless people using commercially made slingshots for vandalism. When I announced in parliament in August that we were moving to ban these slingshots, there was immediate support from many retailers. Indeed, one operator said he would be taking slingshots off his shelves straightaway. Support has also been received from community groups including the Esplanade Action Group in Darwin, the Transport Workers Union, the Mayor of Palmerston and other community members.
There will need to be transition arrangements put in place. This will involve the capacity for people to voluntarily surrender their slingshots. Some weeks ago, retailers were put on notice that these changes were likely to occur. Retailers will be further updated of the move I am outlining today. Retailers who have slingshots in stock will have options open to them. The retailers could dispose of the stock, or voluntarily deliver them to the Northern Territory Police or arrange to sell them interstate where no such prohibition exists - although I understand that there is only one jurisdiction where this is the case. Solely, and only in relation to stock that was on hand in the Territory before notice of government’s intention was given, the retailer may consider making an application for an ex-gratia payment from the government. Such applications would only be in relation to stock that was already on hand, which is appropriately documented and will not include foregone profit or the like. Consideration of such applications lies within the discretion of the Treasurer. It is the current intention for the regulatory change to come into effect on 1 December 2003.
Territorians are sick of seeing commercially made slingshots being used to cause damage to business and private property, and putting lives at risk. This is a commonsense move to address what has been a long running issue. I move that the Assembly take note of the report.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Speaker, I can signal at the outset that the opposition supports this particular move, and for good reason. As I understand it, the ball bearing out of one of these commercially made slingshots came out of the slingshot at about 300 feet per second. To give members some idea of how quick that is, a short-barrelled .38 pistol – which is the snub-nosed weapon you often see in movies – has a muzzle velocity of about 900 feet per second. So this ball bearing comes out at about a third of the speed of a firearm-fired bullet. I also believe that there will be a lot of dogs and cats in the northern suburbs which will feel a whole lot more safe at night as well, as a result of this.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Mr Acting Speaker, I thank the member for Macdonnell and the opposition for their support. This is a commonsense move and, yes, maybe those dogs and cats will be feeling a bit safer, but so will our taxi drivers, bus drivers and retail property owners throughout the Northern Territory. Once again, I thank the opposition for their support.
Building Stronger Regions - Stronger Futures Strategy
Mr AH KIT (Regional Development): Mr Acting Speaker, at the May 2003 meeting of LGANT, that is the Local Government Association NT, I launched the Building Stronger Regions - Stronger Futures Strategy. It was no accident that the strategy was launched in Alice Springs first and in parliament second. The Martin Labor government is determined to get rid of the Berrimah Line and consign it to history.
The strategy is aimed at strengthening regions to improve economic and social outcomes for all Territorians. The strategy announced the establishment of the five regional development boards to guide regional development across the Territory. These boards will facilitate and monitor implementation of regional development plans. The boards will also provide high level advice to the Minister for Regional Development. The boards will enable regional stakeholders to negotiate directions in regional planning and development as partners with the Northern Territory government. As announced at the strategy launch, the boards will report on progress in implementing regional plans every two years at a State of the Regions conference.
A framework for evaluation of progress and performance is being developed. The membership of the first Katherine Regional Development Board was announced last month at the community launch of the Katherine Regional Development Plan. I had pleasure in announcing the membership of the other regional development boards earlier this morning at the annual general meeting of the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory.
I am pleased that the membership of the five boards represents a very strong cross-section of experience and capability. Over 40% of the five regional development boards are current or former members of local government, or employed in that sector. I have not added it up, but this represents scores, if not hundreds of years of experience in local community development. The boards also contain representation drawn from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association, Aboriginal organisations and the community services sector.
The Southern Regional Development Board will be chaired by Ms Fran Kilgariff, who is well known to members as the Mayor of Alice Springs.
A member: Hear, hear!
Mr AH KIT: The Barkly Regional Development Board will be chaired by Ms Barbara Shaw, the interim General Manager of the Anyinginyi Congress Aboriginal Corporation. The East Arnhem Regional Development Board will be chaired by Mr Gatjil Djerrkura, a well known and respected leader in that region. Mr Djerrkura is the current CEO and previous chair of the Miwatj Health Aboriginal Corporation. Mr Djerrkura is also the Chair of the Batchelor Institute for Indigenous Studies. The Katherine Regional Development Board will be chaired by Ms Julie Newton, a well known local business owner, and a member of the Katherine Regional Tourism Association. The Darwin Regional Development Board will be chaired by Mr Duncan Beggs, a civil engineer with a background in business administration and local government, and currently ADrail’s Community Relations Manager. I will table for members’ information a copy of the full membership of all boards.
The regional managers of my Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs will provide executive officer support to each of the boards. Each board will also be served by a project officer in the Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs, dedicated specifically to this task. Over the next few months, it is planned to take each board through an orientation program including an interstate study tour. This will provide board members with the opportunity to interact with an established regional development organisation, and start to build a team at an individual board level. Earlier this week, I wrote to members of the Katherine Regional Development Board requesting their participation in a visit to Kununurra to meet with members of the Kimberley Regional Development Commission.
I would like to thank all organisations and individuals who nominated for the respective regional development boards across the Territory. Due to the strong response to my invitation for interest, it was challenging to ensure that membership is reflected of community and regional interest. I believe that the broad membership of each board provides a great opportunity to develop a coordinated approach to the development of our regions. I congratulate those people who have been appointed to the first boards, and thank those members who have accepted appointment as the initial chairs of these five boards.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Speaker, having cast a quick eye over the list of names, I am glad to see that the minister has chosen to draw from a broad cross-section of the community. I notice that there were even a couple of ‘Hear, hears’ on this side in relation to some of the selections. I congratulate the minister on his choice. Generally speaking, I wish the people who are on these boards every success into the future.
These regional development boards are something that I have been briefed on. The concept is one that we on this side are generally supportive of. However, it is a concept which needs to be properly supported by government. I am glad to see that they are taking time to have a look at how these type of things operate in other states. However, at the end of the day, executive support is one thing but, as time passes, I would urge the minister to cast his eye on other ways of supporting these particular boards. I am sure they will find their own ways as to what is an appropriate level and method of support. I would imagine that would occur differently in different places. Certainly, the Central Australian board, as opposed to the East Arnhem board, would have different expectations and demands of government.
The minister also said that he attended the LGANT meeting this morning. The only question I pose to the minister arising out of his information which I have received in relation to the local government agenda in bringing councils together: I believe it is the department’s intention to reduce the number of local governments in the Northern Territory to about 20, and I am wondering if he can confirm or deny that particular story for me.
Mr AH KIT (Regional Development): Mr Acting Speaker, I have heard nothing of the sort regarding bringing local governments together to a minimal amount of 20. The shadow minister should understand that the former government embarked upon the local government reform process. He should also be aware that the ability of regional development plans and boards were not being effective in a proper manner.
Here is an opportunity now to be serious and to start ensuring that other parts of the Northern Territory are included in the way we move forward as a Territory. This is a serious and genuine attempt to put in place regional development boards, and to give them the support and the resources that are necessary to help formulate a serious partnership with government, so that we can plan properly and include them in the way that we move forward in employment, economic development, etcetera.
Commonwealth Green Paper on Tourism – NT Submission
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Mr Acting Speaker, today I advise members of a second submission prepared by the Northern Territory Tourist Commission to the Commonwealth government’s medium- to long-term strategy for tourism, or its green paper. This second submission complements the July 2003 submission by the Northern Territory Tourist Commission, with a focus on whole-of-government issues with direct relevance to the rural and remote segment of the tourism industry, and of business in general.
The tourism sector makes a major contribution to the economy of rural and remote Australia. Tourism is one of the few industries that provide opportunities for employment, small business and economic and social development in rural and remote regions. Economic development within many indigenous communities is dependent on development of niche tourism ventures. Because of their location and nature, these rural and remote tourism ventures and sectors are fragile and need help and guidance, as well as the removal of impediments that are often imposed, unintentionally, by governments.
The Northern Territory Tourist Commission focusses on the challenges and proposes means to address them. Remote tourism offers opportunities for small and start-up enterprises, including increasing numbers of indigenous-owned businesses, leading to more self-sustaining local economy and a move away from welfare dependency, as prerequisites to long-term improvement to social conditions.
Tourism has a major role in achieving economic and social goals in rural and remote regions through investment, enterprise development and sustainable development. Such development will lead to flow on benefits to social wellbeing, greater participation and education, and improved health outcomes. For some regions tourism may be the only future prospect, thus impediments to its development take on greater importance.
Many of these impediments, although mostly unintentional, are policy induced and can be addressed by policy changes. For example, the distortions introduced by the taxation system impose disproportionate cost and cash flow burdens on rural and remote businesses. Unlike the agricultural sector, there is no mechanism for smooth income and taxation for tourism businesses.
The Commonwealth must commit adequate resources to the protected areas it controls. Targeted government support is required for indigenous tourism development through provision of commercially driven venture capital and business development support and flexible start-up funding for new businesses, accompanied by close commercial guidance. The current cabotage arrangement for international air passenger transport reduce opportunities for competitive travel to destinations such as Darwin.
The Northern Territory Tourist Commission makes the following major recommendations to the Commonwealth’s green paper:
1. Strategies should be implemented to create additional avenues for investment attraction and business
mentoring for small and medium tourism enterprise in rural and remote locations.
made available to aid the development of sustainable indigenous tourism enterprises.
provisions introduced to allow tax averaging for eligible businesses and individuals.
appropriate infrastructure and resources to manage sustainable tourism which supports the natural
and cultural values, eg in Kakadu and other Commonwealth national parks
Australia are given appropriate weight in assessing road funding needs.
- … should be undertaken into options available to encourage greater aviation capacity into
Northern Territory airports.
The Northern Territory Tourist Commission has made strong representations to the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources to implement these recommendations. I expect to be leading a delegation of government and industry representatives to Canberra in the near future to meet with Joe Hockey, the federal Tourism minister and federal Transport minister, John Anderson.
The Northern Territory’s second submission to the green paper is also available from the department’s web site at www.nttc.com.au, and I commend it to all members.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Speaker, the minister will be delighted because, unlike some other occasions this week, in my reply I am not going to repeat the figures and the ABS, Tourism Top End, NTTC documents and publications showing a huge reduction in the number of visitors or visitor expenditure. I am not going to encourage the minister to get out and do more, meet with the industry and, indeed, lobby his more senior Cabinet colleagues for additional funds. Nor am I going to remind the minister that it is incumbent upon him to lift his game in relation to the tourism industry in the Northern Territory.
Having said those things, I commend him on talking about the green paper. I am glad that the submission is available on the web site; I look forward to reading it. I wish you well in your delegation to Canberra. There are some important issues that were raised. Even the minister knows that there are some important issues and, thank God he will have a delegation with him, because they can wind him up and tell him exactly what to say. I look forward to the minister coming back another time and reporting to all of us on the outcome of his meeting. Like so many other Territorians, especially those in the tourism industry, we will keep our fingers crossed in the meantime that the industry will get an injection of funds.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Generally, Mr Acting Speaker, I welcome the reply by the member for Araluen.
I would like to compliment the Northern Territory Tourist Commission, particularly their board, for a very good set of recommendations in response to the green paper. I would particularly like to commend Richard Ryan, the chairman of the board. A lot of these taxation reforms foreshadowed in here have come from Richard Ryan, whom most people would know is a very well known accountant and business identity in the Territory.
I would like to see the federal government take on this message about averaging income over time because there is no doubt, politics aside, that the tourism industry does experience rises and falls in income. It would be good to see that sort of thing introduced. I am sure that the industry will welcome these changes. It has come from a board that has very strong industry representation and a very strong chairman in Richard Ryan. I commend their submission to the green paper.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT BILL (No. 4)
(Serial 183)
(Serial 183)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to make amendments to Part IIA of the Criminal Code, which deals with the defence of mental impairment and unfitness to stand trial. As members would be aware, the Criminal Code Amendment (Mental Impairment and Unfitness To Be Tried) Act 2002 introducing Part IIA to the Criminal Code was passed in this House on 23 May 2002, and commenced operation on 15 June 2002.
Part IIA introduced new procedures for dealing with persons being tried by the Supreme Court, in respect of whom there was some question as to their fitness to stand trial or whose mental competence in relation to responsibility for commission of a crime is in question. The provisions replaced Administrator’s pleasure detention, and ensured that, where such a person presented a danger to the community, they could be appropriately detained and, where possible, be treated for their condition. It provided independent review by the court of the terms and conditions of detention and the need for continued detention.
We have had an opportunity to review the operation of the legislation so far, as cases have now been dealt with by the Supreme Court. These cases have highlighted a need to make some changes to Part IIA. Under Part IIA, where a court has declared an accused person to be liable to supervision, the court must then make either a custodial or non-custodial supervision order.
In accordance with the objectives of the legislation, supervision orders are subject to various reviews, either on application by interested parties or at specific events set out in the legislation. A review of the supervision order may be made to determine whether the supervised person may be released from the supervision order, whether the order may be altered from a custodial to a non-custodial order, or indeed, from a non-custodial to a custodial order if the circumstances of the person warrant that action.
Part IIA provides for procedures that apply when the court makes, varies, revokes or reviews a supervision order. One of these requirements is that reasonable notice of the proceedings must be given to the victim, the next of kin of a deceased victim, the next of kin of the supervised person and, if the supervised person is a member of an Aboriginal community, that Aboriginal community. The aim of this provision is to ensure that persons who have some interest in the outcome of the proceedings are aware that they are afoot.
At present, the court also has the discretion to request and receive reports from the victim, the next of kin of a deceased victim, and the next of kin of the supervised person and, if the supervised person is a member of an Aboriginal community, that Aboriginal community, before it makes, varies, revokes or reviews a supervision order.
Section 43ZL deals with the content of reports, and refers to a victim, or next of kin of the deceased victim, making a report setting out their views as to the conduct of the supervised person. The intent of these provisions was to both provide an opportunity for victims and near relatives of victims to fully express to the court the effect that the offending conduct had had on their lives, and to appraise the court of their views as to the effect on them of the potential release of the supervised person. Unfortunately, it would appear that this intent was not clearly expressed in the current provision, the court, in a recent review, taking a more narrow interpretation of the provision and disallowing a report that dealt with the impact of the offending conduct on the victim’s family rather than just their view of the conduct.
Not unnaturally, it is precisely the impact of the conduct that many family members will wish to convey to the court. They will want the court to understand their loss and how that has affected their own lives. That was what was intended and what the proposed amendment now aims to achieve. In addition, to make clear the importance of allowing the victim’s family to express their views, the act will be amended to ensure that, when a victim, or next of kin of a victim, prepares and submits a report, the court must receive and give consideration to it. This ensures that the views of the victim or next of kin of the victim will be heard by the court, and ensures that such persons are not marginalised in the process.
An amendment will also be made to the notification provisions, establishing a mechanism which will allow the victim, or the next of kin of the victim, to give notice to the court that they do not wish to be notified when a supervision order is to be made, or when a review of the supervision order is to be conducted. Because there can be, potentially, many occasions over a lengthy period when some consideration may be given to the status of a supervision order, there may be persons who do not wish to be notified on each occasion because of the obvious significant emotional distress that may occur. This mechanism will allow a victim, or next of kin of the victim, the choice not to be notified or involved in these processes.
In addition, an amendment is to be made to section 43ZG of the code. This provision requires that, when the court sets a supervision order, it must also set a term for the purpose of conducting a major review of a supervision order. Supervision orders are for an indefinite term. The major review of a supervision order is to determine whether the person’s detention or further restriction under a supervision order continues to be justified by public safety considerations. The term that is set for a review under section 43ZG is the term that a court would have set, as a sentence, had the person actually been found guilty of the crime. At present, the provisions are dealt with under the heading ‘Limiting of Term of Supervision Orders’. That terminology is not strictly correct because the supervision order is not limited by the terms set under section 43ZG. A supervision order can only be altered by an order of the court following a review or other application, and such alteration is subject to the restrictions on community safety, and safety of the supervised person as I have mentioned.
The effect of setting a term under section 43ZG is to trigger a major review. The heading to section 43ZG(1) of that provision will be altered to make clear that the section deals with major reviews, not the setting of a term that has the effect of limiting or terminating a supervision order. In addition, section 43ZG currently provides for a review term of 15 years for crimes that carry mandatory life imprisonment, or where the court would have set life as the sentence had the person been found guilty of the offence. Clearly, some term is required to be set for a review to be conducted; it being obviously pointless for a review to occur at the end of a life sentence.
This provision will now be amended to reflect the alteration to the Sentencing Act to be introduced in the Sentencing (Offence of Murder) and Parole Reform Bill that will be introduced in this sittings. The court will now set, as a term for the major review, the term that it would otherwise have set as a non-parole period for the person convicted of the crime of murder, or for a sentence for which life imprisonment might be imposed.
It is important that we continually review the operation of legislation and, where necessary, refine the provisions to ensure that the objectives are able to be achieved. We will continue to closely monitor this important legislation to ensure its effective operation. Mr Acting Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
SENTENCING (CRIME OF MURDER) AND PAROLE REFORM BILL
(Serial 181)
(Serial 181)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to implement reforms to the current sentencing regime for the crime of murder. The bill achieves these reforms by amendments to the Criminal Code, the Sentencing Act and the Parole of Prisoners Act. Since December 2001, the government has conducted extensive research into the laws governing the penalties for murder, manslaughter and dangerous act, to ensure that the Northern Territory laws in these areas are appropriate and operate effectively. This review has resulted in the development of the bill I am introducing today.
This bill maintains mandatory life imprisonment for murder. It also recognises the previous government’s policy of considering release of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment for murder after 20 years, with a standard non-parole period that will apply, to be set at 20 years. However, the review considered that a blanket policy of 20 years for review and consideration for release of all murder cases did not go far enough. It did not recognise that many crimes of murder include circumstances of aggravation which must be taken into account.
Together with a standard minimum non-parole period of 20 years, the bill establishes for the first time a higher minimum non-parole period of 25 years. This non-parole period specifically recognises and identifies cases which involve particular circumstances of aggravation that increase the relative seriousness of the offence. The minimum non-parole period of 25 years will automatically apply in cases involving the murder of more than one person; murders which involve sexual assault; murders of children; murders of public officials who are acting in the course of their duties such as police, teachers and nurses; and cases where the accused has previously been convicted of murder or manslaughter.
In addition, the bill recognises that the facts and circumstances of some of these crimes of murder are so heinous that the offender should be ineligible for parole for a much longer period that these minimums or, indeed, should never be released. Consequently, the court will empowered to set higher non-parole periods above 20 or 25 years, or order that an offender never be released. In deciding to set a higher non-parole period than those specified, the court may consider the level of culpability of the offender by looking at any objective or subjective factors; that is, any matters concerning the offender or the factors of the offence itself that make the crime more serious. In making a decision to refuse a non-parole period, the court will be required to consider the level of culpability of the offender and whether it is so extreme that the community interest in the protection of the community, retribution, deterrence and punishment can only be met by a natural life sentence.
The matters I have outlined illustrates some of the deficiencies in the previous government’s policy. Setting 20 years for the Parole Board to review and recommend on all cases failed to recognise that some cases are more serious that others. It failed, particularly, to recognise that there will be some cases where an offender should never be considered for release.
The bill will also recognise that, in some extremely limited circumstances, like battered wife cases or mercy killings, the court should be able to consider whether to apply a non-parole period of less than 20 years. The government has very carefully scrutinised this part of the bill and developed a provision, the terms of which will ensure it can only be applied in truly exceptional circumstances. The discretion will apply where the court is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist that are sufficient to justify a shorter non-parole period than the standard of 20 years. In determining this question, the bill directs the court to the matters which it must take into account in determining the existence of exceptional circumstances, and provides that the court cannot take any other matters into account.
I will give greater detail of this provision later in the speech but, in summary, to determine whether exceptional circumstances exist the court must be satisfied that a defender is of good character and is unlikely to reoffend, and that the victim’s conduct, or their conduct and condition, was such that it substantially mitigated the action taken by the offender. The government has received advice from a leading Queens Counsel that this provision has an extremely narrow application.
Given each of these matters, the government is satisfied that it has the balance right. It has provided the court with the ability to deal with the full range of cases that might come before it. It allows the court to substantially increase or refuse to set non-parole periods, but provides a discretion that can be applied to truly exceptional cases. Those include cases of wives who have a long history of having been victims of physical abuse, or cases where close relatives assist to end the suffering of a loved one in the last days of a terminal illness. However, the provision is, rightly, one with very limited application.
This bill also contains important and overdue reforms to the Northern Territory Parole Board. That board will be required to consider applications for release at the end of the prisoner’s non-parole period. Before turning to the detail of these reforms though, I would like to make clear the operation and effect of the non-parole period.
Eligibility for parole is, of course, no guarantee of release. However, there is an unfortunate tendency for the media, when reporting on the sentence for a crime, to focus on the non-parole period as being the actual sentence handed down by the court and which will be served by the prisoner. This is not the case. A non-parole period is the period of time during which time the offender is not eligible for release from prison. It establishes only the earliest time at which the offender may be considered for release. The fact that a court sets a non-parole period does not mean that a prisoner will automatically be released on parole at the expiration of that non-parole period. It is the function of the Parole Board under the Parole of Prisoners Act to determine the suitability of individual prisoners for release at the expiration of that period of time.
Eligibility for release of a person convicted of murder from custodial portion of their sentence is dealt with at two separate stages in the criminal justice process. First, it involves the court setting a non-parole period or, indeed, declining to do so in a worst case scenario. Secondly, it involves, quite separately, the Parole Board at the expiration of the non-parole period considering whether the prisoner is suitable for release. This two-stage process is particularly important to crimes that carry a lengthy sentence of imprisonment because it is very difficult for a court, so far out from the consideration of release, to determine questions of rehabilitation and community safety. The function of the Parole Board in determining the suitability of a person for release ensures that these elements are more properly and accurately accessed at the time of eligibility. In other words, the parole system allows for a review of the offender’s case after he or she has served a significant part of a custodial sentence, for the purposes of deciding whether he or she should be released on parole at that stage.
It is clear the setting of a non-parole period does not have the significance, in release or length of sentence, that is sometimes suggested by media reports. Nor does the granting of parole mean the end to the sentence or the end to the punishment for the crime. Parole should not be regarded as a ‘get out of jail free’ card. The offender on parole remains a prisoner subject to the conditions of the parole order, and can be returned to prison for a breach of the parole conditions. All parole orders are subject to a condition that the person be under supervision on parole, by a parole officer, and that they must obey all reasonable directions of the officer. Standard conditions are generally specified in the order; for example, the place of residency of the prisoner during the parole may be ordered.
As I have said, parole orders may be revoked or cancelled where there is a breach of parole conditions, and a person returned to prison. In the case of murder, the prisoner continues to serve a life sentence, but in a non-custodial manner, when released on parole. As they are subject to a mandatory life sentence, parole continues for the rest of their lives and they can, therefore, be returned to prison at any time if there is a breach of their parole conditions.
I turn now to the role of Parole Board and the reforms being proposed by this bill. The Parole Board will have the responsibility for considering parole applications from prisoners who have served their minimum of 20 or 25 years or higher non-parole periods. The Parole Board is currently constituted by the Chief Justice, the Director of Correctional Services and four other members appointed by the minister.
The board considers a broad range of material when deciding whether or not to release a prisoner on parole, and each case is considered on its individual merits. The documentation always includes a parole report prepared by the assigned parole officer, an institutional report prepared by prison staff, a police record of prior convictions, and a transcript of the Supreme Court sentencing details if the prisoner was sentenced in that court. In addition, the Parole Board may consider other relevant reports, including pre-sentence reports, psychological and/or psychiatric assessments and reports, medical assessments and reports, assessments and reports from substance misuse programs and treatment facilities, legal opinions, reports from interstate services, letters from the prisoner, and letters from the victim or victim’s representative.
The Parole Board does not automatically grant parole to those who are eligible. During 2002, 205 prisoners were considered for parole. Of these, 103 or 50.24% were granted parole; 40 prisoners or 19.51% were refused parole; 34 matters or 16.59% were deferred; and 28 grants of parole or 13.66%, were declined by the prisoner. Considering these statistics, there is absolutely no reason to suggest that, when a court sets a non-parole period, this will result in the release from prison of a person who has been convicted of murder simply at the expiration of their non-parole period. It sets only the very earliest date at which the person may be considered by the Parole Board for parole.
As part of the reforms being introduced by this bill, membership of the Parole Board is being increased to 10, with new members including a police officer, a Victims of Crime representative, and community representatives. When considering parole applications from prisoners convicted of murder, the board will be constituted by all 10 members, with a quorum of eight, up from the current six members. A unanimous decision is required for the decision to release a prisoner, and the bill will require the Parole Board to consider the public interest, including the protection of the community as a matter of primary importance when considering the application. For all other parole applications, the board will be constituted by six members, including the new police officer position and victims of crime representative, with a quorum of four. Other reforms will require the board to keep a record of its reasons for accepting or rejecting a parole application.
Before I turn in to the detail of the bill, I will briefly refer to the circumstances that led to the review of this important area of law. The review was prompted by the consequences of the former government’s policy of considering release of prisoners sentenced for murder after 20 years. Under that policy, the Parole Board was to review and make recommendations on those cases after 20 years had been served, with a review every three years thereafter. Cabinet was then to consider all recommendations made and the prisoners retained their rights to petition the Administrator to exercise the Royal prerogative of mercy for release. It is clear that the former government’s policy was deficient in a number of other aspects, not least of which being that it did not make any distinction between different cases of murder.
Section 162 of the Criminal Code Act provides for the crime of murder. That provision covers a wide number of different circumstances. As would be expected, it covers deaths caused with an intent to kill, but it also applies to acts where the intent was to cause not death, but grievous harm to the victim. A form of constructive murder also exists in which the act causing death is not required to be accompanied by an intention to kill or even to harm, and does not require the offender to foresee that death was a possible consequence of their act. Liability for this form of murder might arise, for example, where death occurs as a result of an inadvertent act committed in the course of a robbery. It is accepted that crimes of murder have different degrees of heinousness and culpability, notwithstanding the tragic consequences of each case. Some crimes of murder result from conduct of such cruelty and brutality and cold-bloodedness, that there can be no doubt they deserve a natural life sentence, both to punish the offender and to provide for the protection of the community. Other crimes of murder may be committed in circumstances which indicate the community’s interest in ongoing retribution and punishment is not so great.
The former government policy of applying a 20-year review period to all cases did not recognise those distinctions. This inadequate response will be overcome by the provisions in the bill, which will create a 25-year minimum non-parole period for identified circumstances, together with new provisions to enable the court to order higher non-parole periods, or order that particular prisoners should never be released. These provisions represent a significant tightening of the position of the Northern Territory and ensure that an appropriate minimum imprisonment period, or an order of no release, is available for offenders convicted of more heinous cases of murder. The penalty for murder will, of course, remain at mandatory life sentence in all cases, recognising that murder is the most serious of crimes.
It also became clear during our review that the offence of manslaughter may be operating as a potential escape route for cases which should be treated as murder cases. Since 1989, there have been 27 murder convictions and 99 manslaughter convictions. In some cases of manslaughter, the facts were quite disturbing, and some appeared markedly similar to cases which had resulted in a murder conviction. The offences of manslaughter and dangerous act are now being looked at in detail, and I hope to be in a position to be able to report back on this area of criminal law early next year.
I turn now to the substance of the bill. The reforms being implemented by this bill are achieved through amendments to the Criminal Code Act, the Sentencing Act and the Parole of Prisoners Act.
This bill amends section 164 of the Criminal Code by providing that the court may, in accordance with new section 53A of the Sentencing Act, set a non-parole period for the crime of murder. The mandatory penalty for that crime is retained as a sentence of life imprisonment.
As introduced in 1983, when the parliament passed the Juvenile Justice Act, the court retains the power in the case of a juvenile to set less than life imprisonment as the head sentence. A standard minimum non-parole period of 20 years is prescribed. This represents what is to be considered to be the minimum period of imprisonment before there is eligibility for parole for a crime of murder, in the middle of the range of objective seriousness for that offence. There will also be cases where there are factors associated with the crime that should warrant an automatically increased minimum non-parole period.
This bill identifies particular factors that aggravate the seriousness of the offence and set, for those cases, an non-parole period of 25 years. These factors include cases where the victim is in a particular category of occupation which provides for the safety and protection of other members of the community and which, as a consequence, may place them personally at risk. Where such persons have been targeted as a result of their duties, or the offence occurs while they are carrying out their duties, this factor is considered deserving of a heightened non-parole period. This provision will apply to victims who are police officers, emergency service workers, correctional services officers, judicial officers, health professionals, teachers and community workers, in particular, are part of this identified class of victims.
Similarly, the taking of the life of a child, one of the most vulnerable members of our society, is deserving of recognition of increased objective seriousness. Crimes of murder that are occasioned also by sexual assault, are also recognised as deserving an increased non-parole period. Where a victim has been sexually assaulted and then killed, either as a result of the assault or some subsequent act or omission, I believe that that factor places the offence, quite rightly in the minds of the community, in a more serious category of offence. Likewise, an offence in which the victim is killed, and then their body subjected to sexual degradation post mortem, is considered to be a more serious example of the crime of murder. Multiple convictions and prior convictions for homicide are also recognised as being aggravating factors that should increase the minimum non-parole period.
Although we have identified some particular examples of aggravating factors, it is not possible to anticipate all the circumstance and facts relevant to each and every crime of murder. There will be some offences for which a natural life sentence without the possibility of parole is necessary to be imposed. The court is, therefore, empowered under the amendments effected by this bill, to refuse to set a non-parole period, thus providing for a natural life sentence for cases deserving of this punishment. The court is also empowered to increase the non-parole period beyond the 20- or 25-year period specified, where it considers that the objective or subjective factors associated with the crime warrant the setting of a higher period. Consequently, it should be clearly understood that the aggravating factors identified in the proposed new section 53A do not limit the court to only imposing a 25-year non-parole period. That period may be subject to increase, or the court may decline to set a non-parole period if satisfied, as I have previously said, that the measure is required in all the circumstances of the case.
I have just canvassed particular factors that aggravate the crime of murder, and for which the community may view as deserving of a higher non-parole period. Recognising that a variety of factors or circumstances will affect the relative seriousness of the offence means that we must also appreciate that there will be some cases where the facts and circumstances actually lessen the culpability of the offender. I have no doubt that the community recognises that there are some exceptional cases where the same level of prolonged incarceration is not necessary, either as a punishment or for the protection of the community as a whole.
An example of such cases that come readily to mind are those of spouses - most frequently women - who have endured years of physical and emotional abuse and violence from their partner. Many times these cases are accompanied by sexual abuse, both of the spouse and sometimes also of the children in the relationship. It is easy for those who have never experienced this level of traumatic abuse to say that that woman should just walk away and leaver the perpetrator of the abuse. The reality is that a person who has been made vulnerable by abuse over an extended period of time will frequently be incapable of exercising free will in this way. They may be too afraid to leave; threatened by acts of violence if they do so. In some cases, they will have been brought back to the relationship by violence when they have sought to leave. Many stay in a misguided attempt to sustain and nurture their family unit, becoming caught up in a cycle of remorse being expressed by the perpetrator, promises to make changes, and then reversion to the old pattern of abuse. In some tragic cases seen in Australia, the spouse will eventually be able to take no more and may kill the perpetrator of the violence against them.
Of course, according to the law, if they do so when under physical attack they may be able to successfully raise the defence of self-defence. However, the reality is that, stacked up against a physically stronger person, they may not be able to defence themselves. Their opportunity only comes when the person is himself vulnerable: asleep or unconscious from alcohol intake. In such cases, the defences that might ordinarily be applied to cases involving violence by the victim - provocation and self-defence - may not succeed. The spouse will be convicted of murder and, without the ability for the court to take into consideration the history of the conduct of the victim, that person will have the same eligibility for release as the minimum non-parole period, as for all other persons convicted of that crime.
Likewise, cases have arisen in Australia where an act of killing has taken place in the context of sexual abuse by the murder victim against the offender’s child or other family member. Whist not condoning in any way these actions, it may be that, in some cases, a parent who strikes out at a perpetrator of the sexual abuse or is convicted of murder, may be deserving of some understanding expressed in the non-parole period that they receive.
Other tragic cases may include what the community commonly refers to as ‘mercy killings’; cases where the person - often a close relative to the victim - at the victim’s request and in circumstances where the victim is experiencing intense suffering as a result of illness, assists the person to end their life. I do not say that, by recognising these examples, that retaliation or vigilante activity is in any way condoned. The focus for consideration of the sort of cases that I have mentioned is clearly on the conduct of the victim, and the extent to which that conduct might explain the conduct of the offender and diminish their culpability. Nor do we condone ‘mercy killings’, but we recognise that there is a very different motive involved in such killings than in other examples of the crime. Those cases arise out of a wish by the offender to alleviate the sufferings of the victim, and occur with the consent of the victim.
I am not suggesting here that such consideration applies to a person who unilaterally determines to take the life of their partner or close other without that person’s expressed indication that in such circumstances they would not wish to continue their life. That example of the offence does not fall into the same category for consideration for a lesser non-parole period because it does not involve any actions or conduct on the part of the victim.
We have not proposed that these examples of the crime should receive a lesser sentence. Like all other crimes of murder, they will receive the same sentence, that of life imprisonment. However, we do not believe that the community would see offences such as these examples I just mentioned, as deserving of the same periods of incarceration as an offender who has raped their victim and/or subjected them to the most unimaginable levels of violence before the act results in their death. Cases such as the ones I have outlined are not ones where the community is at risk, or where the offender is likely to repeat violent conduct.
Under the proposed new section 53A of the Sentencing Act, the sentencing court will be able to set a shorter non-parole period than the 20-year period, where the court is satisfied exceptional circumstances that would justify a shorter period exist. As I have already outlined, this provision is an extremely limited one which contains a number of constraints on the exercise of the discretion by the sentencing court. As the standard non-parole period represents a non-parole period for an offence in the middle range of objective seriousness for the offence, any offence of which a non-parole period of less than 20 years is set, could not be more serious than an offence in the middle of the range of objective seriousness, and can reasonably be anticipated to be one which would be in the lower end of the range of objective seriousness.
In addition, in order to exercise the discretion the court must be satisfied that the offender is a person of otherwise good character and be unlikely to reoffend. This will include consideration by the court of any prior convictions or other relevant matters. Clearly, offences such as traffic matters or minor property offences will have little relevance to the determination of a lower non-parole period for the crime of murder, whereas prior convictions for offences of violence will be relevant matters for determination. Whether a record is significant or not may depend also on the date of the offences. Offences committed only new may have little significance in respect to a middle-aged offender. These matters are only capable of being determined by the court on an individual basis.
Further, the court must also be satisfied that the conduct, or the conduct and condition, of the victim substantially mitigates the conduct of the offender. This is not just a requirement for the court to consider that the conduct of the victim may have had some effect on the offender; it goes much further than that, requiring the court to consider whether the conduct in question – such as that I have just described – was such that it provided a substantial lessening of the offender’s culpability. No other matters, other than these requirements, may be taken into account by the court in the determination of the existence of exceptional circumstances.
The bill also amends the Parole of Prisoners Act by making alteration to the constitution of the Parole Board to ensure that it is representative of our community in the Northern Territory. The membership of the Parole Board is increased to 10 members. The Chief Justice or his or her nominee will be the chair of the board. The Director of Correctional Services and a member of the Police Force nominated by the Commissioner of Police, and a person with medical or psychological qualifications, will all be appointed. A person specifically appointed to represent the interest of victims of crime will be required, and the other five members will be required to be persons who reflect, as closely as possible, the composition of the community at large and whose membership must include women and persons of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent.
When the board is to consider matters in relation to the parole of a person convicted of murder, it will be constituted by all the members of the board and will require a quorum of eight members, including the chairman. On consideration of an application for parole by a person convicted of murder, the Parole Board must be unanimous in its decision. For all other matters, the board will be constituted by six members, comprising the chairman, the Director of Correctional Services, the police nominee, the Victims of Crime representative and two other members. A quorum of four, including the chair, will be required. Decisions of the board on these matters will be determined by a majority of votes, with the chairman having a deliberative and a casting vote.
The Parole Board must, obviously, consider the public interest in cases where it is determining the release of a person who has been convicted of murder. New section 3GB of the Parole of Prisoners Act identifies key features of public interest to which the board must have substantial regard. These are the protection of the community and the likely effect on the victim’s family if the person is released. Protection of the community is to be the paramount consideration.
In addition, in recognition of the composition of the Northern Territory community, if the offender is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person who identifies with a particular community, the Parole Board must take into account the likely effect on that community of the person being released on parole.
In order to ensure accountability when the Parole Board determines eligibility for parole of convicted murderers, the board will be required to record the reasons for their decision.
It is necessary for there to be a transitional provisions to allow for the application of non-parole periods to prisoners serving existing life sentences. The bill, therefore, provides that the sentence of a prisoner currently serving life imprisonment for a crime of murder will include a 20-year non-parole period or, in the event that a person is serving sentences for two or more convictions of murder, a 25-year non-parole period will apply.
However, once again, we recognise not all cases may be the same. Consequently, the Director of Public Prosecutions will be empowered to make application to the court for cases which deserve a greater non-parole period or, indeed, should have a non-parole period refused and, therefore, a natural life sentence confirmed. In considering these cases, the bill requires the court to fix a non-parole period of 25 years in cases involving circumstances of aggravation, which I have already outlined, in respect of new cases bought before the courts. Like with new cases, the court will also be empowered to order a higher non-parole period or that the prisoner should never be released.
Appeals from decisions on these applications will be provided in the same way as appeals on sentence provided in Part X of the Criminal Code.
These amendments maintain a strict sentencing regime with a mandatory life sentence for the crime of murder, but they overcome the simplistic approach contained in the policy of 20 years as a review date for all cases of murder. These reforms recognise that not all cases of murder are the same, and that tougher responses are required in a number of cases. Establishing a 25-year minimum non-parole period for cases with recognised factors of aggravation, and empowering the court to set higher non-parole periods or order that a prisoner never be released, are an essential elements of ensuring appropriate community safety and protection. At the same time, changes to the Parole Board also ensure that community safety is preserved, and that the community of the Northern Territory will continue to send a strong message that violent behaviour is never condoned and will be punished accordingly. Mr Acting Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
BUSHFIRES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 187)
(Serial 187)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
These amendments to the Bushfires Act provide: significantly increased penalties for serious offences against the act; increased penalties for lesser offences against the act; provision for authorised officers to enter land for the purpose of undertaking investigation into the cause of bushfires where it is considered that an offence may have been committed against the act, and to search for evidence relating to such offences; provision for authorised officers to enter land to undertake inspections for fire prevention measures where these measures are in the public interest; provision for the recovery of costs incurred fighting wildfires; the introduction of infringement notices for regulatory offences; and the removal of a minor provision relating to constructed fireplaces approved by the Bushfires Council.
This bill will significantly increase the deterrent value of the Bushfires Act, against people who are responsible for lighting fires which burn millions of hectares in the Territory every year and threaten the livelihood and safety of Territorians. Last year, in 2002, some 37.4 million hectares, or 28.5% of the Northern Territory, was burnt. While some of these fires were due to land management activity and some due to lightening strikes, most of these fires were either lit deliberately, or as the result of careless actions of people travelling through the Territory.
The bill substantially increases the penalties for offences under five sections to a maximum of $25 000 or five years imprisonment. These offences are potentially the most serious under the Bushfires Act, as they have the greatest potential to cause significant property damage and endanger the safety of Territorians. The offences include: setting fire to bush; burning without a permit to burn; leaving a fire before it is extinguished; lighting a fire during a declared fire ban; and setting fire to another person’s land.
In addition, this bill increases the penalties under a further eight sections of Bushfires Act to a maximum of $5000 or two years imprisonment. These offences, amongst others, include not complying with a firebreak notice and throwing down smouldering or burning matter. With this increase in penalties, the Bushfires Act will now have similar penalties to comparable legislation interstate.
The increase in penalties contained in this bill will greatly improve the deterrence value of the Bushfires Act. However, it is also critical that authorised officers have the ability to enforce the act and make it work effectively to achieve the intent of this act, which is to enable the prevention and suppression of bushfires. Merely increasing the penalties only goes part of the way to achieving this, and would be purely a knee-jerk reaction to the complex matter of managing bushfires in the Territory.
This bill introduces a number of other crucial amendments that will help to achieve this outcome. In order to effectively pursue an investigation into a fire and to determine if an offence has been committed, fire control officers need to be able to enter land as soon as possible to investigate the physical evidence left by a fire. This evidence, such as charring and scorch height on trees, or vehicle tracks and other traces of human activity, will deteriorate quickly and it is important that inspection is undertaken by qualified officers as soon as possible. Amendments to the act will now give authorised officers the power to enter land in order to conduct such an investigation when it is reasonable to suspect that an offence against the act has been committed. In addition, they will now have the power to search vehicles and vessels for evidence relating to a suspected offence. These powers are now consistent with those within the Fire and Emergency Act.
In the Northern Territory, the approach to bushfire management is founded on the need to undertake preventative actions to limit the spread and impact of wildfires as much as on fire suppression. The Regional Bushfires Committee and departmental staff commit over half of their resources every year into developing and implementing fire prevention programs.
In the Vernon fire control region, which incorporates the rural areas near Darwin, the Regional Bushfires Committee has determined that the minimum fire prevention standard is to have a perimeter firebreak installed on all properties. Fire control officers presently undertake annual inspections to ensure that all land-holders have their firebreaks installed but, to date, have not had the authority to enter land to inspect the firebreaks. Officers will now have the power to enter land to assess whether it is necessary for firebreaks to be established, or flammable material to be removed. These actions are undertaken in the public good to ensure that all land-holders undertake their responsibilities and help to protect not only their own property, but the property and safety of their neighbours.
Firebreaks are also an important safety issue for our volunteer bushfire brigades. Our bushfire volunteers routinely enter property to suppress wildfires, and the firebreaks provide not only a clear line from which to undertake control activities, but also an escape route should a fire threaten the safety of firefighters. Our bushfire volunteers commit thousands of hours annually to help Territorians manage and control bushfires. These amendments will help them to undertake this difficult and sometimes dangerous task with a greater degree of safety. The addition of these powers for authorised officers under the act is consistent with other Territory legislation. The power to enter land for the purpose of undertaking fire investigations and hazard reduction inspections are currently available to officers authorised under the Fire and Emergency Act.
The impact of wildfires on the Territory through the loss of property affects rural enterprises. The impacts on biodiversity conservation, and through the emission of greenhouse gases, are complex and extremely difficult to quantify. We are working to better understand these impacts, and we will continue to do so. However, we do know that the cost of fighting wildfires is one that is a constant impost on Territorian land managers. These costs and effort are generally accepted as a part of the Territory landscape, a part of working and living in a dynamic and fire-prone environment except, that is, where fire is the result of a deliberate act of arson or other offence under the Bushfires Act.
This bill will allow for the recovery of costs and damages incurred during wildfire suppression operations, where the fire is the result of an offence committed under the act. This cost can include the use of heavy plant and equipment, aircraft for aerial survey of fires, and other operating expenses incurred by the Territory.
While the significant increase in penalty for major offences under the act will help act as a deterrent to offenders, it is recognised that many breaches of the act are of a minor nature. In keeping with the expressed need to improve the ability of officers to enforce the act, these amendments will introduce provisions to issue infringement notices for regulatory offences. The introduction of infringement notices will streamline the enforcement process and allow for immediate punishment of those persons who commit offences. The ability to issue infringement notices during the annual firebreak enforcement process, for example, will markedly increase the effectiveness of this program, and will ultimately help reduce the workload of fire control officers.
The amendments in this bill do not introduce new offences, nor do they change the structure or the intent of the act. Land managers, be they pastoralists, indigenous landowners or conservation managers, will still be able to conduct fire management programs as they do now. The use of fire for land management and traditional purposes such as hunting, will continue as it has in the past.
There is, lastly, a minor amendment which removes the requirement for the Bushfires Council to approve constructed fireplaces. I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
STOCK DISEASES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 188)
(Serial 188)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr BURNS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Mr Acting Speaker, I move that this bill be now read a second time.
The main purpose of this bill is to provide a prompt, effective response to an emergency animal disease and ensure minimal effect on the animal industries and the economy, if an emergency animal disease such as foot and mouth disease was detected within the Northern Territory or anywhere within Australia. The cost of a large-scale outbreak of foot and mouth disease was estimated in 2002 to cost $12bn to the Australian economy, comprising direct costs of $4bn and flow-on costs of $8bn.
The amendment bill will strengthen a number of existing powers and introduce new powers to enable an effective response and better risk management. A number of the amendments are necessary to ensure that the Northern Territory legislation is consistent with the national cost-sharing agreement for emergency animal diseases, signed by the Northern Territory in December 2001.
Compensation is now provided for animal products and buildings destroyed or damaged as part of an emergency animal disease response. Top-up compensation is provided for replacing stock, if the value of equivalent stock has increased since the disease outbreak. Compensation may be withheld if a person fails to meet the obligations with respect to reporting disease, or fails to comply with details of a prescribed disease control program and is found guilty of an offence.
Early detection and reporting will greatly limit the scope of the outbreak response and the cost of the response. Prescribed diseases will be classified as: an emergency disease that is listed with the national emergency animal disease response agreement; an exotic disease not found in Australia and not listed in the emergency animal disease response agreement; or an endemic disease that is one which occurs naturally within the Northern Territory.
There are obligations for persons to report a suspected or confirmed prescribed disease. There is an obligation for the Chief Inspector to publish a list of all prescribed diseases.
The legislation enables the declaration of a stand-still zone if an emergency disease is, or may be present, or maybe introduced into an area. The purpose is to prevent further movement of livestock or animal products while the extent of livestock movements from the risk area is determined and disease surveillance is done. This ban will be for a short period of time and released as soon as possible. This measure will greatly limit the spread of disease by exposed animals or animal products. A permit system will allow low risk movements to occur; for example, stock for slaughter at an abattoir. While it is envisaged that the ban would usually relate to livestock, a ban on livestock and livestock products is provided. Producer representatives are an important part of the response team and would contribute significantly to the decision process.
The ban on feeding of swill to pigs is strengthened by specifying the only conditions for any exemption to the ban, and establishing an offence to supply swill to pig farmers.
There is an ouster clause to provide protection from a legal injunction to prevent delays in the rapid response to an emergency animal disease. An order or direction by the Chief Inspector is final and conclusive in a disease control program for an emergency animal disease. Rapid actions early in an outbreak can greatly limit the spread of the disease. There is no ouster clause for endemic diseases.
In order to minimise the risk of poor quality diagnostic test results for emergency diseases, there will be an approval system for veterinary laboratories and specified tests for emergency diseases. There are national standards to support the approval process.
There is protection for persons acting in good faith against civil or criminal proceedings during emergency animal disease response. The penalties have been reviewed and converted to penalty units. There is a substantial increase in penalties. This is due to the fact that penalties have not been reviewed for many years and a deterrent is necessary to the high economic consequence of offences under the Stock Diseases Act.
The proposals in this bill are the result of lessons learnt during the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the United Kingdom in 2002, the national foot and mouth disease exercise conducted in September 2002, and consultations with industry and government organisations.
Mr Acting Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members for their consideration.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Note Statement - Procurement Reform
Note Statement - Procurement Reform
Continued from 19 August 2003.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Mr Acting Speaker, the procurement in the Northern Territory is an important topic. Procurement is, of course, the purchasing by government of items, services and products and its interaction with the private sector.
The irony, of course, is that the Northern Territory government – like all governments – is using the money which it has taxed from business to buy their products. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that people across Australia and the Northern Territory are, generally, of the view that government does provide a number of important services and the money is well spent.
The ministerial statement of 18 June 2003 by the Minister for Business, Industries and Resource Development, outlined a number of proposed reforms. However, before the statement does that, there was actually a very worthwhile summary of what type of impact procurement by the Northern Territory government has on the private sector; for example, the very fact that each year approximately $750m is injected into the Northern Territory economy by the Northern Territory government by way of procurement. The minister is absolutely correct when he said in the beginning of his statement that that helps many Territory businesses, particularly during the lean times.
The decision-making process relating to procurement, as to which particular services are utilised by government, is required to be fair and transparent. It also must achieve the fundamental goal of value for money, both in encouraging private enterprise and jobs in private enterprise, as well as achieving the proper provision of quality goods and services to Territorians.
The minister touched upon a couple of those fundamental pillars at page 2 of his statement. He said, quite rightly, that at the heart of the reform is this government’s genuine commitment - indeed, all governments’ genuine commitment. He has five criteria: open and effective competition, value for money, enhancing the capabilities of Territory business and industry, environmental protection, ethical behaviour and fair dealing. That is from the minister’s statement at page 2.
One aspect I will comment on is not a substantial portion of the statement but a portion that had a significant effect on a number of schools in my electorate. There are approximately 12 schools in the electorate of Goyder. The whole rationale, concept and the mechanisms associated with school-based procurement is something of vital importance to those schools, particularly the school councils and the parents who are actively and regularly involved in the process. In the ministerial statement, probably about halfway through, there is a fairly bold statement in relation to school-based procurement.
The government of the day – which is, of course, the Martin Labor government – decided that the roles and responsibilities that were within the realm of responsibility of school councils across the Northern Territory, would fall back to the Department of Employment, Education and Training capital works and repairs and maintenance. That is, all the education and training capital works and repairs and maintenance would come back to the department. That was a significant change. He went on to state that:
Further, the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment will project manage all mechanical
and electrical maintenance and all capital and minor new works from 1 July 2003.
That caused a degree of consternation. School councils were effectively told by this government: ‘We do not trust you enough, despite the fact that you and your children are the primary beneficiaries’. Here was this typical, centralist Labor government demonstrating that they have abused the trust once against that Territorians placed in them in August 2001. That trust was misplaced. They, at that stage, took it upon themselves to remove that power.
There were, I understand, numerous representations made to the government by representatives from various school councils. Then we heard, very recently, a partial backflip announced by the Minister for Employment, Education and Training - it was a half pike. The minister effectively said that some powers would be returned to school councils. Therefore, we have the situation where, for many years, Territory school councils have had the authority to be directly involved in building projects such as the construction of classrooms and other school facilities, and refurbishment. In addition, school councils had the authority - and rightly so - to engage contractors for minor works around their particular schools. By way of background, the reason that occurred – and it is quite logical – is that it empowers the parents; it promotes the very principle that parents should get involved in their schools, bringing parents and education closer together.
It really comes down to this: who has the most to gain from decision-making at a school level; that is, is it the parents or the bureaucracy? My view is it is most certainly the parents. This government has attempted in the ministerial statement to take away that power from parents and give it to the bureaucracy …
Members interjecting.
Mr MALEY: That occurred without any consultation, so all the noises they make in this Chamber about consulting until the cows come home, amounted to effectively nil, because there was no consultation. That authority was revoked in minister Henderson’s procurement reform initiative statement he gave on 18 June 2003.
There is no doubt that volunteers – and they are volunteers – on numerous school councils across the Territory had, for years, made valuable contributions to school communities through their involvement in building programs. In fact, many schools – certainly in my electorate – are able to demonstrate that, through that parental involvement and management, public funds have procured much more than merely the described works.
The reform to procurement policy announced in this ministerial statement significantly reduced the role which school councils and parents have. Then it turns out that, after the backlash, the minister for Education recently announced that the unpopular decision to remove the ability of school councils to be actively involved in capital work-like programs would be partially reversed. It seems that school councils now can still make some decisions regarding minor new works, but will still no longer have the power to engage in capital work projects.
Once again, it comes down to that this is a real practical ‘on the ground’ reform which demonstrates that this government does not trust the view of parents enough to give them a real and comprehensive say in how their school should be run so that their children can get the best education possible under the public and private sectors.
At the end of the day, the proof of these proposed reforms will be in the pudding. We will not know, really, how effective or ineffective these are going to be until some time has passed. Procurement is an important subject and one which I am interested in. I can assure Territorians that I will be keeping a careful eye on this procurement initiative, and the effect that it has on …
Mr Henderson: Where from - Sydney?
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MALEY: I will have a careful eye on this government on behalf of all decent Territorians.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Acting Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me how little research and knowledge the member for Goyder does or has. The sheer laziness of his contributions in this Chamber - and I would have thought his leader would pull him up on it at some stage. Nevertheless, I digress.
As we have heard in debate, the NT government has an enormous impact on small business in its procurement purchasing power. There is some $750m per year pumped into the Territory economy through our procurement of goods and services. In his statement, the minister pointed out that this has a significant impact on the viability of Territory businesses, particularly in the light of statistics he told us: 80% of all government purchases are for items valued at less than $3000 - some $300m in expenditure each year. Thus, the government’s procurement practices will have a direct impact on the health of our local businesses and, therefore, Territorians’ livelihoods through their jobs.
I want to briefly reflect on the need for the procurement reform that was undertaken by the government, detailed by the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development in his statement to the House that we are debating today. Procurement, in the past, was not open to scrutiny nor adequate audit practices, creating an environment open to cronyism and purchasing practices that were nefarious, to say the least.
In talking to small, medium and large business owners that I know throughout the Territory, it had got to the point in the past where they no longer bothered to tender for a Northern Territory government contract. They believed that the cronyism had reached the stage where the tenders were no longer being let on the basis of the best bid but, rather, on the basis of who happened to be drinking or playing golf with particular ministers. I believe that this is to the eternal shame of the CLP, a party which pretends to represent the best interest of business. Such practices are commonly referred to elsewhere in other jurisdictions as corruption and, I believe, are, in fact, absolutely intolerable in a fair government ...
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Mr Acting Speaker! The member for Karama, possibly in her naivety, has levelled allegations of corruption at the previous government. She either does that by substantive motion or withdraws.
Ms LAWRIE: I have not levelled a allegation of corruption at the previous government at all, I am talking about …
Mr Burke: Just withdraw.
Ms LAWRIE: … people’s views on what they believe happened in terms of drinking and playing golf.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Will you withdraw, or …
Ms LAWRIE: I do not have to withdraw anything that the Leader of the Opposition …
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: No, will you withdraw that statement?
Ms LAWRIE: Which particular statement?
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: The corruption statement.
Ms LAWRIE: I did not make a statement on corruption. I said in other jurisdictions things are viewed as corruption.
A member: Withdraw!
Ms LAWRIE: I was not talking in terms of the Territory …
Mr BURKE: Mr Acting Speaker, I would suggest that, for the purposes of Hansard, the member withdraws all of her comments so far and starts again.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: I just ask you, member …
Ms LAWRIE: I will withdraw any comments with regard to corruption that the Leader of the Opposition might find offensive.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Continue.
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you. Indeed, I welcome the procurement reforms which will ensure that we have an open procurement system in keeping with our responsibilities to all Territory businesses. I have heard from Territory business people that, for the first time, they are now tendering for government contracts. You on the other side might laugh, members of the opposition, but this is what people are saying. It is to your shame.
Mr Burke: That would be your friends you play golf with, is it?
Ms LAWRIE: No, I do not play golf. I talk to business.
Mr Burke: You do not talk to business?
Ms LAWRIE: I said I go and talk to business.
Mr Dunham: That is your problem.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: How do these reforms create a fair environment? The establishment of a government Procurement Council to provide direct advice to the procurement minister on issues relating to government procurement policies and practices, the effectiveness of government procurement polices and practices, and options for procurement reform. The council will also liaise with the government in the preparatory stages of significant projects, to ensure that industry is thoroughly briefed.
The government called for nominations for this important council, and has appointed six private sector representatives. These representatives are Graeme Townes of an engineering design firm, Townes Chappell Mudgway; Sharyn Sherrington of Corporate Express; Caroline Angel, a restaurateur and former marketing manager of the Alice Springs Convention Centre; William Tilmouth, manager of Tangentyere Council in Alice Springs; Denis MacKenzie, Director of ICT provider Connected Solutions Group; and Michael Lynagh, businessman and Chairman of the Small Business Association. Public sector membership is Jennifer Prince and Sarah Butterworth.
In addition, we have restructured the Procurement Review Boards, with Katherine joining the PRB in Darwin and Tennant Creek joining the PRB in Alice Springs. In the past, Katherine and Tennant Creek PRBs saw about 10% all up of government procurement whereas, under this new structure, these Katherine and Tennant Creek representatives will get to see 100% of the government procurement.
Another critical reform is the establishment of a central procurement reference group within Treasury. It is designed to remove the fragmentation of policy and practices across government in the past.
In addition, government has also mandated the use by all agencies of the DCIS contract and procurement services for the provision of technical support for tendering processes, for all procurement over $10 000. This provides a more consistent approach across government agencies in the preparation of tender documentation and the management of tender processes.
The government will train its procurement agency staff, with $825 000 set aside for this upskilling exercise over the next three years. Our aim is that all procurement officers will achieve workplace competency levels, and those levels will, in fact, be prescribed in duty statements.
In the meantime, the minister has instituted a program called Meet the Buyers which creates forums that link procurement officers directly to the private sector to enhance the opportunity for local businesses to secure government work. These functions provide business with the opportunity to explain the capacity and the nature of their business, while procurement officers can explain the nature of government needs and practices – a win/win situation in keeping with our government’s philosophy underpinning this procurement reform which the minister in his statement explained as ‘open and fair competition, value for money, enhanced capabilities of Territory business and industry, environment protection and ethical behaviour and wellbeing’.
I do not intend to address procurement planning which the minister dealt with comprehensively in his statement, in terms of our counter cyclical delivery programs to tackle the peaks that we all know exist in the Territory experiences. Instead, I will deal with the latest procurement policy from our fair government, which goes to the ability of schools to manage their minor new works expenditure.
Despite the flight of fancy we heard previously from the member for Goyder, I will deal with the facts. The facts are that the government has absolutely clarified to schools that all school councils who wish to retain responsibility for minor new works, urgent minors and routine maintenance continue to do so. For those schools - and there are some schools in this category, member for Goyder - that wish to undertake these responsibilities, the Department of Employment, Education and Training will confirm on an annual basis that adequate technical competence is available to the school to undertake the necessary tasks related to minor new works and routine maintenance because, in the government’s experience, there are some schools which prefer not to. However, this clarification provides the flexibility for the schools to take on the work if they want to; to hand it over if they do not want to. In the instance of capital works over $150 000, they will remain with DIPE.
DEET and DIPE will work together to have an effective process in place to ensure that school communities are heavily involved in any capital works decisions that affect school design and amenity. On more general forms of procurement, DEET will work with schools to provide guidelines and training on procurement matters. This will include how procurements should be handled by schools in a transparent and accountable way. It has regard for the limited management resources available to schools. We heard from the minister that a letter is going out to all school councils explaining these provisions in detail.
I was present at a gathering of school councils recently where the minister explained the school council procurement provisions to all the school council members. Present at that were teachers and principals, and the response was very positive from members present. Being a parent, and having been a past chair of a school council, I have first-hand knowledge of just how a school council operates in school procurement and minor new works. What I can say is: that training is an essential tool of procurement managers. It has been an area overlooked. We have had the provisions given to school councils over the years; we have had some decentralisation. Okay, you can take on more and more responsibility at the school council level in your budgets and what you are doing with your budgets, particularly in the area of procurement. That has landed some schools in hot water. There is no doubt about it. We have seen clear examples where schools have come across great difficulty in these practices when it has come to audit time. We do know that, if you adequately equip and train people carrying out such responsible duties, they can do so in an environment where audits will show that they have performed them in an appropriate fashion.
I congratulate the government on identifying that the school councils will need appropriate training where they wish to continue with the procurement practices of the past. The role of DIPE in major new works projects is an appropriate one, working with the schools in the projects. I have had school principals say to me: ‘I am not a builder, I am not an architect. I do not want full responsibility for a major project. I do want to, as principal, work with the architects and builders to ensure that our school gets the best possible project that meets our needs’.
That is what the provisions the government has put in place and bedded down will provide. In another way, we have a win/win for the schools as well. Where they want to and have the capacity to undertake minor new works, they will continue to do so. Those schools which do not want to, and do not have the capacity, will not have to in the future. That is their choice. There is a process in place for the schools to be asked whether or not they want to take it up. In terms of major projects, that will sit with DIPE, working with DEET and the local schools to deliver what the school wants …
Mr Mills: That is the part that is offending everyone.
Ms LAWRIE: I will pick up on the interjections from the shadow for education. He thinks if he speaks to one, two or three people, then he definitively has the response from the entire sector. I urge …
Mr Mills: Excuse me! I have written to every school council.
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms LAWRIE: … members in this House to get out and speak to as broad as possible …
Mr Mills: I wrote to every school council and consulted COGSO.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Blain, order!
Ms LAWRIE: … section of people. Clearly, sometimes, they come in here with a narrow perspective. The feedback I have received already from principals is – and I restate it – that they are not architects or builders. They do not want the sole management of major – and we are talking major - projects. They do want input; there is no doubt about it. They know what is best for their school in the outcome of the project. They do not want sole responsibility for that project. They have enough on their plate being the principal of a school.
I congratulate the government for having the strength and passion to undertake this procurement reform process. It is difficult. We were the dinosaur jurisdiction, yet again, in the issue of procurement.
Mr Mills: Oh, what sort of animal is it now?
Ms LAWRIE: You might laugh, shadow for education. When I was talking to other jurisdictions on the issue of procurement, they could not believe how behind we were in our procurement practices. They have encouraged us in these reforms, and I know that they have welcomed these reforms. The Commonwealth has certainly indicated that they are happy with these reforms in discussions at ministerial level. It really does place us well to be highly competitive within the Australian business environment.
I am delighted with the feedback I am getting from small, medium and large businesses; that they now see a fair procurement process. They now have the belief that they can bid for contracts which, in itself, is an expensive process to go through. You are putting in time and resources of your business to bid in the first place. They now have the confidence to go into that bidding process believing that a fair decision will occur at the end of the day, because there is scrutiny, openness and transparency in the procurement process.
The Buyer Forums is a fantastic initiative. It is a very practical way of bringing businesses and procurement agency officers together to enable people to explain what goods they have on the market to sell and, from the government’s perspective, just what goods and what quality we are looking for.
I congratulate the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development and his agency. DBIRD has done a lot of work on this. Treasury has a very strong role to play in this in the centralised procurement agency board. I know that there are officers within Treasury who have done a lot of hard policy work on procurement and continue to do so. I congratulate the members of the council who have been appointed by the government. I encourage them to continue to look at ways that government can enhance procurement to local business within the context of the National Competition Policy. That really is the difficulty for all jurisdictions. Western Australia, currently, in the Australian context is out on its own somewhat in the emphasis that it provides to local procurement, and that is proving problematic in funding arrangements with the Commonwealth.
The challenge for the Territory is to be able to operate within the National Competition Policy guidelines, yet enhance the ability for our local businesses to have a cutting edge in procurement. That is something that I believe is very much a task for the Procurement Council, in liaising with the minister, because that gets down to the heart of what small business are looking for. They want to have a competitive edge, where possible, in their local business. Yet, how do we do that in the fairness of competition, and an open and transparent procurement system? I am sure that the wisdom that is gathered through this Procurement Council can actually pay attention to that issue that all jurisdictions are grappling with - not just this jurisdiction - and that we will all continue to grapple with, particularly in the context of a national debate about the free trade agreement with the United States that is currently being negotiated.
We are working with these reforms in an environment of shifting circumstances nationally. Already we are signing up, as are other jurisdictions, with agreements nationally and with New Zealand in procurement. Really, it was time for us to come of age in procurement practices. I am delighted with the reforms because they have brought us up to standard nationally.
I believe we have an opportunity, with the Procurement Council that has been established to advise the minister, to take it that next step further to tackle the difficult aspect of giving a cutting edge to local business within an open and fair system. I encourage all procurement officers to take up that opportunity of training the government is pursuing with the $825 000 over the next three years. Professional enhancement will come through that training. Identifying the procurement skills in duty statements is a progressive step which shows professionalism in the sector. I look forward to further reports from the minister on this critical issue of procurement.
Debate suspended.
MOTION
Note Statement - Procurement Reform
Note Statement - Procurement Reform
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Mr Acting Speaker, I will brief in response to the minister’s statement on procurement reform. I wanted to place a couple of comments on the Hansard record.
Firstly, and I say this in a genuine fashion, we are debating a ministerial statement that came down on 18 June 2003 - June this year - and it is now 16 October. There is a problem in this Assembly in holding over these ministerial statements too long. I can understand the government - and I do not know what happened in the past, but I do not recall statements being held over inordinately. There may have been an occasion, say, where statements were held over for some reason or another. However, it seems to be a particular tactic of the current government that statements are announced with much fanfare, a few speakers speak to those statements, and then they are adjourned for long periods of time. Whilst I understand that the minister might reply and say: ‘Many want to speak on these statements and we need to give them full opportunity to do so’, I wonder why that opportunity is not presented at the time if the statement is so important to be responded to.
The problem with the passage of time is that things change. The member for Karama, in her patronising way, corrected the member for Goyder because of inaccuracies that he made in his comment today. However, in fact, the debate centres on a ministerial statement and that has not changed. The ministerial statement is quite explicit with regards to the responsibilities that will be taken away from schools. If I refer to one part of that statement, it says, with regard to school councils:
- … the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment will project manage all mechanical
and electrical maintenance, and all capital and minor new works from 1 July 2003.
If the government has, since that time, decided that is not the best way to go, and maybe needs to do some changes and announce those changes by means of a press release, or a question in parliament, that is one thing. However, it does not help the consistency of the debate to be, on the one hand, debating a statement, which, when a statement comes into this House one would expect that to be a fairly definitive stance of government. That is why it comes forward in the minister’s name and is read, under the conventions in this House, without ministers straying from the words of that statement very far, because it is an important statement being presented by the minister, laying down government policy in a particular area. That is what the minister has done in this procurement review. In that review, he was very definitive about the way procurement would work in future with regards to school councils. Times have moved on; there is now some more flexibility given to school councils.
However, to suggest, as the member for Karama did, that they are all happy ignores the fact that I do not believe that they are. In fact, that the member for Blain reinforced that point of view. He is entirely correct. One only has to read the letter from the Moil Primary School, which I am sure the minister has a copy of, where they say they are proud of the way that they have been involved in those sort of procurement issues in the past, and do not see any reason for any change. You could hardly describe them as being overjoyed with the changes that happened.
However, having said that, it also points to another issue, and that is, that I wonder - and I hope that it is not the fact - that the government is using these statements simply to fill out the fact that they do not have enough legislation on their Notice Paper to pass through this parliament. If that is the case, it is a pretty sad state of affairs where the government itself is not generating enough legislation and, in order to keep the business of parliament going sufficiently on a day-to-day basis, that they have to use ministerial statements simply as fillers. That seems to be the case with this particular statement.
I wanted to approach the statement with a measure of strong support for the government. I believe the measures the government are putting in place are good, and I support those. It is disappointing, to say the least, that, prior to having to stand up and respond, one has to move a point of order against the member for Karama for the unfortunate and wrong attacks that she made upon the previous CLP government in this House in reference to these particular reforms. Then, when I look through previous statements that were made, I was sorry I was not in the House when Dr Toyne, the Attorney-General, made his comments, because, and if I could quote, he said:
- The CLP policy to award contracts to mates meant procurement processes were not developed, let
alone implemented.
It is pretty shallow stuff to suggest that, somehow, the procurement procedures that existed under the CLP government were one of contracts being awarded to mates on the golf course. That might be the opinion of some members of this House but, when you make those allegations, remember that they are being made against public servants, many of whom are the same public servants who are working for your government. I would imagine that many of the public servants are the same ones who are still involved in those procurement areas, and operating in the same way as they operated under my government. A childish comment that might create a giggle amongst the members of government really has wide-ranging implications and should not be made in this House on those important issues.
If you wanted to go to those type of areas, the example that stands out glaringly to anyone with regard to the wonderful reforms in the procurement processes that have happened in the Labor government, is Chinatown. If you want to benchmark Chinatown against the procurement objectives that are laid down in this ministerial statement and the so-called wonderful reforms that, by virtue of the ministerial statement, have already been implemented - which they have not. However, if you read some of the comments, for example, from the Attorney-General he says, by these reforms: ‘We have eliminated the possibility of ad hoc decision-making’. Well ,you are beginning to put in place processes that will improve decision-making but, to suggest that through these reforms they have been eliminated, is a big call indeed.
As the member for Wanguri well knows, Chinatown does not benchmark well, in any shape or form, against the objectives that you have laid down here, particularly if one looks at open and effective competition, value for money, and enhancing the capability of Territory businesses and industry. The whole process of Chinatown, I believe, was a total sham and embarrassment. The fact that almost nothing occurred has at that Chinatown development after well over two years in government, is evidence of the fact that one has to wonder whether or not the probity issues that were supposedly put in place, actually were there. When we questioned those probity issues in this House, it was clear from the documentation that was tabled that there were a number of probity auditors engaged and also disengaged - and disengaged at critical decision points in that process. The government may wish to defend their decision-making - that is up to them - but I simply say that if you want to throw stones about procurement processes of the CLP, look in your own backyard.
As the member for Wanguri knows, the $1.5m contract for the lighting of Traeger Park in Alice Springs has gone to a company which has its major headquarters in South Australia. I know it has an office in Alice Springs; I do not know what the size of that office is. But, certainly, if you look up the CAL web site, the particular contractor that has been awarded that project in Alice Springs - a large government project - is substantially a South Australia company.
There are ongoing issues involved in procurement, many of which, I guess, can be explained away adequately. One of the problems with procurement in the Northern Territory, I believe, has been this ability to ‘back brief’ unsuccessful tenderers in a responsible way. I note and applaud the number of agencies that have now been established as the Procurement Reference Board under the auspices of the Chief Minister. There is the Procurement Reference Group under the auspices of Treasury, and the Procurement Review Board, under the minister’s department, has been strengthened in its responsibilities. Also, there is an over-watch issue in the way agencies go about preparing tender documentation done through DCIS, by the Contracts and Procurement Unit.
The only question I would have for the minister is - and it may be in the report that he tabled, I have not actually seen it; he could explain it to me if he wished - the hierarchy of those agencies when it comes to responsibility, particularly in questioning by the Ombudsman. It is something that he may be able to easily explain away, but it seems to me there are conflicting and concurrent responsibilities in a number of those particular agencies. However, on the face of it, it looks particularly good. The Procurement Reference Board, essentially, advises on policy, policy development and policy implementation. The Procurement Reference Group is basically a Treasury organisation that, amongst other things, allows people to complain about procurement issues if they feel dissatisfied.
One of the things that is not in the statement - and I hope that the minister might take this on board – is that one of the things we tend to be focussed on in the Northern Territory is the concept of value for money. Value for money, more often than not, ends up being translated down to the cheapest tender. That is a culture that may pervade our departments, simply because they do manage very tight budgets; they have extreme demands on their budgets. I wonder if, in many of the infrastructual or purchasing responsibilities that they have, that in managing that budget it is very easy to move to a situation where the factor of the cheapest quote tends to predominate. The fact that the cheapest quote, too often, seems to be the one that is awarded the tender leads to a great amount of grievousness, particularly when an interstate firm wins a tender against a Territory firm, and the Territory firm believes the issue of value for money for Territorians is not being evidenced enough in the way the procurement decisions are being made.
One suggestion I would have for the government would be that the government, in its procurement processes, should put an absolute emphasis on quality. That is, when we are spending taxpayers’ money in the Northern Territory, perhaps we could better define this concept of value for money. Maybe it could be defined more in quality of work, and maybe that quality of work could be emphasised in the way the government goes about its whole tendering process in that, when the government looks to acquire a tenderer for a particular project or for purchasing goods, I believe they are the ones who should be leading the way in the Northern Territory by saying: ‘It may cost more, but we are focussed on quality’. I believe that a lot of these issues fall down to: ‘My quote may have been more expensive but the quality of my work would have been far better than the tender that has been awarded’.
I know they are vexed issues. I know they are very difficult issues to deal with when you are managing taxpayers’ money. I accept the fact that, in the reforms that have been put in place, the government - on the face of the minister’s statement - seems to be moving very well in setting in place a system that gets greater accountability by agencies, ensures that the agencies are well and truly trained, puts in place a reference group of quality people as a standing committee to advise the government on procurement policy and procedures and where improvements need to be made, and gives the Procurement Review Board far more power in reviewing the way decisions are made within agencies - and continue to be made, particularly when there are additions to contracts. In that regard the review of 10% variation going back to the Procurement Review Board is a very good idea.
I have said to the minister on many occasions that it is a more constructive debate if – and I am the first to acknowledge in this House - we move forward on this issue. I certainly acknowledge that, in the term of my government, there were a number of issues in procurement that I was not happy with. I wish I had had the time to have dealt with them more forcefully. We certainly put a review in place. The minister has mentioned the fact that that review was not tabled, but the review that this current government has now published essentially picks up most of the issues that were being grappled with by my government.
It is in that context that I support the minister and the statement. I support the government in what they are doing in improving procurement in the Northern Territory. I hope that the new structures being put in place work well, and are seen to be working well by the industry - those who are involved in this business on a day to day basis. I look forward to seeing the further reports on this issue from the minister.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Mr Acting Speaker, I would like to thank all members who have taken part in what is a very important area of government: the $750m a year of government procurement that finds its way into and ripples right through the economy.
Everyone in this House would agree that procurement is always going to be contentious. There is always going to be an element of division because, at the end of the day, there are winners and losers in any government procurement. As is obvious, there are always more losers than there are winners in this process. There are always going to be issues of complaints to be dealt with; of people who feel that they have been hard done by and allegations, whether they are warranted or not, of favouritism, nepotism, even – and I am not making these allegations – of corruption.
We are all members of parliament and we hear these calls. I suppose they are amplified because the Territory is such a small place. We have a fairly small economy and, basically, everyone knows everyone in the Northern Territory. So it is a contentious area of government.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his general support for the reforms. These reforms are overdue. Time will tell whether they are effective. At the end of the day, it is the perception out in the business community that really matters here, that government procurement is open and transparent and that contracts are awarded on a ‘value for money’ basis. If we have broad perception amongst our business community that we have achieved an open, transparent and ‘value for money’ process, then the job will have been done. However, it is going to take a while for these things to be worked through.
It has been a huge job of work. Within government itself, out of our 14 000 public servants, we have thousands of people with delegation to spend money on behalf of government. Every time a public servant makes a purchasing decision outside of the public sector with the business community, someone in that business community benefits. The fact is that of the public servants who have delegation to spend money at various levels, very few have been trained in regard to their responsibilities for government procurement under the Procurement Act. That is the real challenge. It is not that public servants are acting irresponsibly; the fact is they have not had training. The key part of these reforms is training within the public sector so that people understand their responsibilities, and can more accurately determine the potential cost of the purchase to government, whether it is goods or services.
The member for Greatorex today produced a list of 14 tenders that have been cancelled. I will go through the exercise and follow this up with my colleague, the Minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Environment. A number of those will have been cancelled because the bids that have come in after the tenders have closed would be in excess of what the department has probably budgeted for. People have said: ‘Crikey, we cannot afford this’, or ‘Something else has to slip if we are to manage the budget allocation’. That goes to show a lack of training and planning within the public sector in regard to the procurement process.
Every year in Cabinet - and the Opposition Leader will be aware of those processes - ministers go in and fight among themselves for the capital works programs for our agencies. Agencies get a capital works allocation, a minor new works allocation, and a repairs and maintenance allocation. There has been very little by way of structures within those agencies to actually plan the roll-out of those allocations on a year-to-year basis. That is why we see, consistently - and it has been happening for many years - underspending by agencies, particularly the big agencies, in terms of infrastructure planning, where an allocation is made but, as a result of lack of resources, training and planning, the allocation does not get spent that year because the processes are not in place in government.
It is a bit like the QEII, or a great big oil tanker. It is going to take a while to turn this ship around and achieve better outcomes. I am committed, as procurement minister, to do that and drive these reforms through government.
I will pick up on a couple of comments from the Leader of the Opposition. I do not know exactly where he was going regarding Chinatown. However, if there was any allegation of anything other than delays on that project, for whatever reasons, the Auditor-General, in his October 2003 report that was just handed down in parliament last week, certainly does not find any fault in the process. The fact that, subsequent to that, early on in government when the building construction industry was in a bit of crisis, we had developed new guidelines and policy for the purchase of office space, he certainly stands by the role of the probity auditor throughout this process. I am not sure where the Opposition Leader was heading to there, but I would urge him to read the Auditor-General’s report.
On the issue of the Traeger Park lights, I did speak to the Leader of the Opposition about this at a function on Friday. We are looking into that issue. As in a lot of cases, we have members from the business community complaining to ministers about decisions in procurement. On the face of it, they seem to be justifiable concerns. However, when you backtrack through the process, normally there are very genuine reasons why a decision has gone one way or the other. The issue here is the perception of an open, transparent and ‘value for money’ process that has to be dealt with. Also, an adequate and thorough debriefing process for failed tenderers, if they choose to avail themselves, so they really understand why they missed out on the job. They can then walk away from that debriefing process a bit wiser in terms of why they lost, and how they can be more competitive the next time around. I advise the Opposition Leader that I have asked questions in regards to that particular tender, because we do need case studies and case matters to ensure that reforms actually do what they are set out to do.
On the issue of the school-based procurement, I say to members opposite that it is great when you are in opposition and pick up on an issue and run with it and get a bit of traction; that is what opposition is about. It was a finely judged and balanced decision. Again, the opposition would know, for many years complaints amongst the business community, particularly small business, were that they do not get a look-in with regards to school-based procurement. They were complaints that were levelled at the previous government loud and clear when Bob Truman chaired the procurement review.
They were issues that came through again. The argument from the business community - and the opposition, as conservatives, are supposed to be the champions of small business - is that school-based procurement is public procurement; it is done with public money, and why don’t schools have to follow the same procurement legislation, guidelines and practices as other departments? On the face of it, it is a pretty fair question to ask. I refer the opposition - and I am sure the Opposition Leader may have been there – to the forum, earlier on in the government, that was convened by the president of the Small Business Association in Darwin. Mr Braedon Early - somebody everybody in this parliament would be aware of - is president and invited the Chief Minister and me to attend the forum at one of the major hotels here. There were a couple of hundred people, and there was and open question time. One of the questions that came from a small business in the Mall was: ‘Why are schools allowed to purchase books and stationery interstate without testing the local marketplace and purchasing through businesses in the Territory?’ On the face of it, a very good question.
That has to be balanced with the autonomy under devolution for school councils to be able to run their own affairs. We are a government that is not too proud to say that, if we make a decision and it has gone the wrong way, we will listen to the chord of public opinion and change that decision. That is what we have done in the way of saying to schools: ‘If you want to, and you have the capacity, then you can make those purchasing decisions in regard to expenditure less than $150 000’. However, expenditure over $150 000 is significant, and it is vital that, in the best interests of value for money, a quality product and ensuring that we are testing the marketplace, that purchasing in excess of $150 000 of public money should be done through the procurement process. However, it will certainly be done with full collaboration, input and sign-off from the schools concerned regarding those capital works.
For members opposite to say - I have just had a project at one of my schools, Leanyer School, completed; a $1.2m project. There was collaboration with DIPE there, because the school could not handle a project of that size. However, they had enormous amounts of input in commissioning and signing-off on the design, and that will continue to happen. I understand the politics of all of this but, for the opposition to run around and send letters off to school councils and say basically: ‘We are going to come in and run it all for you’ – well, I just warn them that there are many people in the business community who thought that that reform was long overdue. It was done with the best interests of trying to ensure robust purchasing, and equal opportunity for all businesses in the Northern Territory to be able to have a slice of the significant amount of purchasing that comes through our schools.
Many members contributed to the debate. I am very keen to meet, for the first time next week, the government Procurement Council. Again, to go through the make-up of that, this is the first time where government has said to the private sector - these are people who are the vital stakeholders in all of this - ‘We want you to form a government Procurement Council, where the council will be dominated by the private sector - six from the private sector, two from the public sector. You will report directly to me as minister for procurement, and you will have self-referencing powers’. Talk about transparency! This has never occurred before, where we are saying to the private sector, in an effort to breach and break through the perception of a lack of accountability and transparency: ‘We are opening our books up to you. You have self-referencing powers to be able to look at any area of government procurement that you wish, and we will provide the secretariat to you for that’.
I will also have the opportunity to task that council. We are meeting for the first time next week. The council will elect its chair next week - and not a chair or a council that has been appointed by the minister. We actually went out and sought expressions of interest from the business community. Ultimately, it is my choice, but we did go public for expressions of interest, and we have tried to achieve a balance on the council in the different sectors of business and industry, as well as regional representation.
I am very pleased to have been able to announce the members of that council being:
Graeme Townes, director of engineering design firm Townes Chappell Mudgway. Graeme is well respected
in that sector of the engineering design community;
in government. She understanding how government procurement works, and is a keen participant, in initiatives
she gives in terms of government policy for economic growth;
she was the first manager and operations director – I am not sure of her specific title – at the Alice Springs
Convention Centre. She did an enormous amount of work in initial bookings for the convention centre, and is a
woman of great capability;
enterprises because an enormous amount of public money is spent in Aboriginal communities. What we want to
see as an outcome from that expenditure, as well as quality and value for money, is the capacity for local employment
on those indigenous communities, and indigenous enterprises starting up on those communities that can bid for
government contracts and see that money stay in those communities, employing Aboriginal people in real jobs.
It is very important that we have somebody from the indigenous community on this council, and it is great to see
William putting his hand up.
economy. It is great that the ICT industry has come together as an industry sector, as a result of the first ICT forum
that was convened by my colleague, the ICT minister, and me last year. My colleague has just led a very successful
delegation to Singapore and it is vital that we have that sector represented on this group.
the CAL Board. Again, he is someone who has a great deal of vision and understanding about business in the Territory.
This is a very strong group. The public sector membership is: Jennifer Prince, our Under Treasurer, and CEO of the procurement area; and Sarah Butterworth, the CEO of DCIS.
That is a very formidable group. I know, from speaking to some of those members, that they cannot wait to get on with the job and really understand government procurement and contribute some very solid advice on where things need improvement and how they can be improved.
Another issue is the Procurement Review Boards. Currently, we have five boards across the Northern Territory. There has been some allegation and scaremongering that, because we have gone from five down to two - a board in Darwin and a board in Alice Springs - that somehow we have withdrawn decision-making from those regional communities. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Under the existing structures the Katherine, Tennant Creek and East Arnhem boards only saw procurement decisions under, I believe, $250 000 in those areas. When you wash through it all, the value of purchasing that they had any say on at all was 2% in Tennant Creek, around 6% in Katherine, and the figure for East Arnhem escapes me. Essentially, they had no say or oversight of contracts and tenders that were let for those regions.
The fact is now, with bigger procurement review boards in Darwin and Alice Springs, and a representative from the Katherine region on the Darwin board, and a representative from the Tennant Creek region on the Alice Springs board, there will be regional representation on those boards that will oversight 100% of the purchasing in those regions, and will contribute very strongly to those boards. That is a significant move.
It is October Business Month and we are running a series of Meet the Government Buyer expos across all regions in the Northern Territory. The most amazing statistic that came to me as procurement minister – and it is still quite amazing – is that 80% of all purchases made by government during the year are for amounts less than $3000 - single purchasing amounts. In terms of the volume of purchasing, 80% of it is less than that figure. Under the Procurement Act, for purchases of less than $3000 there is no competitive process; it is, basically, a single quote and a transaction. If you are in business and you do not know who the people are in government who are making those decisions, you have no capacity to access and be able to put your case about the goods and services that you can supply.
These Meet the Government Buyer expos are about putting government procurement people out there for business people to have access to, to be able to make their pitch regarding the value of goods and services. We will also be putting government purchases on the Internet, agency by agency, so that people can access them. That is a huge reform and one that is being well supported by the business community.
These reforms are significant. On the whole, I believe members do support them. I am certainly keen to come back into this House in 12 months or so and update people on how they are going. I move that the House takes note of the statement.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Heritage Legislation Review
Heritage Legislation Review
Dr BURNS (Environment and Heritage): Mr Acting Speaker, I want to talk about an issue that is of material importance to all Territorians: the cultural heritage of the Northern Territory; those historic and significant places and things that give the Territory its unique character.
In making this statement, I want to firstly touch on existing processes for heritage conservation, and the action taken to conserve our heritage over the last 10 or so years. I will then focus on the value of heritage conservation to our sense of identity and economic wellbeing. Finally, I will outline the major issues associated with the review of the Heritage Conservation Act so that we can leverage even greater benefits from conserving our heritage assets.
The previous government introduced heritage legislation to the Territory in the 1990s, making the Territory the second last place in Australia to have heritage legislation. Since then, much has been done to save the special character of the Territory, but there is much that remains to be done.
It will not come as a surprise to members that, in other states, heritage legislation often came about after loss of a significant popular iconic building. In Queensland, heritage legislation arose from the public outrage following the midnight demolitions of the Cloudlands Ballroom and the Bellevue Hotel in Brisbane.
Here in the Territory, sadly, we lost our special place seven years after our Heritage Conservation Act was passed. I have not yet met a single Territorian who, when talking about the Hotel Darwin, does not lament its loss as a great shame. The loss of a place like the Hotel Darwin has to make us pause for thought. How did it come to pass that a place as well established, as well loved, as integral to the streetscape of the capital city of the Northern Territory, could be destroyed in the dead of night?
Prior to the election, the Labor Party announced that it was committed to improving the processes that protect and conserve the Territory’s heritage. Today, I wish to foreshadow that I will shortly be releasing a public discussion paper that canvasses a variety of ways the Territory might improve the protection of our heritage. The Martin government is keeping that promise.
Experience shows that the current heritage regime in the Territory: firstly, is highly centralised; secondly, invests a great deal of power in the minister; thirdly, has a lengthy and rather complex procedure for registration of heritage places; and fourthly, has limited provision for interim protection of places under threat.
The review of the Heritage Conservation Act will look at heritage protection and conservation models from around Australia to see how these issues are dealt with elsewhere. This is an opportunity to take the best that Australia has to offer and craft it into a tailor-made heritage system for the Territory. This public discussion paper will form the centrepiece of a process of consultation with all Territorians, and will seek their views on heritage and what it means to them.
As the minister for Heritage, I am strongly of the view that we have come to a watershed in the conservation of the Territory’s heritage. During the last 12 years, many places that are quintessentially Territorian have been protected on the NT Heritage Register: Andado on the edge of the Simpson Desert; Flynn of the Inlands Grave; the Adelaide River Railway Station; East Point fortifications; and the Alcoota fossil deposit. In all, there have been 181 declarations spread across the Territory. Of these, 46% are in Darwin and the Top End; 34% are in Alice Springs and Central Australia; and 20% are in the Katherine and Tennant Creek districts, including the townships of Borroloola and Timber Creek.
Our heritage is spread widely across the Territory, and includes residences, mines, railway features, Aboriginal sites, military places, pastoral places, graves and parts of the Overland Telegraph Line. Territorians deserve credit for protecting these important components of the Territory’s environment but, as I said earlier, it is the places that have not been protected that we need to look at. These are the test of the system.
Some of the places that did not make it onto the register under the former government include the Hotel Darwin; the former nurses quarters on Lambell Terrace; the ‘Z-Special’ training area at East Arm; Hughes Airfield; and the Stella Maris complex. It beggars belief that, after having being recommended for declaration by the Heritage Advisory Council, the Hughes Airfield, the most intact World War II bomber airfield in the Northern Territory, and Stella Maris, a place as redolent of the character and history of seafaring in Darwin, could have been rejected by the minister of the day. Some would even say it is an outrage. These are places of great importance to the Territory and I take this opportunity of informing the House that I will be referring these places - the ones still standing at least …
Mr Baldwin: It is about time.
Dr BURNS: … back to the Heritage Advisory Council for review and advice about their heritage values. I will pick up on the interjection from the member for Daly. This is no laughing matter; this is very serious.
Mr Baldwin: I am not laughing.
Dr BURNS: You could have fooled me.
It is not enough, however, to merely review the places that have not been protected. We also need to review the process that provides for a minister, on a whim if you like, to decide not to protect a place against the advice of his Heritage Advisory Council. More than that, we need to review an act that has been changed so that a minister can destroy a place that has already been given heritage protection. I will repeat that, because this is actually a very crucial paragraph, and it needs to be emphasised on the record. More than that, we need to review an act that has been changed so that a minister can destroy a place that has already been given heritage protection.
I am referring here to the amendments made following the case of the former Alice Springs Gaol. In that incident, the minister for Heritage at the time determined that the gaol had to be demolished despite that it was heritage listed. Fortunately, the people of Alice Springs protested. I am sure my colleague, the member for Stuart, well remembers the Alice Springs community coming together, and many of Alice’s senior citizens mounting nightly vigils outside the gaol to ensure it was not knocked over in the dead of night. With support of the National Trust, court action was launched and the minister was found to be acting beyond his power - and the gaol remains today.
The story does not end there. What did the CLP then do? They changed the act so that the minister was provided with the power to destroy something that was declared a heritage place. It is matters like this that I believe will be central to the review of the Heritage Conservation Act.
We need our heritage places to understand the history that has made the Territory great, and has led to the achievements that we are so proud of. It also causes us to reflect upon the things that show that, like us, our ancestors were far from perfect, and sometimes did things that we are not so proud of. Importantly, our heritage places are a contributing part of our economy. Many of them have been contributing to that economy for over 100 years, and continue to do so.
It is clear that any heritage regime needs to be cognisant of the economic realities of the Territory. While it is fair to say that conserving heritage is perceived by many to be a cost that we can ill afford, the reality is that no development project in the Northern Territory has been stopped by the presence of a heritage site. The construction of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway had the potential to impact upon 125 heritage sites, including Aboriginal quarries and historic features. ADrail worked closely with the Office of Environment and Heritage to ensure that the railway had minimal impact on the Territory’s heritage places. They employed an archaeologist on staff to implement the mitigation and conservation works - the first time a development company in the Northern Territory has employed a heritage expert as staff. The level of cooperation between the Heritage Advisory Council, Office of Environment and Heritage, and ADrail, allowed for the issues to be worked through to achieve the best outcomes which were, firstly, conservation of the Territory’s heritage and, secondly, completion of a $1.2bn infrastructure project that will fundamentally change the Territory forever.
Notable among the successes of this project was the realignment of the track at Adelaide River to allow the retention of two of the three sets of rail from the old North Australia Railway. Let us not forget the Fergusson River Bridge – over 100 years old, it has been re-used by the new railway; a metaphor, perhaps, for our heritage: carrying our economic future. I would like to take this opportunity to thank ADrail, the company and the individuals, who worked so hard to conserve the Territory’s heritage.
The ConocoPhillips LNG plant at Wickham Point has also required a great deal of interaction between the Heritage Advisory Council, the Office of Environment and Heritage, and ConocoPhillips. Firstly, a sound process was established under the environmental management plan. This provided for the conservation, including fencing and avoidance of some sites, and the careful salvage, excavation and collection of sites where this was not possible. Prehistoric shell middens and historic World War II materials have been documented in detail in one of the largest heritage projects in the Territory for more than a decade. Again, the goodwill of ConocoPhillips and the hard work of the Office of the Environment and Heritage should be recognised, and I thank them for their efforts.
I know that there are officers of the Office of the Environment and Heritage here today, so it is good that they are able to hear first-hand that commendation. I am sure members from both sides will join me in that.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS: In large projects and small, the government and the Heritage Advisory Council have worked to ensure that valuable economic projects can proceed, while conserving the values of heritage places. This has often required innovation, lateral thinking and clever approaches to the adaptation of historic features; a task that seems to me peculiarly and appropriately suited to Territorians.
Heritage has not stopped development in the Territory, but more than simply not being an impediment to our economy, it is our view that the Territory’s unique heritage actually contributes to it. As Tourism Minister, I am acutely aware of the significant contribution that our heritage plays in shaping the experience of tourists and visitors to the Territory. We now that, in 2001-02, tourism contributed over 15 000 jobs and over $2bn to the Territory economy. Tourism contributes 4.9% to the Territory’s GSP, the largest percentage of any Australian jurisdiction. We also know that 45% of holiday visitors to the Territory visit our heritage places, even though they were not all aware of them before they arrived here. The Tourist Commission reports that 54% of holiday visitors see Aboriginal cultural places and view Aboriginal art sites during their Territory trip, and 27% of overseas tourists specifically come here to experience the rich Aboriginal cultural heritage of the Northern Territory.
The Northern Territory Tourism Strategic Plan 2003-07 states that there is a need to develop alternative attraction to the icons that are currently the backbone of this industry. The strategy states that heritage is one of the primary motivators for visiting and says:
- It is essential … that a true commitment be made to … conserving the unique cultural and natural values
present in the Northern Territory.
Cultural tourism is recognised in the strategic plan as one of the two major building blocks for the Territory’s tourism future.
There is no question that one of the major tourism assets of the Territory is its heritage - whether environmental, cultural or both. Whilst this heritage may not always be grand, it has something far more important than grandeur alone: authenticity. For example, we have the features created over countless generations by Aboriginal people who have lived in this very place and left their marks, art sites, camp sites, quarries and tools. Few peoples on the Earth have been blessed with a heritage like that, of today’s Territorians. Visitors to the Territory know it and see it for it is; it is the real deal.
Of course, Aboriginal cultural heritage is not only about tourism numbers. It is not only about the great contribution cultural tourism makes to our Territory; it is about protecting an important part of the social fabric of the Territory. To protect that social fabric, we have to recognise our very diverse heritage and be prepared to conserve them through an effective Heritage Conservation Act.
In a recent study of regional economic impacts of tourism in heritage mining towns, it was found that visitors value authenticity and historic heritage very highly. They do not want razzle-dazzle. What they do want is good information and an opportunity to explore and understand at their own pace. Interestingly, visitors to these places were also enthusiastic to determine whether or not the places they were looking at were heritage listed and protected.
Where else in Australia can people see the whitewashed church in which our Albert Namatjira was taught about Christ, visit the house he lived in, or the ranges he painted so vividly? Where else in Australia can people see a war memorial that was actually shot at and bombed by enemy planes? Where in Australia can people see the remains of the busy campsites of World War II - the airstrips, the crashed planes and fortifications? There is nowhere else but the Territory where these opportunities present themselves. However, in order to realise the opportunity we have to conserve these things. No one will be interested in a brass plaque saying: ‘Here once stood the Hotel Darwin. It was a really great place’.
With this in mind, I am pleased to announce that I have already declared two places that are important contributors to the special character of the Territory. Firstly, Strauss Airstrip that was built in 1942 to accommodate a small group of brave men and their aircraft from the US, Britain and southern Australia. Strauss was one of three fighter airstrips protecting the Top End from Japanese raids that penetrated as far inland as Katherine. Strauss and the other two roadside airstrips were the sharp end of the war in Australia and, while it has suffered much over the last 60 years, it remains the most intact fighter strip we have left. It is clearly a place of great significance to the Territory and the to the nation. Strauss well deserves its place in the Northern Territory Heritage Register, and I will be taking steps to ensure that its heritage values are conserved.
The second one relates to another site. In contrast to Strauss Airstrip, the former Reserve Bank in Bennett Street represents a time when the Territory’s future looked rather brighter than it did in early 1942. Built by the bank under the leadership of the legendary Nugget Coombs, it was designed to be an important landmark and a statement of the central role the Reserve Bank was to have in Australian society. By reflection, it enhanced the city, it was built in and completed the encirclement of bank corner, occupied by Westpac, Commonwealth and Commercial Banks. The Reserve Bank is a noted example of late 20th century stripped classical style of architecture and continues to serve an important function as the base of the United Nations’ operations in East Timor.
This brings the number of places declared as part of the Northern Territory Heritage in 2003 to 11, and I look forward to receiving more recommendations from the Heritage Advisory Council.
I have talked about visitors to the Territory having the opportunity to enjoy the unique heritage experiences, but I want to make it clear that we do not conserve the heritage for visitors alone. We need to cater for people who live here now and who will be living here in the future. Our heritage places need to be available for future Territorians, and planning for that growth has to start now. Nor did our heritage begin in the last two centuries.
Aboriginal cultural heritage is addressed through the Heritage Conservation Act, while the protection of sacred sites is delivered through the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Site Act. Aboriginal places are under-represented on the Heritage Register and I have, therefore, asked the Heritage Advisory Council to look closely at the provisions of the act which protect Aboriginal cultural heritage. I have instructed the council to make sure that any new heritage bill will protect Aboriginal cultural heritage, not only out bush, but in towns as well. The council will also look at who owns and controls cultural heritage. People make our heritage and people will be the best conservers of our heritage places.
As Territorians, we need to make sure we have the best regime possible for protecting our heritage. In developing any scheme for its conservation, we must consider some specific issues. We need to consider the following:
we need to be clear about what aspects of our heritage are important and make sure they
are protected;
where they are most needed;
wider heritage of the Territory;
and understand it; and
but that does not mean that we cannot find a modern use for them and retain their heritage values.
The review of the Heritage Conservation Act will begin this process.
It would be wrong of me to conclude without making mention of the Territorians who are working to conserve our heritage, from Nguiu on Bathurst Island to Aputula on the Finke, from Angurugu on Groote Eylandt to Timber Creek. They are committed Territorians who are working hard to conserve the heritage of their regions.
As a government, we have been working to help people with professional advice and encouragement. The government also provides financial assistance to those seeking to protect and conserve our heritage through the NT Heritage Grants Program. However, it is a legislated heritage regime that really supports the work being done in our communities. Our communities need to know that they have an open and transparent process, and that they have an opportunity to have constructive input into conserving our heritage. We take this seriously, and the discussion paper I foreshadowed has been developed with the valuable input of 25 key interest groups. We have also engaged Australia’s foremost heritage legislation consultant, Mr Peter James, to examine how these issues are dealt with elsewhere, and to ensure that we get the most appropriate model for the Territory. It is worth noting that Mr James, a man of over 30 years experience in these matters both in Australia and overseas, personally commended the review process and told me it was the very best of its kind he has seen.
It is, therefore, with some considerable pleasure that I will be releasing this public discussion paper, as it is now time to hear from the wider community. I anticipate that the discussion paper will be available for public comment within the next month. By referring members in the community to the discussion paper, I want to encourage all interested Territorians to read and comment on how the legislative regime can best help them. The more widely these matters are discussed, the better the final outcome for all of us.
With an appropriate legislative framework, highly motivated organisations and individuals, and an absolute commitment to authenticity, I am confident that we can secure the Territory’s heritage, preserving the past for the benefit of future generations.
Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of this statement.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Mr Acting Speaker, I thank the minister for this statement today on the heritage legislation review and the details that he has outlined about the review. I look forward to the discussion paper when it is available.
I would have thought, though, that having done this today, the discussion paper might have been available. I note that it is going to come out some time in the future, but it is a shame that it is not here today to put together with this announcement.
I congratulate the minister for bringing Mr Peter James on board. He will provide good leadership in this whole process. I also acknowledge all the people who he is working with on the review.
What came down today in tabled papers, as the minister was speaking, was the Heritage Advisory Council’s 11th Annual Report. It is quite timely that that came. Even though you do not have your discussion paper, we have the latest report. However, unfortunately, minister, you will note - as I am sure you know already, because you sign off on these coming for tabling - that the 11th annual report is the 2001-02 report. It is now 2003. Normally, the 2002-03 report would be signed off as soon as practicable. It says in the act that it would be tabled in this parliament. In fact, when you get it - I think the act says, from memory - you have six sitting days to table it. I note in this report that Mr Bob Alford, who is the chairman, signed this off 6 February 2003. Therefore, one has to wonder how long you have had this report. The act does require you to table it in this House within six sitting days, so you might want to go and check on that; have your officers have a look. As I say, this is a report that is now over a year old. However, it is still quite interesting.
The minister takes much delight through his statement in criticising the former government, the CLP, for all the things they did, and did not do, and that is fine. We expect that of this Labor government. However, some of the things that we did do - certainly heritage and heritage assessment and conservation - stand us in good stead. Things like the financial assistance grants program, which was initiated under the CLP. The Northern Territory Heritage Grants Program has been continued by the Labor government, which is good to see. Always in need, usually - or I would say probably always - more demand than supply, like most grant processes. There are people out there who are always looking for money to do things in terms of heritage.
The philosophy of re-use of heritage objects is still one that is fundamental to the government's philosophy and is good to see. The incentive package that is available to people who own heritage-listed objects, including buildings, of course, where you can ask for rate relief, is still being progressed and used, as far as I know. The Pre-Heritage Advisory Service to be used by owners of heritage places is a very good strategy and program that I believe, at least for the rate relief, has taken up something like 100%. The Heritage Advisory Service is also very critical to the preservation and conservation of our heritage.
The minister talks about all sorts of things in the statement, but the thrust of it is the review. Like all things, legislation and the way things are done needs to be reviewed. The minister has thrown up a number of issues where he would like to see changes. Certainly, that is government’s prerogative. I would just note though that the minister used the example of the Alice Springs Gaol as an area where the minister’s powers are too strong. That may be correct in the way the minister thinks, but there will come some time when the minister or the government will wish to do some things that will require some extraordinary powers. How you deal with that is up to you, and I guess that is thrashed out in the discussion paper. That is why it is unfortunate that it is not here today.
However, let us look at the case of the Wesleyan Church, for example. You might think that that was the wrong decision by government as well; to remove the Wesleyan building because it was no longer a church in the eyes of the particular church group that owned it. Certainly that was listed, not only as an object, but as a place. I had to de-list that, if you like, and remove it. However, that was after a long period of consultation, and after trying to negotiate with all the stakeholders involved, including the Heritage Advisory Council. I went through that process to get permission to remove that building and preserve it at some place. They did not agree with the government of the day’s intent, and that is fair enough; they gave their advice.
However, the simple fact of the matter was that the owners of the land and the building had no wish to conserve it. In fact, we listed it at the time - declared it listed; made a declaration over it - because they were not maintaining it and wanted to destroy it. That was quite some years beforehand. So, I negotiated with all of the parties and the eventual outcome is what we see today, of course, and that is the development on Knuckey Street worth some tens of millions of dollars - some would say at the cost of the heritage value of that building and that place. They would be right; there is no doubt about it. This is the fine balance you get into in the decisions you have to make.
Fortunately though, there was an opportunity that I was able to negotiate with some funding from the owners and proponents to relocate that building, and have it properly restored with advice from architects who were suitably qualified and the Department of Heritage people. It is now a great facility, albeit not in its original place - but still conserved and preserved for all to see, because it is a historic building. It is my understanding only two of those types of buildings were produced in Australia. They were produced by the man who went on to make - God, I am searching now …
Ms Carter: Simpson.
Mr BALDWIN: Simpson washing machines. I think of Whirlpool, Simpson. Anyway, they were made fully prefabricated and one sent to the Territory and one elsewhere that has since been destroyed. Therefore, as a type of building, a type of construction, it was certainly worth protecting. We all in this House know the state it was in prior to government and me becoming involved in relocating it and having it preserved. Unfortunately, the site which was the site of the first church - I think it was - in Darwin is now built on, but that was the will of the owners of the day and, all in all, a practical solution.
There are times when the minister or the government really needs to have an extraordinary power. How you wish to do that - whether it has to go through the planning process or something like that - that is fine; you can change how you do it. However, at the end of the day you will find that you want to keep an extraordinary power. Perhaps you do not, I do not know. You will find, in time, there will be - and I can name a few buildings here in Darwin that could find themselves with a similar fate if you were not able to use some extraordinary power.
Minister, you also made reference to when the Heritage Advisory Council refers or recommends something to you for declaration, and the minister does not declare it. There is good reason for doing that in the eyes of the government or the minister of the day, and you might come across it yourself. In fact, you may already have come across it because I notice in this report that, when we get to places not declared, the minister chose not to declare Talc Head, recommended for declaration by the HAC:
- The minister was of the view that interpretation was a more appropriate mechanism by which the heritage
values of the site could be recognised and communicated to the public.
I am assuming that was you who did not take up that recommendation in declaring Talc Head, because I cannot recall – and I will stand corrected if I am wrong – that one in particular coming to me. Given that this is a report that goes from July 2001 to June 2002, there is only a short period in there when I probably was the minister. I doubt that one actually came to me. My assumption in that is that you, minister, chose not to declare Talc Head. Therefore, it is all very well making references to previous ministers, but perhaps you have to sometimes look a little closer to home.
Much has been said about Hotel Darwin in this House and everywhere – and I am sure many more speakers will mention it …
Ms Lawrie: As we should.
Mr Kiely: You bet on it. Unless you apologise now. I will pull all my stuff if you apologise.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BALDWIN: I am sure that you will. You should realise that, in declaring heritage places that – and it is not mentioned in the minister’s statement anywhere – there is one other factor that comes into consideration. That is the owners of the building. They must be taken into consideration and, I am sure, minister, when you are given recommendations, that that is one thing that you check on. Well, I hope you do, because it is important that you take into consideration the wishes of the owners and weigh them up against the interest of the Territory.
We can argue about this all day but, in terms of the Hotel Darwin, there were a couple of engineering reports done on that: one by the heritage people, one by the owners, both conflicting. The owners were adamant that they wanted to get rid of the building because of the problems that the building was suffering, because of the type of construction – and that is the way it was. It was not heritage listed and sure, people do not agree. However, that was the owners’ choice and my power was whether I could put an interim control order over it. I could have, but we chose not to because of the wishes of the owners. They were the same people who built it that currently own it today. So, you have to, at times, take them into consideration. You will find there is a particular building in Darwin that you might have been told about, minister, because most Heritage ministers are – if you are getting the right advice and I know you are, because you have very good staff in the department – that you will keep an eye on always because of the potential for that to disappear if an interim control order is not used in a ready fashion.
The minister talks about listing a couple of places that he is very proud to list. I note that he says that he has declared 11 places this year, and that is very good. One of the places mentioned for listing that he is looking at is, I thought - was Strauss Airstrip that you …
Mr Burke: Hughes.
Dr Burns: No, Strauss.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, Strauss Airstrip. I thought that was the one that you wanted to put the highway through, so we can talk on one hand …
Ms Lawrie: Your federal mates, get it right. It is the Commonwealth.
Dr Burns: Your Mr Anderson wants to do that.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BALDWIN: I thought with a little money, you could divert that highway …
Dr Burns: It is a national highway!
Ms Lawrie: Ask your mate Anderson.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BALDWIN: As the managers of that funding, you have a lot of say in what happens …
Dr Burns: We need an extra $1.2m.
Mr BALDWIN: I will pick up on that interjection. If you are so concerned about the heritage value of Straus Airstrip, you will find a way; whether it is going back to the minister and making a bid. However, at the end of the day, if they say no, you will come up with the money because you are so concerned about Strauss, and I will be the first to congratulate you. I am sure the member for Nelson will be the first to congratulate the government for doing it, and I will be the second.
It is within your power. Therefore, do not come in here and say, on the one hand: ‘We are declaring this’, but on the other hand, ‘Woe betide, we have to put the highway through it because we cannot find a little money’. You have come in here today and talked about how much money you are spending on roads everywhere, and $1.2m or whatever it is nothing for the preservation of that heritage site.
Mr Kiely: Evidently $50 000 was too much for the Hotel Darwin.
Ms Carney: Careful, Len! You might say something you regret.
Mr BALDWIN: We expect, Mr Acting Speaker, to hear an announcement …
Dr Burns: I love you.
Mr Kiely: Misery, misery!
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BALDWIN: … an announcement pretty shortly …
Ms Carney: You make my skin crawl. You are so revolting.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Araluen!
Ms CARNEY: Mr Acting Speaker, the member for Sanderson has declared his love for me …
Mr Kiely: Oh, get out of it, Jodeen, I am a bloke!
Ms CARNEY: ...because that was a fairly remarkable statement, I could not resist commenting on it, Mr Acting Speaker.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Members for Araluen and Sanderson …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Acting Speaker! Let us get this right on the record. I made no such comment. She stands up here making accusations, making a total farce of this parliament with inane comments like that. You talk about points of order, let us get one on the record. Let us cut these inane comments and the trivial tripe that she carries on with.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Members for Sanderson and Araluen, that is it! Let us leave the member for Daly to complete his speech.
Mr BALDWIN: Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. Perhaps some of the members in the House need to go and open the windows, get a bit of fresh air into the place and cool down a bit. Moving right along …
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: I can hear another little voice over there, but I will not even register that one.
May I put on the record the good work - and the minister has mentioned this in the statement - that ADrail has done in that major project, the Alice to Darwin railway line, and minimising the impact on the Territory’s heritage in that project. It was an enormous project, as we know, that was going to impact in various ways. I know their employee who was looking after the conservation works worked very close with department officials to ensure that the impact was very low. I am not sure where anyone has a different belief, but from what I know, there has been very low impact apart from a few bits and pieces that appeared in the paper from time to time around Grove Hill and what have you.
In particular, I would like to put on the record the good work that was done around the old Adelaide River Railway Station and the old North Australian Railway lines at Adelaide River. In this aspect, you have to pay due respect to one Trevor Horman, who went out on a limb and probably made a nuisance of himself in some areas, with his will to ensure that the new railway line did not impact, or impacted as little as possible, on the heritage values that are contained in Adelaide River at the railway station and the old North Australian Railway line. What we have ended up with down there is a suitable compromise. I know Steve Sutton and others in the department have worked very closely with him, and there is now a conservation plan either being developed or in place and moneys flowing from grants to enable work to be done.
Whether or not the vision of the Friends of the Railway at Adelaide River have – and that is to have a rail connection from Adelaide River on the old NAR to Snake Creek Armament Depot – will succeed, who knows? There are a lot of hurdles to jump yet in access to the corridor, insurance, all of those technical things, not the least of which might be to have a train of their own. There has been a dispute of late over the locomotive that was based at Larrimah that is now at Pine Creek. There is a bit of bitterness between Adelaide River and Pine Creek in terms of that loco. However, the loco will be put to good use, I know, at Pine Creek, for the construction of their rail line, which is one of their major tourism proposals in development as we speak.
It was great to see ADrail and the rail proponents working very closely to ensure minimal impact. I know we will see good things out of ConocoPhillips, as good corporate citizens, to minimise any impact that might occur at Wickham Point with that oil and gas development.
I have mentioned Strauss and the 11 places that the minister has declared. I would like to make a point. I am very proud, as the former minister, in two years to have listed and declared 30 new places in the Northern Territory as heritage places. The minister makes quite a mention of Albert Namatjira’s church and the village. I was able to list Albert Namatjira’s memorial, house, the old Hermannsburg cemetery, the Hermannsburg historical village, as well as many more places. As I said, 30 of them, including the Darwin Cenotaph and Escape Cliffs. Most people think it is just objects that need to be declared, but many times it is places as well. I was able to do that in terms of places and I am proud of that.
I put out a newsletter to that effect, and it would be nice if the minister were to do something similar. A newsletter from time to time, so that we can see what it is that you are doing, rather than waiting for the annual report, would be a good idea from the minister’s office, and a good way to get your face back out in front of people. Probably not that you need it, because it seems to be in the paper a fair bit, for one reason or another.
I was trying to look up the Heritage Grants Program in the budget papers just as the minister was speaking - whether or not that has been maintained at an appropriate level. I believe it has been, which is good to see. As I said, that money is put to good use and there is never enough of it.
I commend the minister for bringing on the review. I will complete my comments with saying to the minister that I look forward to the discussion paper. I would like to see that discussion paper come in to this House for some debate, rather than just waiting for legislation to drop in here. It might be appropriate to point out that this is always what the Labor members used to call on when they were on this side of the House; that is, let us have some debate on framing the legislation. So, perhaps the discussion paper, once the comment period closes, could be brought in here, tabled as a statement and opened up for some debate prior to legislation being framed. That would be up to the minister to do. I know it is his prerogative to run the process in whatever way he wants. I look forward to a discussion paper, disappointing as it is that it is not here today. I certainly commend the minister for progressing the review.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Mr Acting Speaker, in an adjournment debate a few days ago, I spoke of the honour I had to attend the 75th commemoration of the Coniston Massacre.
As I mentioned, it happened at a place called Yukurru in the Warlpiri language and Brook’s Soak in English. Although he was not buried there, for a number of years a stone monument has marked the place where dingo trapper Fred Brooks was killed by some Warlpiri people. There is now a second marker, erected a couple of weeks ago, to commemorate the series of massacres that ensued, leading to the deaths of 100-odd Aboriginal people. Brook’s Soak is not on the Northern Territory Heritage Register, as perhaps might be expected of a place that marks such a pivotal moment in our shared history in the Territory. I got to thinking why this might be the case.
The Northern Territory Heritage Register, as has been explained by my colleague, the Minister for Environment and Heritage, is an important asset for the Northern Territory - important because of its value to the tourist industry but, more importantly, in the ways it helps us to understand our past. However, with all due respect for the work carried out previously by the Heritage Advisory Council, the Heritage Register as it currently exists does little to help understand the totality of the social, economic and political history of the Northern Territory.
There is a simple reason for this. Of the 175 declared heritage places and objects on the register, only nine could be said to be on the register because of primary Aboriginal connections to place. Of these, only two are in the Top End. Of the seven in the Centre, five are directly related to the old Hermannsburg mission at Ntaria and its most famous resident, the late Albert Namatjira. The registered sites at Hermannsburg - Namatjira’s house, the Namatjira memorial, the old Hermannsburg cemetery, the Hermannsburg historic village and the Kaporilja Springs - are undoubtedly of enormous importance to our histories here in the Northern Territory. But where is the rest of it? Two other sites in the Centre, the N’Dhala Gorge Nature Park at the Ewaninga Conservation Reserve, are similarly important; but in this case, for painting and rock engraving. The only two sites in the Top End are the mudbrick houses at Millingimbi and the Munmalary Homestead near Kakadu.
For the rest, officially recognised and registered indigenous heritage appears almost non-existent. I take issue with the former minister when he was patting himself on the back some moments ago. Although I am advised there are some 19 other Aboriginal-related sites that have been nominated, clearly the Heritage Register, as it has been administered in the past, has largely failed to reflect the indigenous history of the Northern Territory, let alone the interaction between indigenous and non-indigenous sites and objects. What we are talking about is what the anthropologist Deborah Bird Rose has referred to as ‘the Northern Territory’s hidden histories’; the stories that are not necessarily bound up in the built environment, contained in monuments, or gracefully ageing buildings.
I am thinking here about the beach at Rapid Creek, where people such as Robert Tudawali and Dexter Daniels held meetings to discuss equal rights in the 1960s. I am thinking about the bed of Gordy Creek where those who walked off Wave Hill Station dug for water on their way to Warnkut or Policeman’s Hole on the Victoria River, and thence to Daguragu. I am thinking here of Karu Park in Darwin, site of the former Retta Dixon Homes which the previous government bizarrely wanted to call Queen Mother Park. Retta Dixon Home, as you are aware was the place where many of the Stolen Generations were accommodated. I am thinking of the many histories - part of all our shared histories - that for so long have been ignored.
This is why I am so pleased that our government, with our minister, is taking heritage issues seriously, and pleased that the new approaches will not necessarily be so focussed on objects and the built environment. Beneath our buildings, roads, highways, and indeed now, beneath our railway, are countless thousands of other stories which all have heritage values and which are a part of the land we now share. Part of that, is the gift to our heritage here in the Territory of our many languages.
We should know, for example, that the low level crossing in Katherine also bears the name Gawutjwutjmar, and is associated with ideas of boiling and bubbling. Or that Knotts Crossing is also called Marndarpa, and it is associated with the travels of the left-hand kangaroo. We should be proud that the ways we name our country, in English, have counterparts in local indigenous languages, and we should celebrate this as part of our heritage. Uluru and Nitmiluk, for example, are now internationally recognised as names entirely unique to the Northern Territory. While names such as Katherine Gorge and Ayers Rock both have links in more recent history, these ancient names have a resonance with our heritage that are irreplaceable. Perhaps we should start thinking about this in more creative ways, both to badge the Northern Territory as an important destination for visitors, as well as to reflect our unique society here in the Territory. It is what makes the Territory and our way of life unique and what gives us a competitive edge in the marketplace. This is certainly recognised in centres such as Tennant Creek, where now local maps are produced giving the Warumungu names for many prominent sites around the town.
Things like this give all of us insights into the world around us that are far richer for knowing that the Northern Territory is a multi-layered landscape with a multi-layered heritage. It is for this reason, I believe, that the renewed approach to heritage legislation signalled by the minister is an important step ahead for the Northern Territory.
Before I conclude I just want to make some comments on the former minister, the member for Daly. Interestingly, because last week was my eighth year in this Chamber, I was witness to the debate. I was in this Chamber. I was here as the member for Arnhem when we had the debates over the amendments to the heritage legislation, as my colleague stated in his ministerial statement. I was also around and followed with interest, as most of us in opposition did, when the historical event happened - when the bulldozers went in just after midnight to bulldoze the Darwin Hotel. I tried to find out where the member for Daly, the former minister, was. Nowhere to be seen. The decision was made by his mate the former member for Katherine, Mike Reed. I have no doubt that they would have had a bit of a conversation like this: ‘Look, Tim, you had better go bush. You should go and hide. Pack your swag, take your wife, go and camp out bush for a couple days because, leave it to me, I will get the bulldozers organised, don’t you worry about that’ - a bit of Joh Bjelke-Petersen about him. And they sent in the bulldozers.
You can laugh, but if you go back and check the records, that is what I believe happened because he was nowhere to be seen. This member who prides himself on being a very good minister in the CLP government, went bush, with his tail between his legs, and left it up to the former member for Katherine to authorise the bulldozers and to do all the publicity - and a lot of bad publicity at that - at that point in time.
Whilst he can pat himself on the back for some of the things that he may have been able to successfully do, he certainly botched it in respect of the Hotel Darwin. People still talk about that today. People will never forget that. That was an icon. I was born and bred in the Territory and have lived in Darwin for 50-odd years. I remember it vividly, and I have fond memories of it. People who have been around for quite some time who have a passion for those types of buildings will never, ever forgive the member for Daly. I conclude by commending the minister’s statement to the House.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I am pleased to provide support to the minister’s statement.
The heritage legislation review is a good move. It is timely; the legislation has been around for a while. It will be great to have a look at it and have the community investigate it to see what changes ought to be made. We all acknowledge the importance of preserving our heritage, whether it be items, places or buildings.
Here in the CBD of Darwin, I can tell you that tourists really enjoy having a look at our older buildings. Our locals enjoy it, too. The more people who become committed to Darwin and the Territory - say, southerners who have come up, like many of us - the more interested they become in the Territory’s history. For those of us who become passionate about the Territory, it is when you start to learn about the history that you can understand how difficult it has been for people in the past to live in the Territory.
As I drive through the Territory from time to time, and look at the land around or occasionally get out of the car in the odd spots and go for a walk, makes me appreciate the Aboriginal people who were here many thousands of years; how they survived in the climate and landscape, and survived well. I recently had the absolute delight of going to visit a property on the Arnhem Highway – a friend of mine has bought some significant acreage there - and you could go into that property, up onto the top of a hill, and look out across the landscape and the rivers. While you were there it was no trouble at all - as the member for Blain was with me at the time - to have a scratch around and find arrow heads and things like that - cutting implements from our Aboriginal ancestors here.
It is all across the Territory, whether it is, for example, Lyons Cottage down the road here or out on a vast property, where you can find evidence of human endeavour and triumph. Maintaining and retaining our heritage is vital for us as we gain an understanding and appreciation of that, and put ourselves into the picture of life here in the Northern Territory.
Years ago, I went to the Northern Territory University and studied primary school teaching. There were many joys in that education experience, but one of them was that, as novice teachers, we were taken out on excursions because, when you are a teacher in an area and you are going to take your school kids on an excursion, you need to go to the places first to gain an understanding of them. It was in the light of that that we were being taught by our educators at NTU on how you would conduct a school excursion. I had spent probably a decade nursing here before and, quite frankly, really did not give much of a toss about the history of Darwin, I was just into nursing. However, it was at that point at NTU, because we had to study under some great lecturers anthropology, history and similar subjects, that we honed in on Territory history.
David Carment, who many of you will know and respect, was one of my lecturers there for several units, and it was through my interaction with people like him that I gained a passion for the heritage of the Northern Territory. I had some delightful excursions. I mentioned yesterday that one of them was to the leprosarium, and I am disappointed to hear that the buildings appears to have gone. Another great excursion was to the Pioneer Cemetery on Goyder Road, just near the Motor Vehicle Registry, and it was wonderful to learn about some of the characters who are buried there.
This sort of heritage is throughout the Northern Territory. This evening, we have had tabled in parliament the Heritage Advisory Council’s 11th Annual Report. By going through this report and the declared heritage places that we currently have in the Territory, you can see the vast range of places and types of things that have been declared. I will just read into the Hansard some of them to give people reading it an idea of the range of things that we have here.
We have the Adelaide River Pioneer Cemetery; Anzac Hill Memorial in Alice Springs; the Barrow Creek Telegraph Station; the Cape Don Lighthouse Complex; Daly Waters Aviation Complex; the Edgley Memorial Cemetery; Fannie Bay Gaol; the Gardens Road Cemetery; Harts Range Mica Mining Complex; Hermannsburg Historic Village; Katherine Railway Precinct; Lyons Cottage; the BAT House; Newcastle Waters Township; O’Keith House; the RAAF Explosives Storage Area; the silver bullets at Timber Creek School; the Tree of Knowledge; and World War II shipwrecks.
Therefore, you can see, just from picking out a few of those places, the huge range of the sorts of things that have been declared here in the Territory - ranging from a tree, to a building, to a cemetery. The sort of things we have is very vast.
One of the things that works against us in the Northern Territory with regards to retaining our heritage is our severe climate. It is very unfortunate that, from time to time – and, hopefully, very rarely - Darwin experiences severe cyclones. Although I was not living in Darwin before Cyclone Tracy, I am quite sure that a number of significant buildings would have been lost during that cyclone. It is a shame that these sort of things do happen. Fires would probably be a risk that some buildings face as well. Certainly, we will lose some from time to time.
As members know, my electorate is the electorate of Port Darwin. This is the area which was the second part of the Territory that was settled by European settlers. It has had a long, diverse human settlement, going back to the first Aboriginal people who lived in this area. The CBD, in which this building we are currently in is sited, is a very complex area of the Northern Territory, and it has some problems and issues arise, from time to time, with regard to heritage. The hidden situation, of course, is that, because it is the capital city of the Northern Territory, the land values in the CBD are very high - the highest in the Northern Territory. That means there is a great deal of competition for the use of that land, and that creates a clash of views and values.
We see this, and we will always see this, because there will be a constant pressure to change the use of any particular block of land. One day, probably hundreds and hundreds of years from now, there will be pressure to knock this building down and to build something else. We have all seen the futuristic movies like Blade Runner and things like that, which show an amazing metropolis of thousands of story buildings. You and I cannot look into the future of 1000 years from now, but who can say that that sort of thing will not be happening. There will always be pressure on the land, particularly in the CBDs, to have this change. That change will happen and must happen because of the pressures to use that land.
Despite the pressures - and they will be on right now, today, and we know that from what happened in town yesterday, and I will get onto that in a minute – this pressure will constantly be there from the various forces operating within our community to use that land for various purposes. However, often what is needed is compromise, and there are elements in the CBD of Darwin and in my electorate of Port Darwin that demonstrate that compromises have been made; that there is give and take. That is fantastic, because it would be heart-breaking to lose some of these things - in fact, any of the ones that I will now talk about.
We have the Old Town Hall across the precinct from here which was knocked down during Cyclone Tracy, and efforts have been made to salvage what is left of the Old Town Hall. From time to time, there are moves and encouragement given to either rebuild the Old Town Hall or to create a similar edifice in the vicinity so that people can see what it looked like. You would all be aware of the fantastic work that Allan Garraway and his family have done in literally building from scratch buildings at this end of Smith Street which reflect the character of that bygone era. The Old Town Hall ruins have been kept and they are fantastic. I am sure all of you have been to plays in the night time there. With the right spotlighting it creates a marvellous effect. I have been very pleased that, over the last couple of years, both the previous and current minister have been able to see fit to help retain those ruins.
A very dear person who will not be mentioned now, took the liberty after Cyclone Tracy - he told me this himself - of planting a banyan seed in the walls of the ruins. He thought it would make it look marvellous to have this old banyan tree growing with the roots going through the building. The end result, for those of you who may have seen it, is that the roots have now started to break up the brickwork of the remaining walls. It has been wonderful that the minister and the department, over the last year or so, have given permission and done work to literally kill that banyan tree because, quite frankly, it was a choice of either a marvellous crumbling ruin and eventually nothing left, or to save it. There have been steps made to kill the tree and preserve what we have left of those walls.
Lyons Cottage at the corner of Knuckey Street and the Esplanade, known also as the BAT, which was the British something Telegraph. It was the old Telegraph Station where the telegraph cable came in on the foreshore here; marvellously retained and restored. I used to live opposite there in the La Grande building for quite a few years, and you would always see a steady flow of visitors into the Lyons Cottage, enjoying the precinct and understanding more about how people lived here in the Territory in years gone by.
Government House across the road here - which I know is an environment that many of us enjoy when we are invited to functions there - is a marvellous structure that has that lovely atmosphere. I am sure many of us can imagine ourselves decked out in the attire of days of old with our long flowing dresses and wondering how on earth you would survive there. But, if you had to live in Darwin that would have obviously been the place to be. The various Administrators we have had over the years have done a marvellous job in keeping that building as it is. Of course, many of us enjoy going to an annual dinner which is very popular and raises money in working to preserve that house.
We also have the Administrator’s Office, which was severely damaged in Cyclone Tracy, beautifully restored and is a credit to the Territory and our history.
Similarly, we have Brown’s Mart. That also was severely damaged in Cyclone Tracy. It has some unusual structural additions - that is my personal view. However, it has been restored and is well utilised by the community.
Recently, there has been a fair bit of comment and concern over the Myilly Heritage Precinct. It has been wonderful to see that compromises have been met with the Commonwealth government on this issue. The very significant architectural structures there, the houses, are going to be preserved and kept on that precinct. I know that will be a relief to many people who have been involved in the discussions about whether or not that precinct was to be sold and, if it was to be sold to private enterprise, the concerns that raised.
Another area that we have here is the Commonwealth and Westpac Banks, and that is from a much more modern era. Members will be aware that that those buildings sustained significant damage during the bombings in World War II. Once again, they have been rebuilt and I am quite sure there would be an amazing hue and cry if anything were to happen to those really beautiful buildings - particularly the Commonwealth Bank with its art nouveau style. Another area is Chinatown, the shopfronts in Cavenagh Street. My father was here through World War II and tells some fairly colourful tales about the services that a young man could obtain in those buildings in the early 1940s. I hope it is his imagination - and it may well be - but I have photos of my father at those buildings years ago and he had big smile on his face.
This brings me to an issue that is very current. Admiralty House, as members know, is on the corner of Knuckey Street and the Esplanade. It is a building which was moved to that site in 1952, and there is a fabulous garden that surrounds the house. As members will know, this is the current contentious issue which would put the minister into the spotlight, just as previous ministers have been in the past. There has been permission given to build a 14-storey building on the site comprising offices and accommodation units. Additions and changes to that initial approval are currently before the public, and people can lodge objections to that before the 17 October, which is only a few days away.
Yesterday, a public meeting was held and about 30 people attended, which is a reasonable indication of a certain level of concern for a public meeting here in Darwin. At the meeting, a variety of views were expressed. One was to build the new development with a great deal of care and with consideration to Admiralty House, which members must be aware is to be preserved on that block as part of the current deal. Another view was to move Admiralty House. As I just said, Admiralty House has been moved before, and there is a view that it could be moved down to the Botanic Gardens and restored, just as the Wesleyan Church was, to commence a type of heritage precinct in that lovely setting. The other view expressed yesterday was to leave it well alone and to do nothing to the site except to maintain it and restore the house.
One of the concerns expressed was that the developer is currently unable to say how Admiralty House will be used once the new buildings have been built around it. That is concerning some people and it is important for the minister. I know the minister will be quite involved in this issue over the months to come. I am sure he will receive deputation from various people and groups on the issue. The type of people involved - and many of us know these people - are people who have a long-term passion and care for the history of Darwin. Naturally, they are concerned about Admiralty House; what will happen to it and how it will appear to people when they visit it when it is tucked in amongst a 14-storey office and unit building. In the future, I gather, there is also a proposal to build a hotel on the other side of it.
This is a very significant building and site; the site because of its historic gardens. These are the pressures that a minister in this particular area will face. My view is that, given that the development permit was issued by the current government on 8 April 2002 and, in the light of the minister’s chest beating today in the statement as to how good he will be, it will be very interesting to see how he handles what will be a very sensitive issue. We will all be watching it. I am sure all the members who expressed their passion with regard to Hotel Darwin will also be watching what sort of compromises are reached with regard to Admiralty House.
Speaking of compromise, the shadow minister, the member for Daly, spoke at length about the Wesleyan Church. I concur with the comments he made. As the local member at the time when this issue was well and truly hot, and as a local resident living opposite that site, it was an issue of great concern to me. I feel that the compromise that was reached - the moving of the building to the Botanic Gardens and the restoration of it there - has been a really wonderful compromise. It was in a very sad and sorry state where it originally stood. No one wanted to spend any money on it. To be able to move it down to the Botanic Gardens and to do significant restoration work on it – unfortunately, the white ants had had a lovely time for many years in there – has been a great outcome for this situation.
The final heritage site, but not by any means the least, because there are many in my electorate, I have not mentioned, is Christchurch Cathedral. It has had problems with its roof. I am hoping that next Wet Season we will not have the drips that came through - unfortunately, during George Brown’s funeral in the past Wet Season. Minister, I congratulate you on the statement and I wish you all the best with the review.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the Minister for Environment and Heritage’s statement on the review of the heritage legislation and congratulate him. It is about time that heritage legislation was reviewed. I served as the minister for Heritage for a period of time and am fully aware of the shortcomings of the legislation. The statement reflects the Martin Labor government’s commitment to recognising and preserving the cultural heritage of the Territory.
I am a very strong supporter of preserving heritage. At the same time, one of the problems we face - not only in the Territory, but all over Australia – is that a lot of people want things to be preserved as heritage but, at the same time, there is a significant lack of funding to be spent on items that have been preserved as heritage. It is not uncommon for heritage buildings or items to deteriorate and degrade and suddenly collapse because nobody is prepared to put their hands in their pockets.
Europe has many heritage buildings and heritage cities. Governments have found different and innovative ways to support heritage, not only declaring or slapping an order on a building so that nobody can touch it, but also providing low interest loans or funding. Even having private companies support new heritage buildings for preservation in order for them to remain. Some areas in central Europe have houses dating back to the 12th century, cathedrals dating back to the 8th or 9th century. Recently, when we visited Turkey, we visited the Church of Hagia Sofia that was built by Emperor Justinian as the biggest Orthodox Christian church in the world, later to be converted to a mosque. Now, under the auspices of UNESCO, the building is being restored.
Unfortunately, we found that the Territory was the last jurisdiction to adopt heritage legislation in the 1990s. Not that it helped a lot. It did not save many things, because a number of areas recognised as heritage by the people of the Territory, like the Hotel Darwin, the former Nurses Quarters on Lambell Terrace, the Z-Special training area in East Arm, the Hughes Airfield and Stella Maris complex, had never been declared under the previous government.
Of course, there has been a lot of discussion about the Hotel Darwin. It is very sad that the Hotel Darwin is not there any more. I recall that, when I first came to Darwin and I visited the Hotel Darwin’s Green Room, I was astounded that such an art dco building could exist in a small place like Darwin. I remember some people calling it the Raffles of Darwin. It really had the atmosphere and the looks of the Raffles Hotel in Singapore.
I can remember Cowboy Bill, who died recently, sitting in the front bar; he was part of the furniture. He did not move much from the bar. That was part of Darwin, and a lot of people still feel very sad about the demolition of the Hotel Darwin. It is very easy now to blame people: who did what, and why he was not here, and why he was not there. The fact is that the Hotel Darwin is no more. Some people, like the previous minister, blame the owner. You have to consider the owners and what they want to do. The reality is that the Hotel Darwin was such an icon for Darwin that the government should have stepped in and provided assistance for the owners to maintain the Hotel Darwin.
In other countries, old buildings like those in Darwin, if they are not functional as modern buildings any more, the owners are assisted by the government to demolish the complete interior of the building and maintain the facade, and redevelop it. Therefore, you have a modern building behind the faade of a very old building still functioning and in existence. The reality is that the architecture of the Hotel Darwin was unique. I suppose a lot of the things inside - rooms, carpets, and the divisions - could have been removed without affecting the general architecture of the building. Something like that could happen. Now we have a resort with some demountables and palm trees, and the only thing left of the Hotel Darwin is memories and some old photographs. It is very unfortunate.
Mr Kiely: Nothing wrong with golden canes.
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes. Use golden canes, but in a different environment.
I agree that it is time that Darwin has a legislation review to strengthens the process and protection of our important remaining heritage places. I would like to take this opportunity to recognise the contribution of tireless advocates for the protection of our heritage. One of them was Barbara James, who dedicated many hours of her incredible energy and talent to the National Trust to preserve the heritage of the Territory.
I also welcome the decision of my colleague, the Minister for Environment and Heritage, who declared the Strauss Airstrip and placed it on the NT Heritage Register. That was the easy part. Now starts the hard work; we have to persuade John Anderson to cough up the money to realign the Stuart Highway in order to avoid running it over the Strauss Airstrip. I happen to know that the Strauss Airstrip was not recognised by the previous government - completely abandoned by them – and, as a result, was used by road trains and truckies to park their trucks, or dump loads of sand or gravel and, as a result, completely deteriorated it to being a big stretch of bitumen with many potholes in it. It is about time we started looking seriously at our heritage in Darwin.
Our heritage dates back to the beginning of the white settlement, and was certainly strengthened by the presence of the Army and the World War II events in Darwin. A few months ago, I was very fortunate to re-open a heritage site at Mandorah where the American Superfortress Milady crashed during World War II with the loss of a number of American airmen. It was very moving to see that part of the aeroplane still lay where it crashed - the tail, some of the wings, and the engine mountings. The government dedicated money and the whole area was landscaped, some explanatory signs were erected indicating what had happened and the contribution of the American airmen in the defence of Darwin. I was very surprised when, a few weeks later, I received a magazine from America, which mentioned the association of old pilots who used to fly these Superfortresses from Darwin. They got together in America and have an association, which puts out a magazine every month or two. In this magazine, there were four pages dedicated to the memorial of Milady. They had a number of photographs of the different models made, and that one. That was a recognition by those people of our efforts to preserve part of our heritage, and theirs as well.
The member for Daly mentioned the Adelaide River train, the Adelaide River Station and other heritage places in the Territory. Probably you have noticed lately that the old Commonwealth engine from outside Darwin has been relocated now in front of the Adelaide River Station. The Friends of Adelaide River Railway Station have cleaned, sandblasted and painted it. You can see it as you are driving up and down the highway. It is a memorial and a symbol of the railway history of the Territory.
The Hughes Aerodrome is another one that was mentioned before. As a member of the Royal Australian Air Force 13th Squadron City of Darwin, there were many times I actually camped in this aerodrome. It is still in very good nick. It is one of the few remaining aerodromes in the Territory that was used during the World War II, and it can still be used, believe it or not. I remember a few years back, some developer had the idea of developing the area for aeroplane enthusiasts to buy blocks of land, and have direct access to the airstrip, and fly in and fly out from this airstrip. Thank God we mobilised very quickly, the RAAF and people who want to preserve these kinds of heritage sites, and we managed to persuade the then government to stop any development plans and to declare it a heritage park. Well, it is was not declared a heritage site but, fortunately, the plans were shelved and the Hughes Aerodrome survives as a memorial to the men and women of the Australian Air Force who used that base for the different missions around Darwin, Timor and Papua New Guinea.
The member for Port Darwin mentioned Old Admiralty House. The lease for this particular site was given to Jalouise Pty Ltd by the previous government, and Jalouise put an application for development of a hotel and a combination office/residential tower and it was approved, subject to declaring. The garden and the house was declared as a heritage place and they had to put in place a plan to preserve the house and the garden, which they actually accepted. Part of the work that took place at Admiralty House was some excavation to find out where the caprock is. I draw the attention of members to the statement made by Mr Andrew Liveris, one of the partners in Jalouise, where he actually said that the company is not going to touch the house. Their idea is to preserve the house as a symbol. There is another application now – and rest assured that the Development Consent Authority will consider that application for the preservation of the house and the garden. There is no way that we can touch Admiralty House - demolish it or destroy it. However, let us not forget that Admiralty House was actually relocated to that site from somewhere else. The house is heritage; the site where the house is standing is not heritage, it was just a convenient place to put the house.
As for the garden, there are conflicting opinions. Some people say it is a heritage garden, some other people say they believe it is not that old because some of the plants there did not exist in Darwin at the time. However, the garden is a unique garden around a house in Darwin and, very appropriately, was declared a heritage garden.
It is good to see that we are actually moving now to strengthen the act. It is about time we started to think seriously about heritage sites in the Territory and, when we say that we are going to protect heritage sites, our protection that we provide is meaningful. It is not at the whim of the minister to one day declare something as heritage, and the next day to remove the declaration and see a skyscraper in its place. I commend my colleague, the minister for Heritage. I know that he has the preservation of heritage sites and heritage in his heart. As the minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Development, I stand side by side with him in committing ourselves to preserve our heritage in the Territory. We certainly commit ourselves to not be away in the Territory so some heritage buildings are demolished. We are going to be here and we are going to make sure that heritage buildings and sites are protected and, certainly, among them, Admiralty House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would also like to talk on the minister’s statement. I just noted that the minister’s statement is headed Heritage Legislation Review but, I suppose to be honest, it deals mainly with the history of heritage in the Northern Territory over the last 10 years or so, and looks at various other issues. It actually does not speak at great length about what the review is all about.
I thought the minister might be able to tell us what is going to be in the review. I get a bit of a hint, because the minister talks about, I suppose what he calls the experience under the current heritage regime. He talks about it being highly centralised, invests a great deal of power in the minister, has a lengthy and rather complex procedure for registration of heritage places, and has limited provision for interim protection of places under threat. I would presume, minister, that some of that will be in the review. You also mentioned a little further on about the processes which enable the minister to have certain power. In one case, you mention that the minister actually has power to destroy a place that has been given heritage protection. I ask the minister if he can tell us if that is what is going to be in the review, and what else he believes might be there for discussion.
On one of those issues that the minister raised - the issue of ‘has a lengthy and rather complex procedure for registration of heritage places’. Minister, there are a couple of things I would like to say on that. You may remember I wrote to you regarding the possible protection of the old railway line between Birdum and Larrimah. It is probably the only intact section of railway line of any significance from the old North Australian Railway. In fact, I travelled on it about two years ago on a little train - not the one that has been taken to Adelaide River but on another little train they had there. I know that when they are talking about the trains at Larrimah, there is a fair bit of politics in that town, even though there is a population between 11 and 13. It is split three ways. Part of the reason that that train was sold was because somebody had control over that piece of train. There is another train that someone else has control over. It has been a touchy point in Larrimah about who owns what. However, be that as it may, the …
Dr Burns: You want to send me down there!
Mr WOOD: Yes. Be that as it may, there is this terrific piece of railway. It is about 14 km long. It goes across the Birdum Creek and, when I travelled across there in the little motor rail, the Birdum Creek was full of water. There were brolgas walking through the water and it was just a beautiful little trip. When came into Birdum, which I had never been to, but it was a place that I always wanted to go to. When we talk about Birdum you certainly are talking about history because it was the end of the railway line, at least up to the war time. It is one of those forgotten areas.
Minister, when I asked about whether the place could have some heritage protection you sent me a form which, I must admit, I should have brought with me. For the average person to fill that form in, you have to do a degree in heritage, because you have to know so many facts and figures and you have to have photographs and all this sort of stuff. That would put people off trying to apply because, for a lot of lay people, they simply do not have the time or the background knowledge. However, they do have enough knowledge to say: ‘This is heritage’. You do not have to be Einstein to know the railway line between Larrimah and Birdum is not very old. You know that both sites were heavily populated during the war, so there are some basic reasons why the government at least should be making note that this is a possible heritage sight.
Perhaps the other way to deal with heritage sites is under the new Northern Territory Planning Scheme. The new Northern Territory Planning Scheme is not in existence presently, but it is proposed under that scheme to have a heritage zone, H zone. It surprises me that, in the proposed Litchfield area plan that is subject to some public comment at the present time, although that plan introduces a number of new zones from this Northern Territory Planning Scheme, it does not introduce the H zone. If it did then, possibly, the planning people would not have marked tourist commercial over Strauss Airstrips, as they have done at present.
Minister, it would be worth looking at zoning some areas under heritage, as a means of not having to necessarily go through a large bureaucratic process.. I am not saying when are you going to declare a heritage site that there should not be a reasonable amount of background material developed before you declare that site, but there are a lot of sites which could just be zoned heritage for the time being. In other words, they are not doing too bad just standing there as they are. I will give you one example, it might be the North Australian Railway that runs through Litchfield Shire.
I have been up and down that section of rail and there are quite a large number of historic bridges. Some parts of the rail are left but, in general, you have a piece of land that would have been cleared and developed around about 1886 onwards. Therefore, we know straightaway that it is old. We know that it is important because it was part of the old North Australia Railway line. Automatically with that, you can think of the uses from the point of view of who built it, who used it at the beginning - the gold from Pine Creek – and the uses of the rail later on, especially during the war. There is an enormous amount of history just on the World War II use of that railway line. So, without costing any money, but giving it some protection, a heritage zone would be an easy way to protect some sites.
Presently, in the Litchfield Shire, you have an OC zone, open conservation. However, basically, that does not exclude Transport and Works putting a road through an airstrip or PowerWater building a pipeline through a heritage area. That zone is not tough enough to deal with any development in that manner. Having raised those two issues, minister, as you said yourself, there is a lengthy and rather complex procedure. Maybe that is a method of getting around that until you can look at the particular issue in more detail.
I go back a little in history also. There is no doubt that heritage certainly causes some controversy. Perhaps not even all of it is even heritage. I must admit, I was disappointed with the previous government when they pulled down the powerhouse. I concur with the Chief Minister that, when that was pulled down there was a great opportunity for a building to be used for something else. All that is there now is a concrete floor. After all the talk and the arguments as to why it had to come down, you probably would not have minded if something had gone up. But nothing!
It is the same with the nurses quarters. It all came down, but then nothing went up. You would have to say that, even if the building had reached the stage where perhaps people could not live in it, you could have left it there just for the time being until you actually had a reason to do something with it, or you could perhaps have looked at alternatives.
The Wesleyan Church has been mentioned here. It appears, from what the member for Daly said today, that there were two options: one to pull it down and one was to shift it. I would be interested to know whether there was another option: to include it within the building that was built there. Could it have been encapsulated into the new building, done up, turned into a coffee shop, or something like that? In other words, it was behind glass, it was done up, the white ants were taken out of it, and that building could have become a useable building within that shopping centre. Not only would it have been a coffee shop that was a little different, but it would have added a little history to that part of Mitchell Street and still been something that would have had commercial value. I have always wanted to know why that option was not considered. Maybe it could not fit in the style of the building, but that part of the building now is just shops. It would be interesting to know whether there was another process.
I had arguments with the previous government, for instance, over the North Australian Railway, the old line. I have been a long-time promoter of the old railway line being a bicycle path. That concept, to some extent, has come from America, where they call these things greenways. It is the idea of using a disused railway line for recreation. One good reason for having bicycle paths on that particular line, was simply to preserve the history and heritage.
I remember going back along the highway one day, and I saw the bridge at Knuckeys Lagoon being dismantled. I thought: ‘Here is a cast iron bridge built in about 1886 or 1887 being dismantled for a bicycle path!’ The answer I got back from the then Minister for Transport and Works was that it was unsafe; it could not take the load. I thought: ‘We are talking about bikes here on a bridge made out of cast iron’, and the cast iron lasts for yonks. Anyway, it is now somewhere. I do not know whether the person who pulled it down has kept it, but it was replaced by two concrete culverts.
Again, there was no sensitivity to what we were trying to do. The bicycle path was there for a reason, but it was also to preserve history. I know that bicycle path has interpretation signs on it. We could develop that a lot further because, if that bicycle path can eventually get to Humpty Doo at least - and I know it is a low priority because I had a recent meeting with the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure’s staff. There is a lot of history sites people could visit. Wishart Siding would be on that bicycle path if it went right through, along with Sattler Airstrip. The preservation of that would certainly help the heritage in my area.
A couple of other things. I would be the first to congratulate you on declaring Strauss Airstrip a heritage site. It is a great decision. It certainly makes me feel good. I hope the cricket pitch is included, because, if anyone has played down there in the Anzac Day cricket match against the Army, you certainly do feel a connection with those people who built that airstrip, and those members of the Air Force and Army who would have worked there during the war. In fact, I picked up a book the other day - unfortunately I did not bring it. It is in Angus and Robertson, where I bought it. It is about the aviation history of Darwin during World War II. When you open it up, there is a whole series of coloured photographs of 1942. The rest of the book is black and white. There is a pilot, I believe his name was Bartlett. He had taken these photographs, and he was an American Air Force pilot. It has a picture of the Spitfires, in the colours, all stuck amongst the woolybutt trees. It looked as though it was taken yesterday. This was the Strauss Airstrip.
It really came back to me when I saw it, that we had forgotten all that and how important it is. In fact, we really have not treated Strauss Airstrip, Sattler Airstrip, or Livingstone Airstrip very well at all. I blame government departments - put it straight down to that. Sattler Airstrip had the major water pipe from Darwin River straight through the guts of it. You would have to ask: why? There is about 60 m or 70 m of road reserve where it could have gone, yet it went right down in the middle of the airstrip. When I came to Darwin, it was actually a working airstrip. It was the emergency airstrip for Darwin. It was marked out in its proper markings, and had signs on the side: ‘Please do not drive on this airstrip, it is the emergency airstrip’ …
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Mr WOOD: That is right. Also a government department decided to put a weighbridge site on one end of it. Then, if you go down to Strauss: a weighbridge site again put on it. It is used continually for mixing of bitumen and blue metal. At the moment, there is an enormous pile of gravel dumped there, I presume with the approval of Transport and Works. If you go into the bush, you will see this mountain of gravel. Yet, Strauss Airstrip, at the moment, is actually zoned open conservation. Nobody cares, that is the problem.
Livingstone was a perfectly good strip until the government at that time decided to widen the old road. When they widened the old road, the contract I believe, was let in the Wet Season. The poor old contractor could not keep the detour going along the road, so he used Strauss Airstrip. Well, that soon demolished the poor old airstrip; it was not made for large volumes of traffic. Of course, later on it was used for the drag strip, but I must admit I do not think the drag strip did a huge amount of damage. It was mainly damaged because of road works and other things.
It is sad to see that we have not really valued our heritage in the past, and I hope that, even though Strauss Airstrip and some of those airstrips do not look very nice at the moment, I reckon they could be done up a bit. They can be slashed and tidied up, and maybe swept clean of the rubbish, and make them look reasonable, even though, at the moment, I do not know what your plans are for them.
Minister, even though I am very happy about Strauss Airstrip, it does worry me that there is a road that has definitely not been designed to go to the left-hand side yet as you go south. I know it has been mentioned here that Mr Anderson has not given us $20m. I hope that you can say that the value of the Strauss Airstrip heritage listing is now going to be higher than Mr Anderson’s lack of giving us $1.3m, because that is what it is really going to come down to. I would be interested if you could say whether there is definitely no road going to go through the airstrip.
On a couple of other matters, again about the airstrips, I still think we should have a heritage precinct. You mentioned Hughes Airfield, and you say it definitely should be preserved. One of the places that did not make it on to the register under the former government include Hughes Airfield. You went on to say it beggars belief that Hughes Airfield has not been declared - or it has been declared, but it was never signed off by the minister, I gather. Hughes Airstrip has a bit of a colourful history as well. It was going to be used for a stock feed plant at one stage. It was also going to be revitalised as an airstrip with a lot of small blocks around it, but the neighbours there believed that was inappropriate, and there it sits. At the present time, it would be great if that was declared a heritage site.
Even if Sattler Airstrip and Livingstone Airstrip are not regarded as good enough to be heritage listed, that is where you can put the heritage zone over them and include them in all in a heritage precinct. If that was on the map for tourists and historians who come up, so they knew where those strips were, that heritage zoning would give those some protection. I also believe that you have to look at any of the old embattlements around some of these strips, if you can save of those as well. I know Reidy’s Lures is near Wishart Siding. He has actually kept the 44 gallon drums that we use for the AkAk emplacements. Tourists love to go there and just have a look. He has mowed the lawn around it now so you can see it, so it is not buried in the long grass. People can go and see it.
There is that and also the land next to Bees Creek Primary School where the planes used to park. The camouflage wires are still there. You only walk just past the school and there you have it, just as it was there yesterday. It has grown over a bit, but that is where the planes were. There is probably room for even a heritage park there of some sort.
I mentioned the other day the East Arm Leprosarium to the minister for Health. Whilst it has gone, and it is very sad that it is gone, it is sad that no one said: ‘Oi, some of this perhaps should be left’. It has a strong history with many Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. Even though, as you say, a plaque is not what we really like, but maybe a plaque could be an appropriate memorial for what happened there.
The member for Port Darwin has mentioned Admiralty House. I am interested to hear what the minister has to say. I know it has been in the paper in recent times. It would be nice if he could make a clear statement about what its future is and what its status is as regards heritage.
I would also like to mention the Adelaide River Railway Station, and Trevor Horman, as the member for Daly has. He has done an enormous amount of work promoting the preservation of that area. That area has great potential for tourism.
One other thing that perhaps you may not have mentioned here - and I do not have time to cover everything - heritage is also important for our education. When I talk about trying to save the airstrips, I do not talk about just the heritage or just the tourism. It is important for a lot of our young people to recognise what happened previously - that could be Aboriginal, World War II heritage, or just Darwin’s general heritage.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.
Mr WOOD: It is important. Thank you, minister, for your statement and I will be listening for your answers on those questions.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member, your time has expired.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the minister’s statement this afternoon about, in his words: ‘The historic and significant places that give the Territory its unique character’.
This is a subject very dear to my heart and one that I personally feel very strongly about. Before I entered politics I was, in fact, studying for a post-graduate diploma at the then NTU in Heritage Studies, with Professor David Carment. I could not work out whether I was disappointed or not when I won the by-election at Fannie Bay and had to give up studying. I was disappointed not to finish the course.
The minister’s sombre roll call of those historic and heritage sites that have been destroyed serve, certainly, as a lesson for all of us, and a lesson for the future. The current review of the Heritage Conservation Act - the excellence of Peter James as the consultant undertaking this, the way in which the consultative process is being conducted, and the soon-to-be-released discussion paper - will mean that we will do this better.
However, this evening I would like to talk about heritage and what it means to me in an everyday sense. As Chief Minister, I probably do not get as much opportunity to exercise as I would like, but one thing I do cherish though, is my daily walk. Where I love to walk most is the area that I live, and that is the Fannie Bay and Parap area. That is my point: heritage is not something special behind a glass case, remote from people or the community. Heritage is what ordinary people value and wish to preserve: vistas, buildings and landscapes that we see every day that remind us of our history and our shared community memories.
The Northern Territory is rich in a wonderful and unique history, and our built heritage reminds us of this every day. There is so much here that I hardly know where to begin, and we have heard some of it referred to in previous speeches. I would just like to focus on this electorate of Fannie Bay in this speech tonight. Perhaps at the sea is a good place to start, at the famous Fannie Bay, named after an opera singer who visited Adelaide, because the sea is an integral part of the Top End lifestyle.
In the 1870s, there was a proposal for the Government Resident, as the Administrator house was then known, to take up land and built some salubrious seaside accommodation - a kind of holiday house at Fannie Bay. I wonder if today, His Honour wishes that this had come to fruition. By the 1880s there was, of course, the gaol: famous - or should I say infamous - old Fannie Bay Gaol.
A South Australian parliamentarian, when told of the location and move from town, said it was useless to site the gaol at Fannie Bay because it was so far out of town. How much does this tell us about transport conditions, isolation and the size of our town then? The gaol, of course, remains an intact and complete reminder of nearly a century of the administration of penal justice on the frontier. The gaol is recognised with a Territory heritage listing, as well as on the Register of the National Estate. It is the second oldest site of continuous same-site usage by Europeans in the Territory, second only to Government House, which is also preserved for the benefit of all Territorians.
Along the road, the Goyder Road Cemetery is a poignant reminder of life and death in early Darwin. In the headstones and memorials are the stories of our pioneers and early settlers. Sadly too, it also contains friends. Soon after I took office as Chief Minister, my old friend and wonderful Territorian, Eileen Fitzer, died and was buried there.
Up on Bullocky Point, the Darwin High School site, with the tank, is a reminder of Vestey’s Meat Works. The Darwin High School was built over the remains of the many and varied structures from the Vestey’s company, who operated the meatworks at Bullocky Point between 1917 and 1919. With the establishment of the meatworks and the cessation of the World War I, many came to Darwin seeking work. At this time Darwin, always multicultural, already counted numbers of second generation Chinese families as their own. After the influx of workers, particularly from Europe at this time, the multiculturalism of Darwin became firmly established.
Have you ever walked at the back of the grounds of the Museum and Art Gallery of the Territory? In amongst the trees and plants there is concrete drainage, fittings and infrastructure from Vestey’s meatworks which still remain. There is almost a sense of discovery as you wander around the concrete blocks shrouded in vines and creepers. The wooden posts at the front of the museum grounds indicate where some of the old yards or pens were located. How vast the land taken up for the Vestey’s meatworks enterprise must have been, and how comparatively short lived.
The lake on the other side of Conacher Street, known as Vestey’s Lake, with its permanent all-year water supply, reminds us that the Chinese market gardeners had extensive vegetable plots in the swamp. The Chinese grew the fresh produce that was such an essential supply to Darwin townsfolk.
As I walk down Ross Smith Avenue, I think about those prisoners in 1918 who cleared the road to create the main airstrip for entry to Darwin and, indeed, Australia. I am always reminded of those early pioneer aviators who crossed vast areas of the globe to touch down in Darwin, their first Australian port of call - Ross and Keith Kingsford-Smith and Amy Johnson, to name only a few.
Where the road meets the sea, there is a poignant memorial to the Ross Smith landing in 1919; poignant because the brave and distinguished Captain Ross Smith, later Sir Ross, veteran of the Light Horse and the most highly decorated airman of the war, was to die in 1922. He and J M Bennett, who had also made the historic trip to Darwin less than three years earlier, perished in England when their trial flight in a Vickers Viking Amphibian went into a spin. Always visionary, Sir Ross Smith was planning a flight around the world.
The airstrip remained contested ground. Douglas Lockwood points out that two years after the Ross Smith landing, both Federal houses of parliament were concerned that to allocate funding for the upgrade and maintenance of the airstrip was ‘a wicked waste of money for Fannie Bay’.
Those who stroll to the end of Lampe Street can see the beautifully maintained Qantas Empire Airways hangar, which dates back to the early 1930s. Placement of the hangar and Ross Smith Avenue can powerfully recreate the placements and workings of the airstrip at Fannie Bay. Now, of course, the motor vehicles enthusiasts group tenants the hangar. This is an example of an appropriate and creative use for a heritage building that, for so many years after its aviation period, was used as a workshop.
As I walk around Fannie Bay and see the remains of Vestey’s, the airstrip, the gaol, the hangar, the memorial and all the wonderful houses and spaces that remind me of Darwin’s historic past, I am proud and pleased by the built heritage that has remained for all of us. We are informed by our past; it is what makes us what we are and, in many ways, points the direction to our future.
Sometimes people say to me, particularly of Darwin which has been destroyed by a number of cyclones and the bombing raids of World War II, that Darwin has no history or built heritage. People look to the pyramids of Egypt or the magnificent cathedrals of Europe and say that there is nothing here but concrete and corrugated iron. However, the built heritage is about how people use and adapt their environment. In the concrete, porcellanite, ironwood, or corrugated iron, we see how people lived, worked, developed and died. It is of the utmost importance that we protect that heritage, and we do it in the best and most strategic ways, because heritage is for all of us and it is democratic. It is everywhere; it is not just the old parts of the town.
The member for Karama could have taken you on a tour and talked about Holmes and his pastoral holdings, where Holmes Jungle is the most remote part. Minister Aagaard could tell of the coconut plantation that became Coconut Grove, or the World War II rubbish and bottle dump.
Care and protection of our heritage will promote a strong sense of history and community identity. It is an excellent investment for the future. However, we must not let it be survival by accident. The memory of those places we had, and have lost, is still strong within our community. We cannot lose another Hotel Darwin.
We have a wonderful heritage in the Territory and I have just briefly touched on what it means to me personally. I commend the minister for this review of the Heritage Conservation Act, the consultation, and I look forward to reading the discussion paper. I look forward to a new approach that is smart, strategic and consultative because heritage, Mr Acting Speaker, belongs to us all.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Speaker, from the outset, I have really enjoyed the contributions from pretty much everyone this afternoon. Heritage is not the domain of one single party or politician. All of us, although in different ways, have a shared commitment to the preservation of heritage in the Northern Territory.
For my own part, I come from Bendigo in central Victoria, one of the great gold mining towns of Australia. Growing up in a place like Bendigo, it was very difficult not to be into heritage or supportive of preserving the history of country towns.
The Territory, of course, is not quite a country town. It is a bit bigger. When I first came to the Northern Territory, what struck me was the fact that, from a tourism point of view, we had fantastic icons that attracted tourists not just from interstate but from around the world. However, when I scratched below the surface, it was quite difficult to find things other than the Territory’s great icons. That is an ongoing challenge for any government.
Even now, although I do not know the Top End terribly well - clearly I have spent a little time here - I cannot honestly say that the heritage of Darwin jumps out at me. It has been the case for some years that people have told me things and my response has been: ‘Oh, I did not know that that existed, I must go and see that’. The contributions of all members this afternoon has been a further education for me.
What we all need to do is to ensure that we pick up the challenge to market the heritage that we have in the Northern Territory, and which I do not think is well recognised by other Australians, let alone visitors from overseas.
I liked what the minister said in his statement. I do not know whether this statement is copied from somewhere but, on the basis that it is not, I found it quite pleasing. The minister obviously has a challenge before him. I am pleased to say that it appears to me that he seems genuinely committed to doing what he can, to making a mark and preserving the Territory’s history - both our Aboriginal and non-indigenous history. Both of those are very important.
I found parts of the statement, in particular relating to tourism, of great interest. I suppose not surprising in many respects, because it is the case that some of the figures quoted are not new to me. Certainly, in the context of a ministerial statement on heritage, it was very pleasing to see the tourist and tourism perspective included in the statement. I have had a look, again, at my well marked Northern Territory Tourist Commission strategic plan. There are various references to the Territory’s history and heritage. There are some statements there that, for any reader, are encouraging, such as:
- Heritage sites, historical museums, interpretive centres and other interpretive material will continue
to play a vital role in delivering the experience for visitors.
There is a partial outline, I suppose, as to the role the Northern Territory Tourist Commission can play in that. No doubt, the commission is working very hard to maximise the heritage value for our tourists. I do not know any detail of that work. Perhaps the minister might, at some point, make a ministerial report to the parliament because, clearly, this is important. As I said, I am pleased it has been included in a ministerial statement on the heritage legislation. However, for the benefit of the people who listen to the parliamentary broadcast and of all members, it would be of some assistance to provide us with information as to what the Tourist Commission is doing, because I can say with some confidence, that all 25 members of this parliament will take that information and distribute it to those interested people in the electorates.
Although I said at the outset that I hail from Victoria, I have spent quite a bit of time in South Australia. I hope the minister, if he has not, will at some point take the time to go to the South Australian town of Burra. Burra markets and manages its heritage probably better than any town in the country. It is an outstanding presentation of a very small town’s heritage. They have a very interactive experience on offer for the tourists who go there, in a very practical sense. You pay your $20 and pick up a key, along with a map which you follow around. You use that key to enter into the various sites that are on offer in Burra.
Something like that may well be something that we could trial in the Northern Territory. It is cheap, do-able, appeals to pretty much everybody, and it could be considered the best way of inviting people to see, not just one or two places of interest, but to follow perhaps 15 sites so you can make a day of it. I, like so many other people in the Territory, have had over the years friends and family travel both to Darwin, Alice Springs and pretty much everywhere in between. They do not put it to me in terms of a real criticism, but the message that has come through to me is that we do not seem to have our heritage assets well enough in the faces of our visitors. There is a real challenge there for the minister - who I know is committed to this – to perhaps make his mark; he can be dynamic. There is room for a dynamic minister in heritage.
The members on the other side may disagree but, on balance, there have been some good ministers in the past. We may not all see eye to eye on what is heritage, what should be preserved and what should not be. Of course, so often it is a case of balancing competing interests. That is a constant for any government, whether in the Territory or elsewhere in Australia. People will say, from an historic point of view, that governments do not always get it right. I would go along with that. However, this government has a chance to make its mark and I hope, for the benefit of not only the people who live here, but for our tourists, both domestic and international, that the government can do what it can not only to preserve and maintain what we have, but to entice others to see it. Some people would happily subscribe to the view that we can just preserve and maintain our heritage and that is enough. The other school of thought, it seems to me, is that we need to maintain and retain our heritage. But wouldn’t it be great if people could go to see it and enjoy it?
In my experience, not only with friends and families, but with the tourist who I talk to in the Territory, they want to lap up a full range of experiences - and in the Territory we have them. In the Territory, we have everything from Ayres Rock, Uluru, in Central Australia to Kakadu in the Top End, and marvellous places in between. We also have plenty on offer if we scratch below the surface. I would encourage the minister to play his part, as he thinks fit, along with the advice, not only of his colleagues, but from representatives of the community. People who are strong believers in maintaining our heritage tend, in my experience, to be very passionate. That is marvellous and I am sure those people will passionately put their views to the minister on a regular basis.
I welcome this statement from my position as the shadow minister for Tourism. I wish you well, minister, in doing what you can to preserve, maintain, retain and encourage others to see what the Territory has to offer.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Acting Speaker, I welcome the review of the heritage legislation statement before us. The heritage legislation came into force in 1994, so it is some 10-odd years old. There was a significant amendment to it in 1997. As the minister said in his statement, it is important that we go back and have a look at this legislation and those amendments, particularly following the case of the former Alice Springs Gaol.
The member for Stuart is a keen advocate of heritage and heritage listings and he is a strong supporter, particularly for heritage in Central Australia. He has actually brought to my attention the Parliamentary Record of Thursday, 19 February 1998, and his participation in the debate at that time. In that debate, he put forward a letter from Josie Petrick, a respected and conservative person in Alice Springs, on her thoughts of the amendments that were going through. This is just one paragraph in that letter to the then Chief Minister in 1997, Hon Shane Stone. Josie said:
- Everyone to whom I have spoken in Alice Springs is disgusted with the politicians and thinks that the
amendment bill is an attack on the intent of heritage protection and an autocratic measure against
democracy. The bill makes a mockery of lengthy consultations. Sometimes it takes 2 years to process
a building for heritage listing, but the minister can have it demolished with no consultation if he sees fit.
I seek leave to table this document.
Leave granted.
Mr KIELY: That gets right to the crux of why this legislation needs to be reviewed. It is also very timely. It is important; it is about heritage. We use the past to inform us of the future, to anchor us and our culture. It is important to look back and see what occurred in the Territory, and to see the passion of the people on a vigil around the old Alice Springs Gaol to stop it from being knocked down. This is the significance that heritage matters have in the Northern Territory.
The opposition have said: ‘Okay, roll up and beat us over the head about what happened to the Hotel Darwin’. I was hoping that we would get an apology from the member for Daly for what happened with the Hotel Darwin. When I was first bringing my family up here in 1985, a friend who had been here quite a number of times before said : ‘Look, you have to go to the Hotel Darwin. It is like Raffles. You go into a place called the Green Room and you sit under those fans. There is nowhere - absolutely nowhere in Australia - like the Hotel Darwin’. So, I went there and I could not believe it. I came from Canberra at that time and I had never seen anything like it before; it was impressive. It was a real shame that such an icon should be demolished, much to the everlasting shame of the CLP.
I have searched under the Northern Territory News of that time, and there are what could only be described as poignant photos. I have here from an Northern Territory News - I believe it was 11 September 1999. It has an excavator sitting in the middle of the Hotel Darwin site with concrete rubble and reinforcement pulled down. That particular photo is heart-rending. I have another one from the Sunday Territorian around the same period, 12 September. The poignancy of it all; it has a picture of the Hotel Darwin that says ‘As it was then, last week, and as it is now’. Those of us who have seen the photos of the aftermath of cyclones ripping through Darwin, and of the bombing of Darwin - well, this is the same calamity.
It is a real shock. It really got into the psyche of the population, not only of Darwin but of the Territory, and also, I put it to you, of a lot of Australians and overseas visitors who came here and remembered Darwin for the Green Room and for the accommodation there. If you have a look at the letters to the editor of around that time - and I have some here, but I will not incorporate them in the Hansard. I have here handfuls of letters to the editor which deal with the passion, the despair and the grieving of citizens of Darwin and the Territory. It was actually a grieving process that people were going through, because the Hotel Darwin went straight to the psyche of the people of the Territory. Once again, it was just a shocking thing.
I would have liked the member for Daly to get up and say: ‘All right, it happened, we are sorry. Let us move on, and get closure to this’. I do not think we will ever get closure until that happens. Because as long as news headlines like the one of 13 October 1999: ‘Baldwin defends hotel demolition’ and those stories are still there defending the indefensible, this thing will never close. I would just like to say that when I went past the site, when it was being demolished - nearly all of Darwin went past that site when it was being knocked down, because we could not believe it - there were people coming up and putting flowers and cards on the fence. It was more than a building. It was much, much more than a building.
I have seen the Shot Tower in Melbourne which has the Daimaru complex built around it. They managed to save that. I have seen facades of buildings all over Australia that they have managed to save. There were things that could have been done to preserve that site. From a tourist point of view, a great chance for a great earner went out the window, and it was demolished with no real concern for the future. If you do not respect the past, how can you possibly respect the future?
At that time also, there was a large spread in the NT News by the National Trust of Australia (NT Branch). It said:
- Once the National Trust got confirmation of the demolition rumour going around Darwin earlier that same
week, the trust asked the Minister for Lands, Planning and Environment, Hon Tim Baldwin, to put an
interim conservation order over the building.
The acting minister, Hon Mike Reed, declined. This order would have stopped the demolition for 90 days,
giving the trust time to prove that the building could have been saved.
It goes on to say:
- Your heritage at risk.
Under threat: former Supreme Court, Repeater Station at Alice Springs, Reserve Bank, Star Arcade,
St Mary’s Roman Catholic Church, the Victoria Hotel, the Wesleyan Church.
Demolished: Hotel Darwin, former Darwin Hospital, former Darwin Primary School, former nurses
quarters, Marrons Newsagency, Myilly Point houses, oil tanks on the Esplanade, Su Yup Temple,
Ti Tree Store.
So, yes, while the previous government did conserve some things, they went a long way to not conserving others, much to their everlasting shame. That is all I will say on the Hotel Darwin.
It is good to see the review happening. It was good to hear the minister mention that, incorporated in the review, we will be having a good hard look at heritage from the indigenous point of view and recognising those sites and features. I lived in Arnhem Land at Maningrida and I had the honour and opportunity of going to quite a number of outstations with the traditional owners. I was shown around some of their places of significance and they are awe-inspiring. They are stunning. I can understand the feelings they have for their sites, and they deserve as much protection under this legislation as any European site.
I have gone on walks through Kakadu - which is a bit more game than my wish to go on a li-lo down Rapid Creek - with a hand-held GPS and had a look at some magnificent sites and art. These too, will be sites that will be picked up in this legislation. I commend the minister for taking the legislation down that path.
I was similarly amazed when the member for Port Darwin spoke about her visit to the property at Humpty Doo with the member for Blain. I did not know indigenous people around here used arrows, but you learn. That site should definitely listed as a heritage site. A significant dig should be done there. We have opened a whole new chapter of indigenous culture that was not known to the rest of Australia, but the member for Port Darwin has discovered it. She will probably go down in the records for that one.
There is some tremendous heritage in Darwin itself. If you look at the location of Stella Maris - and I am talking about the older house - it is well worth preserving. I commend the minister for looking at that. I have attended a couple of social events there. I tell you, if you could have put half the people who drank in there on the heritage list, that would be well worth it, too. However, it is a great location and a great house. If you look at its siting in town, we really must preserve this. This is part of the seafaring heritage of Europeans in Darwin. It is well worth saving and protecting. It will be another functional centre and an asset to the waterfront project. With this listing, we will not lose it; I am confident it will be part of the waterfront development. Again, tourists and locals alike will benefit.
While we talk about the built environment, the stone kerbing in Smith Street between the Town Hall ruins and Browns Mart, which was constructed in the mid-1880s, is a rare remnant of some of the early civic works in Darwin. The remaining section of the kerb illustrates the use of locally available porcellanite rock that was used extensively in the early years of Darwin’s settlement. The porcellanite is from the cliffs around East Point. It is a great stone. You will see it used throughout the older buildings and the Town Hall ruins. If you have a look, on the kerbing, the guttering, you will see it. In some places it has been bituminised over, or with cement, but underneath is the stonework. It does give you a feeling, if you look at the Town Hall ruins. I was there this morning preparing for my contribution today, having a look at that. I had a good look at kerbing and the Town Hall ruins, and you could really get a feel for the streetscape. This is what the tourists and locals want - they want the real thing. And standing there, you can get a feel for it.
I am also pleased to say, there is a stonemason in town, Tom Finlay - you cannot miss him, he on the highway going south – who does a lot of work with porcellanite. He is constructing stone houses and features all around the place, but he does not try and say: ‘This is authentic old stuff; this is heritage’. He is doing it as a link. He is keeping the skills and the crafts going with the stonemasonry work that went on in this town. People like him need to be commended for the work that he does, and also need to be encouraged. It is great if we can build in the old style and people have a taste of it, but it is not the genuine article, and that is what people want.
When we talk about the Wesleyan Church being moved to the gardens, they did a great job - it is fantastic. However, I have some issues as to whether this is a replica or whether it is a restoration. They said it was a significant amount of work, and I believe it is. For my money, it is a replica, it is not a restorative feature. The government could have moved in earlier on that site. It would have been a wonderful cultural precinct, something like in Alice Springs, if we could have had the BAT, the British Australian Telegraph Office, the Wesleyan Church, Admiralty House - yes, I take the point that it was moved up there. We would have had a beaut little precinct right in the heart of town. We should learn from the other capital cities’ mistakes; we should capitalise on what we have in built heritage.
Never forget, Darwin has been bombed, blown away, eaten away by termites, which will eat just about anything that sits around, so our built environment is important. Our built environment is not like Naples, Milan, or Bendigo; it is uniquely Darwin. Yes, it is a little different, and is not old. Very few things in this town are old. Let us treasure what we have and protect it. Let us go with it. When we talk about things not being old, and look at the Reserve Bank, we might say: ‘I have seen some better looking pieces of architecture in my day’. Let me remind people in this House and listening that the ICI building in Melbourne was one of the first major skyscrapers of its type that was built. I do not believe that is one of the prettiest buildings in the world. It certainly is not one of the prettiest buildings in Melbourne; it is glass-fronted, square, old, just a sky scraper - bang, that is it. However, in its particular architectural style reflecting the times, it is iconic of Melbourne now, and they are preserving it. The are knocking down many other skyscrapers in Melbourne, but they are preserving that site. The Reserve Bank in town here is much in the same vein as ICI. At the start, you might not think it is too flash, and not to your architectural taste. But who could say that the Californian bungalows in Melbourne, the old Federation houses around Kensington, the places around Redfern and Surrey Hills in Sydney - they were all run down and people were neglecting them. We should get into our built environment and look to save it.
I live in a Grollo. It is one of the reconstruction houses, from after the cyclone. I honestly believe that those reconstruction houses - the Grollos, the Barclays, all those ones that went - have significant historical attachments. In years to come, people will be modifying them everywhere. I tell you that I think we should be looking to list one in its original condition, if at all possible, because they do mean a lot. These are the places that were built after the cyclone. They are built in such a way that they will last forever.
I am aware that the Darwin City Council is upgrading footpath and kerbing in the area by the Town Hall ruins, and I commend them for that. The stone kerbing, as I understand, is not currently protected as a declared heritage place, but the heritage listing is being considered. There will be public consultation processes to be followed. I would like to add my support to the listing.
I also talk about the Strauss Airfield. My colleague’s statement mentioned the recent listing of Strauss Airfield as a declared heritage place. The heritage assessment report for Strauss Airstrip indicates that it was used by the RAAF, the RAF, and the USAAF in wartime operations, and was critical in the defence of Darwin, especially during 1942 and 1943. P40 Kittyhawk and Spitfire aircraft were stationed at Strauss. The listing of Strauss is fantastic news, and I wholeheartedly support the conservation of this and other former military sites associated with World War II.
There is a rich story to be told about the Allied efforts to defend Australia in the Territory. With the bombing of Darwin commemorations, younger Australians have come to understand some of the story, and this is reflected in the increasing attendance at Anzac Day ceremonies. However, there is much of this story still to be told, and much to be done to conserve and interpret the sites to give meaning to the story. There are literally hundred of sites in the Top End associated with the story. I am advised that there are over 160 World War II sites along the Stuart Highway from Larrimah to Darwin, most of which are unsigned and unknown to the public. There are, in addition, over 70 World War II aircraft wrecks across the Top End.
The minister made mention of the number of military sites that the former government rejected for heritage listing - Hughes Airfield and the Z-Special training areas - and indicated that he will referring these places back to the Heritage Advisory Council for review and advice. Hughes Airfield was a medium bomber place, and is certainly in good condition, and I support this move. With the review of the Heritage Conservation Act, I hope these sites, as well as the hundreds of other World War II sites, can be given increased protection and recognition.
Once again, when I first came to Darwin, I went to Casuarina Beach - not to the same part of Casuarina Beach that the member for Macdonnell goes to with his camera - but this side around Dripstone, where there is a machine gun cement fortification in the middle of the beach. That is fantastic; you do not see that on Melbourne beaches. Those sites are all over the place. They do need recognition and some form of protection. I am glad that the review is occurring, and that the minister is leading us to that place where our future generations who live here will be able to find out what was it like in the past - and the tourist will also.
I finish with the words of a little ditty. It sums up this whole review and how we feel about it. It goes like this, and I believe it was by Joni Mitchell and Counting Crows just did a cover version of it:
- Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
Dr BURNS (Environment and Heritage): Mr Acting Speaker, I would like to thank all members for their contribution to this statement. By and large, the contributions have been very constructive. There has been a consensus here amongst most who have spoken that it is time that there be a review of the act; it is timely. People are very interested in that review and, as I foreshadowed, the discussion paper will be coming forward very soon for the members of the public and of this Assembly to comment on.
With that overview, I have made pretty copious notes here. I hope I can get through it all, because members have raised some very important issues. I will try and address those that have been raised by a number of members - and with a theme, because members have raised some fairly important issues. The shadow minister acknowledged the need for review, and talked about some of the achievements of the former government. That has to be recognised. On the question of the Alice Spring Gaol, he acknowledged that the minister’s power are probably too strong. However, in relation to some matters - he mentioned the Wesleyan Church - some power needs to be in reserve to ensure that developments can go ahead. That is probably something that the public will want to comment on. I do not want to comment on it at this stage, but I take on board the suggestion by the member for Daly.
He mentioned that the Heritage Advisory Committee can recommend and that the minister can not declare, and that I work that into my speech. I do not really recall that, but that is probably something that needs to be taken up within the review.
There has been a lot of discussion about the Hotel Darwin; there is no doubt about that. The member for Sanderson probably summed up the feelings that a lot of people had when the Hotel Darwin was destroyed. A lot has been said in this House about the Hotel Darwin. I notice that the member for Daly talked about the rights or the weight that should be given to the owners of the building in relation to its future. However, the member for Sanderson demonstrated that really, the family that owned the building in law were the owners of the building, but the ownership of the Hotel Darwin was a hell of a lot wider, and a lot of people in this community felt they had ownership.
A member: Oh, that’s good! Communism is what that is called.
Dr BURNS: Well, they felt strongly about it and they felt upset when it was demolished.
I actually have some sympathy for the member for Daly, because it was not actually he who really paved the way, in an administrative sense, to allow the building to be demolished. It was the former member for Katherine - that is my understanding - Mr Reed. I believe that, obviously, the member for Daly continues to bear the blame for it. The member for Arnhem talked about how the member for Daly went away for a while and the acting minister’s role was assumed by Mike Reed. I get the feeling from that particular story that really, the member for Daly may not have been comfortable with the whole issue of demolishing the Hotel Darwin, and he stepped to one side and just did not want to be part of it. The dirty deed, so to speak, was done by the member for Katherine, but the member for Daly still wears that opprobrium, so to speak - which is probably unfortunate. Anyway, that is political life and we all wear these things.
I suppose in the last week, a lot has been made of the fact that in a statement on horticulture, that I happened to use some sentences, paragraphs and sections that have been used by Mick Palmer some years ago. Well, at the end of the political day, if the worst that people can say about me: ‘Oh, he used some same paragraphs as …
Mr Dunham: Plagiarised! Plagiarised you did.
Dr BURNS: … Mick Palmer, weighed up against: ‘He was responsible for demolishing the Hotel Darwin’, I know which one I would much rather have. I know which one carries more weight with the community. That is all I have to say about that.
The member for Daly made some constructive suggestions regarding the publication of a newsletter letting people know - those who are interested probably on a mailing list - about what is happening in heritage in the Territory. That is a constructive suggestion that I have taken on board.
There are many things that we can talk about - many personal stories. I talked in my statement about the people all through the Territory who really contribute to preserving the cultural heritage. It was my privilege a few weeks ago to meet Ruth Murphy of Katherine and the Murphy family, and see the fantastic job that they have done in preserving that site near Knotts Crossing: the Sportsmans Hotel and the former Gallon Store. You could probably take up and adjournment debate talking about that. I really commend people like Ruth Murphy, who have done such a great job in preserving that great part of our cultural heritage. There are many stories. You could just feel the history around that Sportsmans Hotel and the Gallon Store. It is a great area, with the bomb crater and the shrapnel that has obviously cut through some of the rocks there - it is a fantastic site.
The member for Daly also suggested further debate on the discussion paper on the review of the act when it comes to fruition, and that is something I will consider very seriously.
The member for Arnhem talked about Aboriginal cultural heritage and said, apart from a few instances, there are only a few Aboriginal sites on the register. That is something, as I have said in my statement, that I have asked the Heritage Advisory Council to look into. As the member for Arnhem outlined, there are a number of important sites. Probably some of them are not built sites, but they are certainly part of our history and cultural heritage. Aboriginal people should be recognised for their great contribution to our history and cultural heritage.
The member for Port Darwin gave a very positive view of things. She talked about her electorate of Port Darwin. She also spoke about how she has had a growing appreciation and knowledge of heritage throughout the Northern Territory. A very important issue that she and the member for Nelson raised was in relation to the leprosarium. It is proper that I put something on the record about the leprosarium, because a number of people have raised the issue. There were three leprosaria established in and around Darwin: Mud Island near Wickham Point; Channel Island; and on East Arm just near the TDZ.
The old leprosarium on East Arm was run by the Catholic Church and was abandoned in 1983. The buildings there were used for a time and left derelict and fires and termites destroyed most of it, unfortunately. I am advised that the Heritage Advisory Council had a look at the site in 2000 and decided it was not worth nominating to the heritage register. This reflects the position of the Commonwealth and the National Trust, who did not include the site on the Register of the National Estate or the Heritage List kept by the trust. The site has now being cleaned up as part of the works associated with the railway, so there is little on the site to preserve.
There are many Darwin families with connections to this part of history - and beyond Darwin. I know plenty out in Arnhem Land who have unfortunate connections, but still talk of those connections with the leprosarium at East Arm. It is very important that we acknowledge their story, particularly those who suffered with the disease, and I have known a few of them in my time. Also the work of Dr John Hargreaves, the many Aboriginal Health Workers - and you meet them in so many walks of life. Some of them are still health workers and some of them are doing other things in their lives, but they always remember that experience in the leprosarium. The schooling that they received from Dr Hargreaves is always held in the very highest esteem. We need to acknowledge that. It is not feasible just to provide interpretive information spread across the three sites.
The Channel Island Leprosarium is a declared heritage place, and I agree that more could be done at this site to acknowledge the story of leprosy over the past 70 to 80 years. I will be directing the Heritage Advisory Council to look into what further measures we can take at Channel Island and to advise me on these measures. The long and the short of it is, unfortunately, that East Arm is no more. I have given you the history. What we have to do now is focus on the Channel Island site and see what we can do there. I have made a commitment here in the House to do that.
Getting back to what the member for Port Darwin said about appreciating heritage across the Northern Territory, when she was talking about that I could not help but think about what I call the Daleks out at Maningrida. Back in the Harry Giese days, there were these great plans of having a forestry industry across the Top End on Aboriginal communities. I guess the vestige of that, or one aspect of it, is on the Tiwi Islands. I remember when I first went to live and work at Maningrida, there was still quite a lot of the old sawmill there. There are still the fire towers and the Daleks, which were where all the sawdust used to be burnt. Although that site has been built on, it probably might not be a bad idea to look at what could be done with the poor old Dalek there. It is pretty indestructible. It is an interesting looking structure. People who come there think: ‘What the hell is that?’, but that is what it is. Cabinet is going out there to meet in the next couple of weeks, so they will see the Dalek there for themselves as they go down from the airport.
The member for Port Darwin mentioned her commitment to the Old Town Hall and the Banyan Tree, and I commend her for her efforts there. That is a very important site, and I believe that tree was very destructive. You are to be commended for your efforts there, member for Port Darwin. You mentioned the Myilly Heritage Precinct. Well, I suppose there was a bit of political argy-bargy there, which I could never understand. I was at the Bombing of Darwin celebrations when minister Vale made a big announcement about handing back those heritage sites to the Territory. Then, somehow, it went nowhere. Hopefully, that issue is now resolved and those sites will be preserved - they are fantastic sites.
The members for Port Darwin and Nelson, and I think others, have raised the issue of Old Admiralty House, and that is quite topical. I would like to place some things on the record in relation to that. I will not go back into the history, because the member for Port Darwin said that it was moved on to its current site in the early 1950s. It originally was constructed in 1937 and 1938, and it was declared a heritage place in February 1994. The history up to now is pretty well known. Expressions of interest in purchase and development of Lot 2291 were called by the former government in 1998. It went through a process, and the successful bidder was Jalouise Pty Ltd. They were offered a Crown term lease in 2001.
The lease required the development of that part of Lot 2291 not declared a heritage place proceed before expiry of the lease on 8 March 2004. They subsequently obtained approval through the Development Consent Authority to construct a multi-storey office accommodation up to the margins of the declared area. They are currently undertaking geotechnical investigations on Lot 2291. None of those geotech investigations are within the boundaries of the declared heritage place, and there is absolutely no threat to Admiralty House. However, Jalouise have also applied for a permit to excavate in the corner of the declared heritage area to provide for future services into the heritage building. The application contains concept designs for the refurbishment and conservation of Old Admiralty House. The permit application has been forwarded to the Heritage Advisory Council, which will advise me in advance of my consideration on whether to approve the works. Jalouise have prepared a draft conservation and management plan for Old Admiralty House, and my office is continuing to work with them in order to finalise a plan.
I acknowledge that there are community concerns about the future use of Old Admiralty House. However, as a declared heritage place, I can reassure the House that nothing physical can be done to the building without my approval, pursuant to the Heritage Conservation Act. I understand the community’s desire to have some input into the plans for the building. The Heritage Conservation Act does not formally provide for public comment to be sought on applications made under the legislation. I believe that community consultation is appropriate where it is in the interests of conserving the heritage values of a property. The lack of formal legislative capacity to seek public comment is certainly a problem that needs to be considered in the review of the legislation, and I will have more to say on this later when the results of the review come forward. Notwithstanding the shortcomings of the legislation, I will be using my best endeavours to ensure that the community has a chance to comment on the plans for Admiralty House, and that this view is communicated to the company concerned. In addition, any development on the heritage site will almost certainly require development consent, providing another avenue for community comment.
In summary, there are community concerns; there has been a process; there are some further proposals regarding the area. I have given guarantees about conservation of Old Admiralty House and public consultation. I certainly will not making any decision without listening to what the community is saying, or that will harm, in any way, Admiralty House, because we do not want a repeat of Hotel Darwin.
I do not have a lot of time. I appreciate the support from my colleagues. I have picked up a fair few of the issues the member for Nelson commented on such as the heritage zonings, and the complex procedure for heritage listing. I am prepared to take all those on board regarding the review of the act. I take on board what he said about Strauss. I want to place on the record again that, at the recent meeting of Commonwealth, state and territory Heritage ministers, I was very forthright in telling them about Strauss Airfield and the need, the national interest, and the importance of preserving it. I know my colleague has written to Deputy Prime Minister Anderson on the issue. If we can have solidarity on both sides of this House, we can put a very strong case to the federal government about Strauss. We have declared it. Also, the member for Nelson mentioned Trevor Horman and the great work that he as done in Adelaide River, and I commend him for that.
The member for Araluen mentioned what is beneath tourist icons; how a lot of work has to be done to market heritage. I am very interested in what Queensland has done. They have actually produced some books about heritage for tourists. Those books have become best sellers; the tourists love them. That is an idea we should carry forward, and I appreciate the constructive suggestion by the member for Araluen.
I have already mentioned the member for Sanderson. The Chief Minister mentioned a lot of the history and heritage around Fannie Bay. In summary, she talked about heritage in the Northern Territory as being smart, strategic and consultative. That is the way we have to be, because heritage is just so important. As the member for Sanderson said, it teaches us about our past so that we can look forward to the future. Without a past, we have no reference points.
I commend all members for their contribution here today. I am deeply appreciative. Certainly, there have been a lot of good ideas and comment come out, and I will be taking them on board. I commend this ministerial statement to the House.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
DISCHARGE OF BUSINESS
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Mr Acting Speaker, I move that government business order of the day No 2 relating to the Interim Report on Issues Associated with the Progressive Entry of Cane Toads into the Northern Territory be discharged forthwith.
Motion agreed to.
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the Assembly at its rising adjourn until Tuesday, 25 November 2003 at 10 am or such other time and or date as may be set by Mr Acting Speaker, pursuant to sessional order.
Motion agreed to.
TABLED PAPER
Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report 2002-03
Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report 2002-03
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Mr Acting Speaker, I table Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report for 2002-03 in accordance with section 9 of the Financial Management Act. I am pleased to table this report. This statement forms part of the 2002-03 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report and presents the Territory’s first year of fiscal management on an accrual basis. The report also satisfies the requirements of the final fiscal results report as set out in the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act.
The outcome for the 2002-03 financial year: as members will be aware, the government inherited the financial position that was widely described by expert competitors as unsustainable. Since that time, the government has been intent on getting the fiscal position of the Territory in order. If we fail to do that today, we place the future of the Territory at risk. We are striving to bring the Territory budget out of a cash deficit and into a surplus. The Territory committed to a cash-based deficit reduction strategy at the time of the November 2001 mini-budget, that would bring the budget into balance by 2004-05. The August 2002-03 budget anticipated a deficit of $94m.
In May 2003, at the time of the delivery of the 2003-04 budget, we predicted the position for 2002-03 improved and would be in the order of a deficit of $31m. The cash outcome has been better than our predictions, resulting in a cash surplus of $9m. However - and it is a big however - the underlying deficit at 30 June 2003 remains at the predicted $31m. It does so for a number of reasons, which I will explain, but principally because $40m of expenditure has been carried forward to 2003-04.
The cash improvement since August 2002 can be explained in the following terms: $39m was due to increased receipts. Of this, $18m was an increase in Northern Territory tax receipts, the biggest part of which comes from one-off increases in stamp duty on a number of commercial conveyancing transactions. That means we experienced a number of one-off additional revenue payments resulting from one-off events; for example, stamp duty on conveyancing from some unique large transactions. Other receipts and receipts from sales of goods and services account of $15m of the increase. This means the government received a greater amount of revenue from activities than anticipated. It includes $4m of recoverable works receipts and a number of other small increases across several agencies.
The nett increase in Commonwealth grants is $5m from addition specific purpose payments, offset by lower GST revenue, and will result in increased program expenditure in 2003-04.
The three factors account for $39m better than expected improvement in the cash position: $64m improvements from nett reduction in payments - the figure explains the remainder of the cash improvement; $38m was due to nett reduction in capital payments, as compared with the August budget; $10m capital works was transferred into 2003-04 at the time of the May 2003 budget and announced at that time. As a result of the end of year outcome, another $10m of capital expenditure transfers into 2003-04. It includes $3m of delayed payments associated with railway associated infrastructure; $3m in medical equipment ordered, but not delivered before 30 June; and a further $3m in capital works. Another $13m originally classified as capital was reclassified to operating during the year and included $10m for the indigenous essential services capital program, which was provided as a grant to the Power and Water Corporation. $3m that was budgeted for land acquisitions was not required. Despite some delays in capital expenditure, 2002-03 capital expenditure remained higher than average and excluding expenditure on the railway, was $45m higher than 2001-02.
Operating payments reduced by a nett $25m since August 2002. It is made up of a $9m reduction on interest payments due to debt re-financing. It shows good work done by Treasury in improving our position in this area. There were increased payments of $25m, largely in Education, Health and Community Services, offset by approximately $30m in payments transferring into 2003-04, and approximately $10m largely due to reduced expenditure in superannuation benefit payments. The $30m in operational payments which will transfer to 2003-04, does so largely because of timing. It includes $15m Commonwealth special payments received late in 2002-03 that will be spent in 2003-04, and $10m in grants payments that did not occur in 2002-03.
In summary, the improvement in the cash outcome is gratifying, but needs to be put into context. We have come out of the 2002-03 year with an underlying deficit situation, albeit a reduced deficit, and we enter 2003-04 still tracking toward an underlying cash deficit of $24m. In accrual terms, the nett operating balance improved through the year by $27m to a small deficit of $1m, which is a good result. The improvement in the nett operating balance is similar to the underlying cash improvement.
The Martin government adopted a new fiscal strategy for the 2002-03 year. In line with the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act, it was based on three key principles: sustainable government services, a competitive tax environment and prudent management of liabilities. Specific targets were identified for each of principles.
Sustainable government services: the targets for the principle of this strategy are to achieve an underlying cash surplus by 2004-05, to achieve a positive government finance statistics operating balance within 10 years in the general government sector. Based on the government’s financial performance to date, the targets of achieving a cash surplus in 2004-05 and a positive nett operating balance within 10 years will be achieved.
Maintain a competitive tax environment: in 2002-03, Northern Territory taxation revenue per capita was $1248 less than all other jurisdictions except Tasmania. The Commonwealth Grants Commission assessments show that the Territory’s tax effort is closer to the Australian average than the simple per capita measures imply, but indicates that Territorians are paying taxes at a level below the Australian average.
Prudent management of liabilities: the effective management of liabilities gives considerable focus to targeting, monitoring and reducing nett debt to prudent levels. It should be noted that, for benchmarking the Territory against other jurisdictions, the broader non-financial public sector scope is used, rather than the general government sector. This broader focus is appropriate because of substantial differences between the states and the allocation of debt and liabilities between the general government and the non-financial public sector.
Debt is defined as those liabilities which carry a contractual obligation to service or repay principal and, in the Territory context, broadly comprise Territory borrowings, both domestic and offshore, Territory bonds and advances received from the Commonwealth. Currently, Territory debt levels are high relative to the states. However, due to the cash surplus achieved in 2002-03, Territory non-financial public sector nett debt decreased from $1753m in 2001-02 to $1723m in 2002-03. Over the same period, the ratio of nett debt to revenue declined from 67% in 2001-02 to 64% in 2002-03.
The addition of the employee liabilities to nett debt, enables a broader assessment of government liabilities. Nett debt, plus employee liabilities as at 30 June 2003 for the non-financial public sector, was $3508m, an improvement of $115m on the original budget. This comprised $1723m in nett debt and $1785m in employee liabilities. The Territory’s nett debt and employee liabilities rose slightly between 2001-02 and 2002-03, and this is projected to continue to rise until 2005-06, due to emerging costs associated with unfunded superannuation liabilities.
In summary, it is a good result consistent with the government’s fiscal strategy and an improvement on the original 2002-03 budget. This government will continue to manage the Territory’s finances responsibly, maintaining an appropriate balance between community needs, the needs of the Territory economy, and maintaining a sound fiscal position.
I wish to turn to public financial corporations. The operating balance for public financial corporations was a reduction of approximately $38m in the August 2002 budget, primarily resulting from the Territory Insurance Office increasing its prudential reserves. I believe the Territory Insurance Office released its 2002-03 financial outcome today. As the only remaining Australian insurance company operating under government ownership, Territory Insurance Office does not have to meet the requirements of the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority. However, despite tight trading conditions, the Territory Insurance Office Board has chosen to move progressively towards Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority standards and to increase reserves held against possible future claims. However, this does involve absorbing book losses today to provide for unresolved claims resulting from past events.
The government has agreed to convert a $16.5m deposit to equity to improve Territory Insurance Office’s nett asset position. This has no impact on the Territory’s 2002-03 outcome, but will be reflected in the 2003-04 year. It is referred to in Note 28 in the Total Public Sector financial statements.
I turn now to the presentation of the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report. With the move from a cash framework to an accrual framework, the format of the 2002-03 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report differs significantly from that in previous years. The information contained in the report has been enhanced in order to improve accountability and transparency and provide a more user friendly document. This Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report presents the 2002-03 outcome in a single reporting format, with comparative data provided for the 2002-03 final budget estimate and the 2001-02 outcome. It also includes further information on items of significance in the form of notes to the Total Public Sector financial statements.
Although the cash-based information was audited in previous years, this is the first time audited accrual numbers have been presented in the report. I am pleased to announce the Auditor-General has issued a clear audit opinion on the statement. A technical qualification still exists in relation to compliance with Australian Accounting Standard 31, Financial Reporting by Governments, as has been the case for the last three years. The Territory has chosen to conform with uniform presentation framework requirements rather than with Australian Accounting Standard 31 in this and in previous years. However, the information presented in this report is largely consistent with what we anticipate will be the new requirements under the harmonisation of uniform presentation framework and Australian Accounting Standard 31 reporting standards.
The report comprises an overview and an audited section, followed by an unaudited section. However, unlike previous years, the majority of the information provided is in the audited section of the report. The overview provides users with an analysis of the whole-of-government information presented in the report, and the outcome of the government’s fiscal strategy for 2002-03. It also meets the requirements of the final fiscal results report, as set out in the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act. The audited section includes financial statements, operating statements, balance sheet and cash flow statement by UPF sector, with notes to the statements provided for the total public sector. Actual data for 2001-02 and 2002-03, along with final budget comparisons are presented for the general government, public non-financial corporations, and non-financial public sector financial statements. Budget comparative data is not provided in the total public sector and public corporation statements, as this is not a UPF requirement.
Notes for the public sector financial statements provide additional information in regard to accounting policies and significant items. As 2002-03 is the first year for which such notes have been included, it is expected that these will be enhanced and expanded to include financial information for other sectors over the next two to three years. Additional tables required by the UPF relating to general government operating expenses by function, general government purchase of non-financial assets by function, new UPF requirements for 2002-03, general government sector taxes and loan council allocation for 2002-03 are provided in this section.
The unaudited section includes summarised agency information on appropriation changes through the year, and explanations for any variations of appropriation. Explanations are also included for any significant variations in the key components of the financial statements that have occurred between the 2002-03 final estimate and the actual outcome for 2002-03. This information is not required under UPF, or the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act, and agencies will present full financial statements in their annual reports. However, to present a comprehensive and informative document, it was considered appropriate that summary agency information be provided.
The 2002-03 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report is the Territory’s first accrual report, and demonstrates considerable and ongoing improvement in the Territory’s financial reporting framework. I table the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report for 2002-03, which incorporates the 2002-03 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement. I commend it to the House. I move the Assembly take note of the report and that I have leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Sessional Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development Report – Issues associated with the progressive entry into the Northern Territory of cane toads
Sessional Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development Report – Issues associated with the progressive entry into the Northern Territory of cane toads
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Acting Speaker, pursuant to the resolution of the Assembly dated 27 November 2002, I table the Sessional Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development’s report entitled Issues associated with the progressive entry into the Northern Territory of cane toads. It is in four volumes.
MOTION
Print Paper - Sessional Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development Report – Issues associated with the progressive entry into the Northern Territory of cane toads
Print Paper - Sessional Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development Report – Issues associated with the progressive entry into the Northern Territory of cane toads
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper - Sessional Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development
Report – Issues associated with the progressive entry into the Northern Territory of cane toads
Note Paper - Sessional Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development
Report – Issues associated with the progressive entry into the Northern Territory of cane toads
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the paper.
Members will recall that on 21 August this year, I tabled in this House the committee’s interim report on this matter. At that time, I stated that the tabling of that document had been brought forward to facilitate the early consideration of some matters that are time sensitive, which required being placed before parliament in advance of the major report - in particular, that cane toads are likely to reach greater Darwin and Palmerston during this coming Wet.
Accordingly, the committee urged that the Northern Territory government consider a number of recommendations that required immediate attention to ameliorate the significant impact the cane toads are likely to have during this coming Wet. In particular, we recommended the construction of a cane toad-proof fence on Cobourg Peninsula; increased use and enhancement of existing ranger and care for country programs to pursue cane toad control methods; the development and implementation of a multimedia public awareness campaign to educate the community about cane toads; and the development and management of quarantine regimes between the Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments to protect offshore islands currently with cane toads.
I am happy to report to the House that the government has, indeed, listened to this committee in respect of the development and implementation of a multimedia public awareness campaign to educate the community about cane toads, with the production of information sheets and the holding of public displays in key areas such as shopping centres, markets throughout Darwin and Palmerston, and the Smith Street Mall.
The committee notes, as part of the governments public awareness program, the Parks and Wildlife Commission of the NT has produced two information sheets: Cane Toads - The Facts and Making Your Yard a Toad-free Zone. These information sheets are shown at Appendix 4 within Volume 1 of the committee’s report. The committee encourages the government to continue this public awareness program, and it hopes that it will be expanded into communities in the western Top End prior to the arrival of cane toads in those areas.
Having provided an update on the interim report, I now turn to the committee’s major report tabled this evening. The report is a combination of many hours of work put in by the committee. Before I go into detail on that report, I would like to state at the outset my appreciation to the members of this committee and to the staff of the Secretariat for their contribution in producing this document. In particular, I would like to thank the committee Secretariat, Rick Gray and Maria Viegas, who were ably assisted by Kim Cowcher and Anna-Maria Socci.
This report would not have been possible had it not been for the many people – citizens, specialist, local communities, and government organisations and authorities - who willingly and generously shared their information with the committee. The committee, prior to commencing this inquiry, received a number of excellent briefings from a variety of people and organisations, and it has assisted the committee to understand the nature and habits of the cane toad. Details of those who provided briefings are at page 5 of Volume I, and transcripts of those briefings in Volume 4, Briefings.
The committee also advertised for submissions. As Chair, I signed hundreds of letters to parties we identified to have an interest in this matter. We received a total of 25 written submissions. Many of them were of a high standard and they helped our committee to arrive at a series of recommendations. Copies of those submissions are in Volume 2, Written Submissions. The committee received two excellent submissions from Environment Australia and chose to attach them as separate appendices to the major report.
The committee also conducted a number of public hearings in Borroloola, Katherine, Jabiru, Darwin, Palmerston and Litchfield, where 54 people gave direct oral evidence. Transcripts of those proceedings can be read in Volume 3, Public Hearings. Copies of the committee’s report are available from the committee Secretariat and will be on the committee web site shortly.
At the time of the culmination of this investigation, the committee identified some 47 findings relating to the risk and impacts of cane toads in the NT, managing those risks and impacts, public education and awareness, and cooperation and collaboration with other governmental bodies. At this stage, I would like to point out that a key recommendations of the committee goes to cooperation and collaboration. Given all the evidence received, the committee is of the view that cane toads are, indeed, a national issue. Throughout the inquiry, the need for cooperative and collaborative arrangements between key stakeholders at local, regional levels in the NT, the states and Commonwealth was continually raised. Such coordinated arrangements would serves as a focal point for coordinating management and research strategies to address issues regarding cane toads that would offer a concerted approach towards effective control or even, dare we say, possible eradication.
In the more immediate term, the need for the NT to forge links with Western Australia to attempt to control cane toads spreading across the border and into the pristine Kimberley, was identified. During the course of the inquiry, the committee raised a question as to the merits or otherwise of a possible formation of a national cane toad task force. The committee heard substantial evidence identifying the need to establish a national task force. Many of the submissions highlighted a number of factors:
there is a need for a comprehensive management approach towards the control and possible eradication
of cane toads in Australia;
the Commonwealth that are tied to research and monitoring the environmental impact of cane toads; and
stakeholders in the community in the monitoring, research and control of the environmental impact of the
cane toad.
The report goes into detail in respect of the above, and I encourage members to read the report. The committee has recommended that, in respect of establishing a national task force, the Northern Territory government pursue with the Commonwealth, the states of Queensland, Western Australia, New South Wales and South Australia, the establishment of a national task force to coordinate efforts to control, and possibly eradicate, cane toads. The membership of the national task force should include, but not necessarily be limited to, representatives of key stakeholder groups, such as CSIRO, Parks and Wildlife Commission NT, the Cooperative Research Centre Tropical Savannas Management at Charles Darwin University, interstate academics, Environment Australia, Frog Watch NT and peak indigenous organisations.
The role and function of the national task force could include: to coordinate efforts to control and possibly eradicate cane toads in Australia; to identify and pursue funding; to ensure ongoing consultation and collaboration with the three tiers of government, environment groups, tertiary institutions and other relevant bodies, relevant corporations and industry; and any other roles and functions agreed to by the membership.
The committee heard evidence that Western Australia is next in line in regard to cane toad infestation and there is great merit in establishing bilateral agreements between the Northern Territory and Western Australia to coordinate the research, control and possible eradication of cane toads in Australia’s north-west. Given this real threat of the cane toad moving to the north-west, there are very good reasons why Western Australia should be engaged. We recommend that the Northern Territory government approach the Western Australian government for the purpose of establishing agreement on a coordinated program to research and control cane toads.
From the findings, the committee has made 17 recommendations that should assist governments and the community in providing mechanisms and approaches to control and manage cane toads. Cane toads have been present in Australia for almost 70 years, and in the Northern Territory for some 20 years. Research has shown that there are substantial short-term impacts on the decline of many vertebrate predators; in particular, goannas, most snakes, and the northern quoll, but also including some crocodiles, turtles, fish and birds.
The committee, throughout this inquiry, heard a wide range of evidence on what is known about the cane toad. Page 8 of Volume 1 provides an extensive list of what is known. However, the following are some of the more pertinent points:
adult cane toads are nocturnal, terrestrial and ground dwelling;
rocks or sheets of iron etcetera.
in Australia, the cane toad has no known natural predators or parasites;
cane toads compete effectively with other insect eating animals for food;
It became evident to the committee that the extent and distribution of the cane toad within the NT and its impact on native fauna and habitats has now become quite extensive with serious consequences. In particular, the committee found that cane toads are expected to arrive in the urban areas of the Top End of the NT, including Darwin and Palmerston, during the coming Wet Season and we will see a high level of cane toad colonisation. Cane toads have already colonised some NT offshore islands and, indeed, scientist-led evidence shows that cane toads have the potential to infest and affect all Australian states.
The seriousness of the incursion of cane toads into the NT is an issue the committee is concerned about, and must be addressed while there is still an opportunity to protect certain areas of the Territory, and properly inform the general community about how to deal with cane toads. The committee found that the toxin is potentially lethal to humans and domestic pets if ingested. It poses significant risk to humans and their pets, but this risk can be reduced with eradication, education and awareness. Until recently, there had been little research conducted on the indirect and long-term effects of cane toads on our native species and ecosystems. As a result, there is little quantitative baseline data on the possible long-term effects of cane toads on native species and our ecosystems.
The committee received substantial evidence regarding potential socioeconomic impacts. These include the effects on indigenous communities, the wider community, power and water, business and tourism. While the socioeconomic impacts are widely discussed in the evidence and research collected by the committee, further research specific to these issues is required to accurately quantify the full extent of these impacts.
The committee identified a series of findings in respect to the risks and impacts of cane toads. The rate of spread of cane toads is approximately 30 km per year, and this is greater than what was previously expected. The northern quoll is a vulnerable species threatened by the cane toad. There is a lack of information on the potential socioeconomic impacts in the NT, including those I mentioned before: water, tourism, business, agriculture, and indigenous food sources.
We found the experience and knowledge of indigenous communities already affected by cane toads should be used to enhance the work of existing ranger programs, such as those established by Parks and Wildlife Commission NT and the Northern Land Council’s Caring for Country Unit.
We received a great deal of evidence regarding the impacts of cane toads on indigenous communities; in particular, the decline in numbers of bush tucker species such as goanna, water monitor, lizards, snakes and turtles. We found this would primarily affect the important and strong relationships indigenous communities have with their country. The committee heard compelling evidence during a visit to Kakadu in respect of the impact the cane toad had on indigenous communities there. In part, I quote Mr Russell Cubillo, the Deputy Chairman of the Kakadu National Park Board of Management:
- … the goannas and snakes and barramundi and all these things, they are quite significant to Aboriginal
people’s culture, and indeed it means … and that it is quite serious to think that a lot of Aboriginal people
have … which is celebration of these particular animals.
And the serious one I am thinking about, if we have an eradication of animals that we have very strong stories
about and we talk about that and Aboriginal people practice their culture. Aboriginal people not only eat these
things for bush tucker but very serious parts of our culture, our tradition, and it all. And all these things are
embedded here … Do we dance about crocodiles when crocodiles die from, you know, cane toads.
The committee has recommended that ranger programs such as those established by Parks and Wildlife and the Northern Land Council’s Caring for Country Unit could be supported and enhanced to pursue cane toad control methods. In particular, we note evidence received from Environment Australia which identified what it saw as the main ways of managing the environmental impact of cane toads:
identify one or more biological controls to reduce cane toad populations;
institute strict quarantine measures in designated areas, eg, islands or peninsulas, to keep
them toad-free as long as possible;
through translocation or captive breeding if necessary and appropriate;
impacts in order to best guide priorities for future impact mitigation measures; and
The committee also heard considerable evidence about erecting a cane toad-proof fence across the Cobourg Peninsula in order to quarantine the peninsula’s unique and historic flora and flora from cane toad infestation. The Chair of the Cobourg Peninsula Board of Management, Mr Christophersen, in his evidence to the committee, expressed concern about the impending infestation of the peninsula:
- I can’t stress enough the way I feel about the Cobourg because that is going to be the last point, well,
Danger Point in the Cobourg Peninsula is the farthest point north of mainland Northern Territory.
Once they get there, they can’t get no further, except to the islands. Now, to protect that from cane
toads is like protecting the last frontier, so to speak. Now to me and the families of Cobourg, it is
vitally important.
The committee also received considerable evidence in regard to the impending impact of the cane toad to offshore islands, including Bathurst and Melville Islands. A submission from the Tiwi Land Council raised concerns about the cane toad coming on to the islands and damaging the fledgling aquaculture and forestry enterprises. The Tiwi Islands are taking active steps to mitigate the intrusion of the cane toad by erecting a quarantine facility on the mainland at one of the local shipping and barge enterprises in Darwin. This approach is the first attempt in Australia to provide a cane toad barrier of this type, and the committee supports the Tiwi Island Council’s endeavours.
The committee identified a series of findings in respect of managing the risks of the impact of cane toads on our community and, apart from what has already been mentioned, there are some more of particular note. We note there are no effective biological or chemical control methods yet found for the cane toad. The CSIRO is researching biological control of cane toads, but the project could take a further 10 years, and its final effect is unknown. There is limited baseline native fauna and flora data, before and after the arrival of cane toads in the Territory, making it difficult to gauge their long-term impact on our native species. In managing the incursion, a number of control methods and approaches ranging from continued monitoring and research programs; biological and chemical control, including eradication and physical removal; quarantining; physical barriers; and the relocation of threatened species to offshore islands, are all aspects for consideration. There are a number of physical and manual control methods and measures in managing the containment of the cane toad that may prove effective in localised areas, for example, townships, caravan parks and specifically targeted areas.
In regard to the funding for cane toad research and monitoring over the past 20 years from both the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory governments, and what is predicted for the future, the committee found it was difficult to get clear and accurate figures. We did find there is no formal Northern Territory plan of management for cane toads and, hence, the committee has recommended that the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment develop and implement a plan of management for the control of cane toads.
There may have been missed opportunities in the past in attempting to control the spread of cane toads. However, evidence the committee received now points overwhelmingly towards further action. We found cane toads are not currently listed as a threatening process under the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act of 1999. Therefore, the committee recommends that the Northern Territory government lobby the Commonwealth government to reclassify the cane toad from a pest to a menace under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, and the Northern Territory government nominate cane toads as a threatening process under this act.
The translocation of populations of the northern quoll to offshore islands requires ongoing research regarding the impacts of the quolls on the islands’ ecology. The committee recommends that the Northern Territory government and relevant Commonwealth agencies continue to monitor the effects of the quolls on the offshore islands.
There are no comprehensive quarantine measures or facilities to guard against the transportation of cane toads. We recommend the Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments continue with the development and management of quarantine regimes to protect offshore islands currently without cane toads.
It became evident during the course of this inquiry that there was a great lack of knowledge within the Northern Territory community in respect to cane toad advancement, particularly in Darwin, the rural areas and national parks in close proximity to Darwin and Palmerston. Community groups and volunteer organisations, we believe, should be encouraged to undertake control methods such as adopt a water way - this could be one way of managing and controlling the impact of cane toads. We heard anecdotal evidence of people in Queensland who had taken it upon themselves to combat cane toads in specific areas such as billabongs and dams and that, single-handedly, they have been able to eradicate cane toads from such areas.
At the Jabiru public hearings, the committee heard compelling evidence from Mr Murdoch, the Public Relations Officer of the Jabiru Town Council, in respect of the community concerns and expectations, and I quote:
- While we in Jabiru understand and accept the view of the eminent scientists and environmentalists on the
damage that toads do to the environment and fauna, we have looked at the issue of the cane toads invading
from a different perspective. In all the public history about the toads and their effects, it seems to us that one
of the most important dangers associated with them has been disregarded, or at least given minimal coverage.
The danger is, one, of the effects of the toads on the young people who live in the bush. Anyone who has lived
in a small, isolated Australian community would soon realise that the cane toads can and will present a serious
health hazard for our younger citizens. Although with our modern media, we can communicate and educate a
broad band of Australians on the associated dangers of the toads, how can we communicate this to young people
who either are not old enough to understand the English language or to whom English is a second, third or even
fourth language?
The committee is of the view that there is a need for a series of education programs aimed at indigenous and non-indigenous communities and organisations to encourage people to actively participate in the management and control of cane toads. The committee is of the view that, given the real threat of the cane toad to infest Australia’s north-west, there is much action that can be taken, on a collaborative basis, between governments.
The committee, throughout the inquiry, has heard an enormous amount of evidence in respect to the impact the cane toad will have on the environment, our communities and urban centres. We heard evidence about the research and monitoring, control methods - biological or otherwise - and the importance of public awareness and education. Throughout the inquiry, the committee has asked the question: ‘Given all the issues associated with the progressive entry of cane toads into the Northern Territory, what needs to be done to mitigate, control or eradicate the cane toad on the broader scale?’
The committee has heard comments on which level of environmental priority the cane toad incursion should be given, and has noted that there may have been missed opportunities to attempt the control and spread of cane toads. However, the evidence provided to the committee in the submissions and briefings received, points overwhelmingly towards further action. In that regard, the committee has recommended that the Northern Territory government make the management and control of cane toads a high priority in respect of monitoring the cane toad spread and of coordinating research, and that the government report to parliament on the progress of implementing this inquiry’s recommendations.
I encourage all members and the government to study the report in detail. As you can see, there are four extensive volumes of this inquiry. We have tried to keep the language in as simple English as possible but, given the nature of some of the scientific evidence, that was difficult. The recommendations and findings are early in the report, so people can turn their attention to those pretty quickly.
I just want to finish my comments tonight with a quote that a US scientist studying in Kakadu National Park gave to the committee. I feel that it perhaps best sums up the situation we are confronting. Dr Dan Hollands said:
- By analogy, there was no question by the captain and officers of the Titanic on that fateful night in 1912 that
the ship was sinking; the only question was how long it would stay afloat and how many of the passengers
could they save.
To me, that signifies that there is an opportunity for us to save some of the biodiversity of the Northern Territory. Certainly, with collaboration and assistance in research and funding, importantly from other jurisdictions, we could, in fact, save the biodiversity of other regions of Australia through what we are able to achieve in the Territory. That presents a major challenge to our governments; it presents the need for a coordinated approach which all researchers agreed on in their submissions to our committee.
I believe the inquiry was worthwhile. I thank the government for referencing the committee to undertake the inquiry. The inquiry certainly was greeted with a lot of enthusiasm from the scientific community, with many people commenting that they were very pleased the inquiry had occurred.
Broadly speaking, everyone was of the view that a national task force would be the best way forward in coordinating the approach to combat the cane toad. There are a range of research proposals that scientists have put on the table that require funding. It was the committee’s view that we are not the experts to say which research proposal had the greater merit, but we believe that a national task force with significant stakeholders and experts on the subject could be the forum in which such decisions are made. I urge all members of the Assembly to take note of the report, and I look forward to further discussions on this subject.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Acting Speaker, it is my intention to speak quickly to this and to adjourn this debate on the basis that it is a comprehensive set of documents, and it is probably best that the opportunity be taken to mull over this in the intervening period between sittings and the debate continue again in November.
From my point of view, the destination this report got to was entirely predictable, but the route we took to get there was educative - if I could say it like that. We have come pretty much to the finding as the American doctor in Kakadu said - that this is a Titanic. There is an inevitability about the advent of cane toads in this place. However, that does not mean that you cannot know more about them, we cannot inform ourselves more, that we cannot provide some safety and other lessons to our young folk and those who might vulnerable, and there might some educative things we can provide for other jurisdictions.
So, I thought tonight I would talk about bufo marinus ‘This is your life’. Here he is here – that is the cane toad – and it is my expectation that cousins of this critter are hopping around Darwin as we speak. I have absolutely no doubt that this species of animal will be in the Darwin environs over this Wet Season.
They are a formidable animal, as you well know. They have two poisoned glands on their back that excrete bufo toxin. The bufo toxin is toxic to many mammals, fish, invertebrates and others. It is toxic at all stages of its life cycle - as a metamorph, an egg, a tadpole and an adult. I do not think, if you went throughout the globe, you would find a more formidable animal than this dude. He has been found in fossilised remains. In the fossils, it is almost identical to the species that we now have before us. So, we know that he has been around a long time and, from those fossilised remains, we have been able to establish that he has barely evolved in that time. Why would he? He is omnivorous and, although he prefers insects, he will eat anything. The ones that have been studied in the Northern Territory have had grasses, small mammals, bugs, and all manner of things in their gut. They are toxic to most species. They are very hardy in terms of their habitat. If one goes to page 10 of Volume 1, there is the predicted distribution of the animal.
It might surprise members of this House to find that every Australian state, including Tasmania, will one day have this particular beast as part of its fauna. They exist on pretty much every continent. They are well studied and, despite evidence from some people we knew very little about them, there is an ample body of scientific evidence on this animal. Obviously, that does not mean we know everything because they will have a different impact in different places they go. However, this is a beast that has come across the Barkly Tablelands and it can adapt to extremes of temperature. The only thing that seems capable of pulling them up is lack of water.
There is some good news and bad news about them, I suppose. The bad news is that they are here to stay and they have a deathly impact on the ecology of this place. But there is some good news. We received some evidence from people who are knowledgable that it is likely that no species will become extinct as a result of the cane toad coming to the Northern Territory. That was very heartening evidence to me because I had received lots of information, including from scientific people, that there was a likelihood that a variety of species would become extinct as a result of the cane toad.
There has been some 60 years since this beast arrived in Queensland. I note that the chairman of the committee, the previous speaker, said that there were missed opportunities to prevent the spread. There was one opportunity, and it was in 1937 when they brought this thing in and they took it around. Failing that opportunity, there is no opportunity, I believe, to halt in a major way the advance of this species. There are opportunities to quarantine certain areas - areas that are geologically, or in some other way formidable, like islands for instance, or Cobourg Peninsula. There may be some hope there. But bufo marinus will be in every state. He will be eating native flora and fauna; he will have an impact on the environment. We have to talk to the people who voted us into this place about what effect it will have on their lives.
For people who do not like Death Adders and King Browns, they are particularly toxic to those two beasts, and they eat cockroaches. If you were looking for the very few ticks on the credit side of the ledger for this beast, they are among them.
It is sad that a creature like this has arrived. We took evidence in the committee that there are significant other issues out there. While I would not suggest that the work we have done has been in vain, I would suggest that there is significant environmental work in front of this committee. Feral animals are among that work: camels, donkeys, pigs and other invasive species. I hope we can turn some of our intellectual gaze to some of those animals.
I was pleased to discover that the Northern Territory has a proud and formidable record in scientific work in this area, given that this animal arrived into the Northern Territory in the 1980s. In 15 to 20 years, for a small jurisdiction, the vast bulk of the information gathered comes from the Territory. Our counterparts in Queensland have adopted a nonchalant attitude to cohabitation with this beast, and that attitude has translated into acceptance and a parochial sense of ownership: ‘He is one of us; we are used to him and don’t you bash up our cane toads’.
It is that attitude that has helped advance the spread of the toad. There is absolutely no doubt that the advancement from the Roper through to Katherine was aided by humans, either accidentally or intentionally. That is why I am so pessimistic about my scenario for their arrival here. They are notorious hitch hikers; they can hop on and off heavy plant and other vehicles. We now have a railway line running through Pine Creek and other toad infested areas. I would suspect that vehicles and fisherman going up and down the track will provide a ready means of transport for this animal.
It is important that we educate our people. I have taken this beast here to a number of schools and talked to school children about it. There was a document produced that is, unfortunately, now out of print. It was a colour document and provided some really good advice, particularly about mistaken identity. There are some local species that, when small, can be mistaken for the cane toad. It would be a dreadful crime to see these species being on the sharp end of a blunt device such as a golf club merely because they resemble this beast. Those documents should be available.
One of the things the committee talked about was making sure we got that advice out to schools and the community. I find when I talk to schools that those people from Queensland are very nonplussed about the fact that the toad will be here. I will admit there is some shock among them about the fact that it is here in Darwin, or will be in the next year or so. I canoed down the Katherine River last year and saw some crocodile deaths, which I did not attribute to anything other than someone who was trigger-happy. It was not until we came back to Katherine that someone said it was obviously cane toads.
My father canoed for several days down the Katherine River this year, and he is someone who has probably done that a dozen times. He said the effect it has had on the fauna on the river, including birds, is quite remarkable. He said they did not see crows, goannas, or frilled-necks. There is now no doubt that the invasive front, when it comes through, will take a great toll on animals that have never seen this before.
It is heartening to know that, if you go to places like Borroloola, there are two species of bird that have learned how to attack and digest this animal by coming in through the gut which is not toxic - the toxic glands are on the back - and there is a re-emergence of goannas. When we talk about the evidence we have, for instance about goannas, there is scientific evidence to the contrary that the goannas do reappear - the big animals die and the smaller animals either learn how to avoid them, not eat them, or eat them without peril.
Some of those tests should be replicated, certainly in the west of the Northern Territory, maybe through Yarralin and places like that. We have to make sure that we do not get tied up between anecdotal and emotional stuff and science. There was some discussion about how they kill crocodiles, and I believe that to be the case. However, there have been empirical studies where hungry freshwater crocodiles were put in a cage and their only food source was cane toads. The mortality rate was zero. So, while they will kill crocodiles, there is nothing to say they will kill them all. While they will goannas, the same holds true.
We were heartened to receive scientific evidence from somebody who had studied them in Queensland. There are toads on islands where all the species are still evident, and there are places where there were no toads, and the same held. There is a capacity to look at a control and experimental situation. We should take some heart from that.
The business about translocating the species has some difficulties attached to it, and are exactly the same difficulties that were attached to bringing this species to Australia in the first place; that is, that we really do not know the effect of bringing one species into an area where they have never been and setting them loose in that population mix. I understand there was some significant work done in translocating the quoll, and I hope that that is robust science and is monitored.
We found out a lot about this animal. For instance, Bufo marinus means marine toad. I, for one, was unaware of its capacity to live in a saltwater habitat. That is obviously what marine means, and we took evidence that people had seen them swimming in salt water. They are on the islands off Borroloola, and are a significant way away from the mainland. It is some effort to get from the mouth of McArthur to the centre island, and that is what they have achieved.
Therefore, we should look at these books. We should look at some of the evidence we have. I particularly would draw members to the evidence that was given by Bill Freeland. It is good that he provided both a written submission and oral evidence. I would suggest that he is probably among the more knowledgeable people about this particular species. Certainly, his name is a frequent reference if you look at early documentation and, particularly, early Territory documentation. There is no doubt that there is a debt of gratitude to Bill Freeland’s scientific work. He has put a very good thinking submission to the committee that should be good reading for people who are interested. It also provide some pointers, and those pointers are for the committee, maybe more than parliament. However, we certainly must take our reference from parliament. He has provided some pointers as to where we should go with our efforts with this committee in the future.
I shall not go further other than to seek to continue my remarks at another time. However, I cannot finish tonight without thanking the committee. I believe that the work that has been put in by Mr Rick Gray has been nothing short of exceptional. He has put an immense effort into this. Although this report has our various signatures and faces shining out of the pages, members would well know it largely bears the thumbprint of Mr Gray. He has done an exemplary job with this and I commend him for it. Maria Vegas, likewise, provided very good support for the committee. I will name the other three: Kim Cowcher, Elizabeth McFarlane and Anna-Maria Socci. That committee, although small and committed to other tasks of this parliament, provided a very good and powerful assistance to the committee.
The report is in the form these four volumes you see before you. I believe it is one of those things that will be called on frequently from various libraries, our electorate offices, or here in Parliament House offices, or in the State Library, because it is the stuff that students of the Territory’s native flora and fauna will be interested in for a long time to come. They will have much more opportunity, obviously, to see the beast in its natural – or unnatural habitat, certainly here in the Territory.
It is with some sadness I say that, on embarking on this committee, we already established its destination. Its destination was to say: ‘We will come up with a recommendation to say it is inevitable that it will be here, but there are some amelioration techniques’. Those techniques and recommendations are in the report. I thank also my colleagues on the committee. Members will note that there is no dissent in this report; it is a unanimous report of the committee. That goes to the fact that, with matters relating to the science and other issues of curiosity that we started off with, we were well and truly provided with answers as we went along.
I, therefore, seek leave, Mr Acting Speaker, to continue my remarks at a later date.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr VATSKALIS (Ethnic Affairs): Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
I speak about an issue of grave importance to the Greek community of the Northern Territory, to all ethnic communities of the Territory and to myself - both personally and as the Minister for Ethnic Affairs. That is the continued campaign of racial vilification of persons of Greek descent being conducted through the pages of our local newspaper. Today, another letter was published. The writer has smeared all hard-working Territorians of Greek - and particularly, Kalymnian - background, by basically asserting that thousands of Australians of Kalymnian descent are welfare bludgers and tax cheats. Nothing could be further from the truth.
For more than 50 years, Greek people have contributed to the growth of the Territory. Greeks, particularly Kalymnians, built Darwin. Now, a number of these people have decided to retire in or to return to Kalymnos and, in most cases, they are self-funded retirees. For your information, Greece and Australia do not have a pension agreement, so people cannot claim their pension there. If some senior Territorians of Greek descent move to Kalymnos, due to the change of the federal legislation, they can only claim their pension there for 12 months, and then they have to return to Australia.
Today, I have been contacted by many Greek Territorians who were outraged by this letter, and the ongoing campaign of vilification. I am also very disappointed at the NT News for having printed such grubby rubbish. I fully authorised my office to assist in the drafting of letters to the editor from the representatives of the Greek community, to express their disappointment. Today, I am proud to stand in support of Greek Territorians against the racist campaign; the same way I will stand in support of any other Territorian, irrespective of their background, creed, or origin.
The letter writer is a sad person, someone who thinks that the tragic drowning of two people in our national parks is an appropriate political platform to launch an attack on the government about pool fencing; and who thinks making slurs against hard-working members of our community is somehow clever. Territorians have always welcomed and accepted thousands of people - migrants and refugees - from many countries. These people have lived in the Territory, and have contributed, and continue to contribute, to the growth and development of the Territory. Territorians will continue to accept migrants and refugees, but will never accept attempts by sad people to damage the peace and harmony of our multicultural and accepting society.
Ms MARTIN (Fannie Bay): Mr Acting Speaker, I would like to say goodbye this evening to a real Territory icon, with the passing of Lionel Gray, of Motorcycle Haven, who died on 26 September.
Motorcycle Haven, just outside Adelaide River, was in some ways a strange name for such an eclectic place, with an extraordinary collection of historical objects. The amazing motorcycles guaranteed that at least every male - and probably some females - spent a fascinating time looking, admiring and dreaming over the fabulous collection. There was a whole lot more, though, to Motorcycle Haven than motorbikes.
The ancient film and cinematic poster collection could absorb you for hours, looking at the celluloid stars of yesteryear. Lionel’s dream of having a mobile cinema travelling through the Territory showing pictures was interrupted by ill health and other considerations, but he was always as passionately devoted to film history as to motorbikes. Then again, to talk about the cinema collection or motorbikes would not cover Lionel’s amazing collections of household bric-a-brac, old magazines and implements. His Motorcycle Haven was a miscellany of wonderful objects from another time. Lionel did not go in for display cases and the idea that visitors were kept at arms length from collections. Visitors felt almost as if they were discovering the objects rather than just looking at them.
Motorcycle Haven had an international reputation that possibly exceeded Lionel’s Territory, or even Australian fame. Particularly for Japanese visitors, Motorcycle Haven was the magnet for those interested in exploring something uniquely Territorian, off the beaten track.
Sadly, as the years went by, Lionel’s health started to cause him trouble. Increasingly, he found the climate here difficult and travelled south regularly. I was greatly saddened to hear of his death.
Lionel Gray’s Motorcycle Haven was unique in the Territory, and probably in Australia. It was an Aladdin’s cave of treasures, illustrating our social history. A real part of the experience of a visit was Lionel himself – laconic, humorous, brewing coffee and talking to visitors. All Territorians will sadly miss Lionel Gray and our condolences go to his family, particularly Alan, Cary, Mark and Hellaina.
This month we also mourn the passing of another great Territory character, Margaret Fairweather. Margaret was born on 26 October 1915 and came to live in the Territory in 1939. After living and working in Darwin over the next 21 years, she and her husband, John Fairweather, bought a block of land in the Daly River region, 150 km south of Darwin and, a year later in 1961, built the Daly River pub. Margaret Fairweather ran the Daly pub, mainly single-handed, for 26 years until 1987 when she was then 72 years old.
There are many stories told by friends of Marge and John’s that I could relate, but none of them capture the energy and strength of Marge during this time at the pub, than those told of how the Fairweathers pulled together through the devastation of the 1974 Daly River floods. In an extract from the publication Daly River Story, a River Unconquered, John Pye writes, and I quote:
- Water in the store is too dirty to drink. Even dangerous snakes and goannas, kangaroos and wild pigs
came floating through alive and dead. When they say you could ‘sink one’ at the Daly River store, they
are not necessarily talking about beer.
Another friend, Hugh Bradley, put into words that which so many who knew her would think: ‘Marge was a hard-working, hard-headed woman who was larger than life with a wonderful spirit’.
Margaret Fairweather remained active throughout her life, even though she was profoundly deaf and battled many illnesses. She was a 1963 foundation member of Quota International, the Darwin club which, incidentally, will celebrate its 40th year of charter on 2 December this year. Through Quota she conducted lip-reading classes for the deaf and, as always, despite her own disability, was keen and determined to help others in need. As a grandson, Derek, said at his grandmother’s funeral service: ‘Grandma may have been deaf, but she missed nothing’. Carol Wilson, who is past president and long-time member of Quota, relayed: ‘Marge saw that there was a very great need for a Quota Club in Darwin and, not one to let the grass under her feet, walked the pavement for 12 months calling on business and professional women of Darwin’. Bearing in mind Marge lived at the Daly River, she was very determined in her efforts to give Darwin the great gift of a women’s service club. Once the club was chartered in 1963 with 25 members, Marge travelled from the Daly River region to Darwin to attend two Quota meetings every month.
Marge was always ready to help others, and always on the look-out for those less fortunate than herself. In 1989, Marge Fairweather commenced studies at the Northern Territory University for a Certificate in Fashion Studies and, in 1995 was the oldest Territorian to graduate with an Associate Diploma in Fashion Technology. Orna Bennett, who is head of the school, and Armida Monteith who was the course coordinator who tutored Margaret over that seven year period, said: ‘When Margaret first started, because of her deafness which she played on, she had a lot of difficulties with pattern making and course lessons. When asked if she had completed project tasks, she would say: ‘Oh, I did not know you said that’. Armida came to work with Margaret on a one-to-one basis and copied all lessons into carbon copy books which, unfortunately for Marge, never allowed her to get away with not knowing again. Orna Bennett has retained these notebooks, which have now become valuable resource material for students of the course.
In 1996, at the age of 81, Margaret completed a solo world tour and, being the International Year of Peace, took a large bag of Australian coins depicting the peace motifs and, throughout her travels, handed out the coins to many lucky recipients.
Margaret Fairweather was a long-time Territorian who will be long remembered as a hard-working, feisty lady with a wonderful spirit who added life and character to the history of the Northern Territory. She is survived by her daughter Nola and son John, along with her eight grandchildren Derek, Leith, Rendall, Robert, John, Penny, Debbie and Jason.
I would also like to speak tonight about some local electorate issues. On Sunday 21 September, I officiated at the opening of the Ludmilla Landcare Environmental Park. This was an activity that I was most pleased to be involved in, having had a great personal interest and association with the Ludmilla Creek Landcare Group and its activities since its first work day eight years ago on Sunday, 11 June 1995 - which was a day I will not forget. It was six days before the by-election that brought me into this place.
In the past eight years, the Ludmilla Creek Landcare Group has grown in both size of membership and the complexity of the projects that the group has undertaken. Projects have ranged from small plantings of 150 trees to the re-birth of what is known as ‘coffee bush corner’, with 4000 trees planted.
The Ludmilla Creek Environmental Park is a significant achievement for the group. Ludmilla School first undertook a project in Ludmilla Creek way back in 1998 when teacher Robyn Maclean cleared the area nearest the gate for some plantings. She organised many lessons around the creek resources, from maths to English and environmental issues, and her project won a Northern Territory Landcare Education Award in 1999.
This project has seen collaboration by many government agencies and departments, with in-kind assistance, advice and materials. I would also like to acknowledge the ANZ Staff Foundation which provided funding for this major project. The Landcare section of the Department of Infrastructure and Planning, with Libby Benson as Manager, continues to provide essential overall support to the group through the urban Landcare coordinator, currently Steve Popple. Their help with technical advice, coordination, and on-ground works and materials have been essential to the success of the project.
The Power and Water Corporation removed problem trees and advised on-site constraints. The large piles of woodchip mulch they donated gave the Landcare group an excellent start to the plantings. Darwin City Council was also involved, providing plants, mulch and important safety features such as railings.
Greening Australia NT has consistently been easily available for advice on identification and suitability of plants, and has produced high quality plants, as it has for this and other projects.
The Mosquito Control Team from Darwin City Council and Territory Health Services gave the group an important start on the right-hand area by filling a swampy section so that we could plant trees in it. Support and advice came from Nemarluk School staff, and it certainly made the park accessible to people with various disabilities.
Peter Truman and the Community Corrections Unit have helped at various important times with intensive hard work, notably during initial construction of the pathway through the Ludmilla Creek area.
Tony Hillier of Earth Built has always given the group a good deal for path building and remodelling, and has given much good advice, generally, over the years.
The future looks very bright for the environmental park. There is no doubt that we will benefit from a much more active association with Crown land managers who manage the adjoining land. We also have a close link with the neighbouring Anglicare Backyard Project, which provides post-school options for young adults with disability. Their nursery has the potential to provide us with natives to augment and infill plantings to the park, and their on-ground work will complement and extend this park.
Last, but not least, I want to thank all the residents, ANZ Bank staff and others who have come to work days at the Ludmilla Environmental Park over the last two years. Without such community participation, this project would not have got off the ground.
By mentioning the Ludmilla Landcare Group, I must recognise the tree planting event that was held on Dick Ward Drive, near the racecourse, in July. In conjunction with National Tree Day, the Landcare group came together to plant nearly 300 trees, and then spread mountains of mulch to support the new growth area. I would like to acknowledge those who were involved with the National Tree Event for Ludmilla Landcare, including staff from Greening Australia, members of the Casuarina Coastal Reserve Landcare Group, and the individuals: Graham Symons, Alistair Thomson, Leisa Baldwin, Noeleen Beckett, Jane Keddie, Joe Faggion, Kerryn Atwell, Simon James, Anita Jansen, Stephen van den Nieuwenhof, Carolynne Yates, Rebecca Tunks, David Griffiths, Christine Bach and Andrew Mitchell.
I would also like to acknowledge one of the landmarks of Parap, the Parap Family Centre. The centre has provided care, devotion and assistance to the children of our community for the past 24 years. As part of Children’s Week’s celebrations this year, the Parap Family Centre will recognise outstanding service by their staff, with the presentation of certificates at the end of this month, 30 October. I am honoured to have been asked to present those certificates, which acknowledge the contribution staff have made to ensuring the care of children at the Parap Family Centre. Receiving their long service certificates will be Patricia Woodside, who has been with the centre 10 years, Pat Ross - 14 years, Wannapoen West - 10 years, Mary Rogas - 13 years, and Rebecca Noble, who has dedicated 20 years to the centre.
The extraordinary thing about all those women is that they also cared for my children when they were at Parap Family Centre. One of the real strengths of Parap Family Centre is that there have been long-term carers who my children still, when they see now, are delighted to see and feel real affection for. It is a great tribute that the wonderful staff I have just mentioned feel so attached and so much part of our local community that they would dedicate so many years to the centre and take such an ongoing interest in the children they have cared for.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I wanted to acknowledge in this House the wonderful talent of businesswomen from Katherine who have been rewarded in the Telstra Small Business Awards 2003. Four businesswomen entered the awards this year. Fe, who owns and operates a really great dress and variety store, called Fe’s Variety Store; Sue Flynn, who is operation manager of Allan King and Sons Constructions; Joanne Holden, who has worked tirelessly for the Jawoyn Association, and Lyn White, owner of Jalyn Ford.
Sue Flynn, in the category of Commonwealth Government Private and Corporate Sector Award; and Lyn White in the category of Westpac Group Business Owner Award, were acknowledged as the winners in their respective categories, and I congratulate them both on such a fine achievement.
Lyn was ultimately acknowledged as the overall winner of the Northern Territory Telstra Small Businesswoman of 2003, and will attend the National Award Presentation in Melbourne on 25 October. Lyn White started her career as a school teacher in South Australia, but took a change in career direction to work as a used car dealer - quite a brave move at that time. Following Lyn and her partner, Jane’s, move to Alice Springs, Lyn worked for Centralian Motors, moving to Katherine in 1997 to establish and manage the dealership for Centralian Motors, opening in April 1997.
In 1999, following the clean-up after the dreadful 1998 Katherine flood, Lyn and Jane purchased the business and named it Jalyn Ford. By August 2002, the business expanded with the addition of Wyn Holden, becoming only the second dual Ford and Holden dealership in Australia. Their combined dealerships provide employment for 19 local people. I consider the achievements of Lyn and Jane in a predominantly male-oriented industry are outstanding, and I congratulate them for their determination and commitment to servicing the people of Katherine and surrounds. I wish Lyn White the very best at the national awards in Melbourne. She is a great ambassador for women in business, and for Katherine.
Sue Flynn works as the operations manager for Allan King and Sons Construction, and is responsible for the smooth running of a business that has contracts operating, usually at great distances from Katherine; for example, road works near Adelaide River, as well as road construction and maintenance near the Western Australian border. Sue’s efficiency as operations manager is imperative to the successful outcome of these contracts. I congratulate Sue on winning the Commonwealth Government Private and Corporate Sector Award at the 2003 Telstra Businesswomen of the Year Awards.
The achievements of Lyn and Sue at the 2003 NT Telstra Small Business Awards, mirrors the successful outcome of the 2002 awards, when three women from Katherine and one from Pine Creek were finalists. Julie Newton, from Jeff Newton Saddlery, Katherine, was the 2002 NT Telstra Small Businesswoman. Julie has spent a very busy and productive year and has been a great ambassador for, not only Katherine, but the Northern Territory. Julie has just been appointed Chairman of the Katherine Region Development Board - an excellent choice and I know she will work tirelessly to achieve the best outcomes for the region.
I am very proud of the achievements of the business people of Katherine, with the challenges that they faced since the devastation of the 1998 floods, but I am especially proud of the successful women who have been acknowledged from such a small community.
In finishing tonight, I would just like to acknowledge that 20 Year 6 students from Casuarina School in Katherine, with three supervisors, visited Parliament House yesterday - very excited to see their new member sitting in parliament. I had a lovely time talking with them regarding what parliament is all about. I said I know very little; that I am still learning. It was refreshing to listen to their questions and see their eagerness to learn how parliament works. I thoroughly enjoyed having them on the balcony of the Leader of the Opposition, Denis Burke’s, office for morning tea; spilling cordial all over the balcony. I look forward to seeing them all when I get back to Katherine.
Dr TOYNE (Stuart): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the member for Araluen spoke in adjournment last night about the workload of the DPP, as reflected in statistics obtained by the CLP through an application under the Information Act. I really wonder why the member bothered to waste time and taxpayers’ money on such an application, when she could have obtained the information simply by asking for a briefing, or looking in the DPP’s annual report, which came out during these sittings. Despite this, the member for Araluen carries on as though she has uncovered some great conspiracy or big secret.
It is no secret to me that the staff of the Victims Support Unit and the DPP, generally, are very hard workers. It is no secret to me that they do a great job prosecuting offenders, and that they support many victims of crime, witnesses, and families of victims and witnesses.
The member for Araluen would have us believe that there is some sort of direct relationship between the number of cases the DPP handles or the number of clients the VSU assists, and the crime and justice statistics released by the Office of Crime Prevention every quarter. The member for Araluen would have us believe that, if the numbers of clients of VSU increases, we must be misleading Territorians about crime statistics. This is rich coming from a member of a party that was too gutless to release dependable, reliable, professional statistics on crime when it had a chance to do so.
What is more, the member for Araluen has it wrong - yet again! The DPP’s Victims Support Unit does a fantastic job for Territorians. They increased their services to Territorians by over 23% this financial year. It is probably hard for the member to understand that this is good news. It reflects the government’s commitment to support victims of crime. The increase in services shows the work of the VSU has been done to promote their service. Contrary to the claims of the member, they have not just sent out letters inviting people to make contact; the VSU have been out there letting people know about their service. This year alone, they have attended 12 training sessions at the Police College. They have also attended a number of schools to talk about their services, and they have even managed to increase the bush court work that they are doing. When you market a service, you get more clients.
What the member for Araluen also failed to acknowledge in her misguided attack last night, is that not every client of the VCU is the direct victim of a crime. The VSU count amongst their clients - and appropriately so - all the people for whom they provide a service. This often includes family members of victims, witnesses to proceedings, and families of witnesses. It can also, regrettably, include families of deceased persons.
As to preferring these figures to the quarterly crime and justice statistics produced in the Office of Crime Prevention and audited by Ernst & Young, these figures cannot show us the level of crime in our community. Following the formula of the member, we would be back in the dark ages of the former government with scant information being released to the public about the true rate of crime. Those figures can only come from offences reported to the police, something that everyone except the member for Araluen recognises nationwide. This is an accepted way for measuring crime rates right round the country.
What about the increase in new matters handled by the DPP prosecutors this year? The member for Araluen says this must mean that crime statistics are wrong. There have been …
Ms Carney: 113% increased workload! How do you explain that, Minister for Justice?
Dr TOYNE: Oh, here we go, I can hear a bug farting!
There has been an increase in new matters handled by the DPP this year - 958 compared to 429 the year before. I am surprised to have to spell this out for the member but, clearly, I do. This means the police are actually catching more criminals. Charges are being laid and criminals are being prosecuted, all good news for the community.
Clearly, crimes prosecuted is not a measure of the crime rate. The member for Araluen needs to get some rigour into her examination of statistics if she is going to be effective in her role.
This reply provides me with the opportunity to recognise the work of the Office of DPP, and for that I am very grateful. It is clear to me that the staff of the ODPP are very professional, very committed and very hard working.
Ms Carney: Absolutely, which is why we can trust their figures!
Dr TOYNE: This government thanks them for this and the community should be grateful we have such diligent people in this area. The member is correct when she says that she can trust the information coming from the ODPP. There can be no doubt about that. However, where the member has it wrong is that she accuses the equally professional and diligent people who collected statistics on reported crime - our police force, and those who collate and publish our quarterly crime statistics at the Office of Crime Prevention - of being less accurate and less trustworthy. The member accuses me of using incorrect figures …
Ms CARNEY: Rubbish! Point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker!
Dr Toyne: Oh, look, for heaven’s sake. We have really got to you, have we?
Ms CARNEY: The minister well knows that, at no point in my adjournment speech last night, did I seek to marginalise or criticise the very good officers from the Office of Crime Prevention …
Dr Toyne: Come on, hurry up.
Ms CARNEY: … and it is utterly dishonest again for the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General to make any such assertion.
MADAM ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will just seek some advice. There is no point of order, minister.
Dr TOYNE: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. The member for Araluen accuses me of using incorrect figures. The member used the words ‘slippery’ and ‘rubbery’ in relation to the figures I am trying to use publicly. Well, I am pretty sorry for her. I am sorry that she has to resort to such innuendo and insulting language to try to present to the community that the CLP knows where it is going with crime in the Territory. Well, Territorians know better than that. Territorians can look at the record and see who is making inroads on crime in the Territory. he member finds the crime statistics confusing, or maybe she is the slippery one. Whichever is the case, the press release she put out in September about the latest quarterly crime statistics for Alice Springs was about 100% inaccurate.
It is worth going through her claims. She claimed property crime increased by 29% last quarter. Wrong! Property crime decreased by 3% or 24 offences from the previous quarter. Motor vehicle thefts, she claimed, increased by 10%. Wrong again! Motor vehicle theft increased by 9% or six offences. Other thefts increased by 5%. Wrong. It increased by 4% or 13 offences for the previous quarter. And here is the good one: sexual assault increased by 78%. Seriously wrong. Sexual assault fell by 11% or two offences from the previous quarter.
Ms Carney: On a quarter comparison, the figures that suit you better!
Dr TOYNE: I am concerned by her last ‘mistake’ and I want to draw attention to it ...
Mr Henderson: Have a look at the police report.
Ms Carney: At least I can read!
Dr TOYNE: She has a responsibility not to scare the public for her own political ends with statistics which are so completely at odds with reality …
Ms Carney: Unlike you, member for Wanguri. You big git!
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! I would ask the member for Araluen to withdraw that remark that she just made. I am not going to repeat it, she knows what she said.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, would you withdraw your remark?
Ms Carney: I withdraw the words ‘big git’, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen!
Ms CARNEY: Unreservedly, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker.
A member: Stand up when you address the Chair, please.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will you stand and withdraw, please, member for Araluen.
Ms CARNEY: Sorry?
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will you stand and withdraw …
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw the words ‘big git’ directed to the member for Wanguri, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Continue, minister.
Dr TOYNE: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker.
This government had the courage the CLP never had to release comprehensive crime figures. I have said repeatedly that this government will release those statistics regularly and faithfully, no matter whether they show crime is rising or falling. We believe it is critical that Territorians have access to full and accurate information so they can judge for themselves.
The quarterly crime and Justice statistics compiled by the Office of Crime Prevention and regularly audited by Ernst & Young are available in libraries and on the web at www.nt.gov.au/justice/ocp/. This means that people do not have to believe the member for Araluen. I encourage all Territorians to have a look at the crime statistics and judge for themselves.
I now turn to the member for Araluen’s claim that, because I have recently been talking about the number of driving offenders in our prisons, I was trying to mislead when I said that the people we are putting in gaol at the moment are serial property offenders. Let me present the facts. During the last financial year, 295 people were sentenced to gaol for driving offences. That is 295 out of the total prison population which can accommodate 800 prisoners and, for example, in April stood at over 745 prisoners.
It must be obvious, even to the member for Araluen, that the majority of prisoners were sentenced for something other than driving offences. The member for Araluen keeps getting it wrong. Maybe she cannot cope with what the quarterly crime and Justice statistics are telling her: overall crime is falling across the Territory and there are fewer victims. Maybe she cannot do her maths and simply does not understand statistics. Or maybe, more seriously, she is just doing a lot of misleading and adding unnecessarily to the fear of crime in our community. I call on her, again, to stick to the facts and learn to read the quarterly crime and Justice statistics issued by the Office of Crime Prevention. As the new shadow Attorney-General, this is her responsibility, and I wish she would start to take it.
Mr AH KIT (Arnhem): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to adjourn tonight on an Australian icon and legend, Slim Dusty. I note from the Internet that the funeral service was aptly entitled by his family ‘Travelling Still, Always Will: Slim Dusty, 1927-2003’.
David Gordon Kirkpatrick was born 13 June 1927 at a place called Nulla Nulla near Kempsie in New South Wales. It was a dairy farm. He passed away, after a long battle with cancer, at home on 19 September 2003. At his side was his beloved wife and soul mate, Joy, and children Anne and David.
He took his show name of Slim Dusty in 1943 and, in 1957, achieved national and international success with his hit A Pub With No Beer. From his family’s statement from the web site, dated 20 September 2003, it said:
- To all the people who ever came to a Slim Dusty concert, or listened to his music and sang along with his
songs, he gave something special that became part of their lives.
Now they are giving us, his family, something special back for us to remember forever. For this we wish to
thank the people of Australia for their love and support.
Yesterday, 19 September, marks the 49th anniversary of the beginning of the first Slim Dusty tour.
And yesterday, Slim began another journey: travellin' still; .always will.
- I have to be fair dinkum with my audience. I can’t see any other way of doing it. You have to believe in what
you are singing about.
He wrote his very first song at 10 years of age. It was called The Way the Cowboy Dies. His amazing career spans over six decades. Slim Dusty has won 35 Golden Guitar Awards, more gold and platinum record awards than any other Australian artist, Aria Awards and induction also into the Aria Hall of Fame. He had an MBE awarded to him 1970 and, on top of that, an Order of Australia for his services to entertainment. In 1999, he was named Father of the Year and Senior Australian of the Year.
Some other highlights included in 1979, he was listed on the Roll of Renown at Tamworth’s Country Music Awards. As we all know, Tamworth is the country capital of country and western music in Australia. In 1980, he recorded that super hit Duncan, which achieved gold status. In 1993, he celebrated 50 years of continuous recording in Australia. Also, as a guest of Yothu Yindi, Slim and his band put out some good songs and they toured together throughout the Northern Territory. I certainly remember the time they enjoyed on Bathurst Island.
At Slim’s funeral service in Sydney’s St Andrew’s Cathedral, the hand-clapping congregation sang that famous song, A Pub With No Beer. As was said in the Sydney Morning Herald on 26 September 2003:
- There could be no greater metaphor for the influence of Slim Dusty than the fact that the congregation of
St Andrews, from the Prime Minister to the pallbearers, could sing as one without a script.
My introduction to Slim Dusty was back in 1963, when I was fortunate enough to spend a couple of years of my life in the bush. I worked at places such as Litchfield Station, Douglas Station, Elsey Station, and then Elizabeth Downs. My introduction to Slim’s music was entertaining. His songs were about the land, its people, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. His songs were about battlers on the land, pastoral or farming. His songs were about the dinky-di Aussie. His songs about this sometimes harsh but beautiful country were well captured in the verses that he sang.
I had the pleasure of meeting him on a couple of occasions when he toured around the Top End of the Northern Territory. He was an Aussie legend and an icon who touched the hearts of thousands and thousands of Australians. I am sure many Territorians would join me in passing on our condolences to his lovely wife Joy, his daughter Anne, and son, David, and their families.
I would like to sing a couple of verses of some of his songs because he was that great man. I know that this probably has not been done in parliament here before, or anywhere else in Australia but, because we are unique in the Northern Territory, I have checked with the Speaker and it has been allowed. I do have my lovely cowboy hat here, but I will not put that on.
Members: Put it on!
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: We could indulge and allow you to put the hat on.
Mr AH KIT: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker.
- [Old Riders in the Grandstand]
I’m seated in the grandstand at a big-time rodeo,
With my walking stick beside me as I watch the scene below,
There are young’uns ridin’ outlaws as I did when young and free,
And I wonder are there many old ex-riders here like me.
[Three Rivers Hotel]
From Townsville to Greenvale we’re building a line,
Through the ranges and gorges to the great nickel mine,
The long days are dusty and hotter than hell,
And that’s why we all worship Three Rivers Hotel.
- [Walk a Country Mile]
Well I’ve walked a mile or two in my lifetime,
And I’ve travelled down some muddy tracks and dry,
‘Cause if I wanted to get where I was goin’
I knew I’d just have to walk that country mile.
- [Lights on the Hill]
Ooh,
It’s a long straight road and the engine is deep
I can’t help thinkin’ of a good night’s sleep
And the long long roads of my life were a’callin’ me
These rough old hands are a’glued to the wheel
My eyes full of sand from the way they feel
And the lights comin’ over the hill are a’blindin’ me.
- [By a Fire of Gidgee Coal]
By a warm electric heater in a softly padded chair
In a lounge room brightly lighted by a glowing chandelier
Since my early days of drovin’ the years have taken toll
But I somehow miss my swag wrap by a fire of gidgee coal.
I’m driven out each evening by a chauffeur spruce and neat
Through the flowered parks and gardens and the crowded city streets
But I’d rather share a bottle with those droving mates of old
In a pair of dusty moleskins by a fire of gidgee coal.
- [When the Rain Tumbles Down in July]
Let me wander north to the homestead
Way out further on there to roam
By a gully in flood, let me linger
When the summery sunshine has flown
Where the logs tangled up on the creek beds
And clouds fill the old northern sky
And the cattle move back from the lowlands
When the rain tumbles down in July.
Members: Bravo!
Mr AH KIT: Slim Dusty is a legend and, as most or our countrymen and countrywomen would say: Jilim Tusty, rest in peace.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, a bit of a hard act to follow, but there is some electorate material I want to put on the record.
The 2003 Rotary (GOCROC) Gove Bush Classic was held over the past weekend. The challenging nine-hole course laid out between Cape Wirrawoi and Giddies River rock holes covered 120 km. The four-person Ambrose was keenly contested, with a field of 51 teams. Gove Outback Charity and Recreation Organising Committee (GOCROC) is the driving force behind the Gove Bush Golf Classic and the annual Gove beach volleyball.
The committee’s aim is for both tournaments to raise money for local charities and sporting bodies, as well as provide a day of fun to the residents of Nhulunbuy. I was happy to contribute to the day by way of sponsorship. $30 000 was raised from the Gove Bush Classic. I congratulate the committee chairperson, Stephen Castelli, all the volunteers and the players, on this hugely successful weekend.
The Laynhapuy homelands have been working with Telstra Countrywide over the past 18 months to develop homeland visions for small community administration offices. This brings together issues such as health, CDEP, adult training and education, and small retail business at the community level. Three homelands, Gangan, Yilpara and Garrthalala, have received their first satellite broadband dishes and computers, to be installed by Telstra by the end of October.
This has been an initiative by the homeland people who, after many years of being nurtured and supported by the Laynhapuy Resource Centre at Yirrkala, have the confidence and insight into the future development and direction they want to take within their homeland communities. The establishment of their own administration offices allows for ownership and consultation with their own people at a pace they are comfortable with. An example of this was the request to have some training in filling out their own tax forms and understanding group certificates. To date, 15 completed tax forms have been lodged at the Tax Office for assessment.
Jonetani Rika and Jenness Warin represented Laynhapuy Homelands at the 35th Public Health Association of Australia Conference in Brisbane last month. They presented a paper on the links between communication and infrastructure, and the potential to improve health and education in remote locations. The paper was well received by the conference.
Galiwinku is a sea ranger’s workshop. A request from a Mala meeting at Galiwinku to set up ranger groups for sea and land initiated a sea ranger’s workshop at Galiwinku in September. The Northern Land Council was happy to facilitate the workshop and representative from Parks and Wildlife in Darwin were in attendance. Saltwater issues such as unwanted and illegal fishing, turtles and dugong caught in nets, wasting fish by catch, marine pests and pollution, and looking after fishing areas, as well as shellfish were discussed. Looking after sacred and significant sites, fire management, problems with Balanda going into areas without permits, and pests such as cane toads and pigs were on the agenda.
The workshop enabled a planning process to be set up and to include consultation with traditional owners and families, monitoring and research of the sea and land issues, and senior custodians and traditional owners to work with rangers. Training programs to be implemented include schoolchildren learning from the rangers and elders, the Translation Centre and Knowledge Centre to work with Parks and Wildlife to teach Yolngu about threats to wildlife, and how to manage equipment as part of the monitoring process. Further meetings have been organised to report and follow-up on the processes in place, and to eventually achieve the outcomes that have been discussed with the traditional owners and community at Galiwinku.
This government believes education training means opportunity. That is why we place so much importance on ensuring each Territorian has equal access to quality education and training. In order to build a better Territory, together with the major projects we have coming on-line we need to ensure we have a highly skilled, home-grown work force capable of meeting the challenge and opportunities ahead of us.
I recently attended the 2003 Northern Territory Vocational Training Award Ceremony where the Territory’s vocational training sector gathered to celebrate and recognise best practice in vocational education and training and acknowledge the Territory’s high achievers in the fields. The awards are government’s way of acknowledging and celebrating the contributions made by employers, apprentices, students and registered training organisations in the Territory. I want to thank the businesses and community organisations who contributed to the awards through sponsorship. I want to thank the judges and I want to thank the organisers for a great night. Territory winners will now compete in the Australian Training Awards being held on the Gold Coast in November.
Award winners were:
- Austin Asche New Apprenticeships, Apprentice of the Year: Daniel Lewis, Darwin, who is an electricity metering
specialist with PowerWater and has qualifications in Electro-technology at Charles Darwin University;
Trainee of the Year: Camille Lew Fatt, Darwin, has qualifications in Business and Information Technology and
works in administration at Charles Darwin University, employed by Group Training NT;
The Adrian Wagg Memorial Award for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Student of the Year: Robert Campbell,
Katherine, has two qualifications in construction, employed by Burridgj Aboriginal Group Training, and is currently
working with Kalano Building Company;
Vocational Student of the Year: Heather Wilson, Alice Springs, is a former nurse, who completed her Diploma of
Child Care last year and is working as a Human Services Childcare Lecturer with Centralian College; and
VET in Schools Student Achievement Award: Renee Burrows, Alice Springs, is currently in Year 12 at Centralian
College, and completed her first qualification in Children Services last year. She is currently studying to complete
her second. year
Winners of Employers and Registered Training Organisations Awards were:
- Mr Craig Bonney, a YNOTS Administrator from Nhulunbuy, and that organisation picked up the Northern Territory
Training Award;
Mr Bob Nixon, Director TAFE, Centralian College for Training Provider of the Year, NT Finalist Award;
Ms Sally Pointon, Training and Development Manager, Traditional Credit Union, NT Employer of the Year Award, and
a great result to see that go to an indigenous organisation. They do a great job the Traditional Credit Union, training their
people to run the credit unions out in their communities; and
Mr Bob Chapman, Manager, VET in Schools, Centralian College picking up the Bill McLaren VET in Schools Excellence
Award. It is good to see Centralian College picking up a couple of those employer and RTO Awards.
My best wishes and congratulations go to everyone of those trainees and apprentices for the great job they do.
Recently a human interest documentary was completed which was filmed in Nhulunbuy entitled Lonely Boy Richard. It is from the makers of Mabo - Life of an Island Man. The director was Trevor Graham, the producer Denise Haslem, the writer co-producer was Rosemary Hesp and the executive producer Mark Hamlyn. Rosemary Hesp was a former anchor of the 7.30 Report here in Darwin. In fact, the first time ever I went on TV was the 7.30 Report late in 1990 following my election in October 1990, and I was interview by Rosemary Hesp. A couple of years ago, she rang me from interstate to say that they had sought and won Film Australia funding to produce a documentary and they were looking to come to north-east Arnhem Land to do it. Jenny and I helped out in a number of ways and we were very pleased that they were able to spend over 12 months in Nhulunbuy. This film, Lonely Boy Richard, is the result.
I will read from the back cover:
- Richard Wanambi is about to go to prison for a long time. He knows what it’s like. He’s been there before ...
In Australia’s Northern Territory, three-quarters of the people behind bars are indigenous men.
Lonely Boy Richard is an intimate account of one man’s journey to gaol.
Richard lives with his family in Yirrkala in north-east Arnhem Land. It’s a proud Aboriginal community now
experiencing serious social problems. Like elsewhere, alcohol, abuse and violence are threatening to erode
family and community life.
Nami, the woman Richard knows as mum, lives in fear. She’s lost one son because of grog. Another is teetering
on the edge. Then there’s Richard, who calls himself Lonely Boy. He’s been drinking since he was 14. Just like
his dad did. Now he’s committed a terrible crime.
Salvation may lie in a return to their ancestral homelands. That’s where Nami takes her family. But for Richard,
temptation lies all too close in the white mining township of Nhulunbuy.
Yirrkala’s Night Patrol team does what it can. Every night it battles on the frontline, to bring the drinkers home
from Nhulunbuy and keep the grog out of their ‘dry’ community. But that’s not enough to save Richard from himself,
or his community from him.
Lonely Boy Richard presents the human story behind the headlines.
It just rips you apart watching this, because it is filmed in a most unsympathetic manner. It tells it like it is. There’s no pretending that Richard Wanambi is anything other than he is: a life tragically ruined by grog. He’s been drinking since he was 14. He is now 35. It shows his descent into hell and the outcome of the trial.
He was charged and found guilty of rape and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment, to serve a minimum of 8 - and you would say, a fair enough sentence. However, look at the tragedy behind this absolutely wasted life, and the fact that this is occurring to so many around him. Part of his own troubles are brought about by the fact that his older brother was speared in the neck by a shovel-nosed spear some two years ago - a trial has only just commenced now in the Supreme Court. This is the sort of trauma that these families live with when you have grog out of control.
It is beholden on all of us, as members of the Assembly, to really rev up the actions that this parliament and this government can bring to stem the abuse that is occurring right throughout the Northern Territory.
This brings it home in a manner that few media can. I know the family personally, and so it has probably an added effect on me. However, the same thing happens in Tennant Creek, Katherine, Alice Springs and to young people in Darwin.
I commend people getting hold of it and watching it. The ABC has bought the rights and it will be shown on ABC very shortly. It is highly recommended viewing. The Substance Abuse Committee of this parliament, and the alcohol framework review that we have occurring now, are vehicles that can bring recommendations in. The sooner we get that body of work done on both fronts and we get serious recommendations in here and a strong will of government behind tacking this problem, the better off we will be.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to talk about two matters. First, I would like to congratulate all of those involved in the Alice Springs Festival that was held last month. It was a sensational festival. Unfortunately, I happened to be spending a bit of time in Darwin throughout most of the festival, although I did manage to get to a couple of events.
Some people have said that the festival provided a smorgasbord of events and, indeed, it did. I received a copy of the calendar of events, and there was something for everyone. It was truly outstanding. It was unique, and is an event that has great potential in the future.
The festival had 60 events over 10 days, which brought people from all over Australia. It appealed to locals as well as tourists, and it was certainly the case that people from interstate travelled to Alice Springs for the festival. Some of the events included the Desertsong, which was particularly unique. It brought together 14 indigenous choirs from the region, some from remote communities as well as Alice Springs, which would not happen at any time other than the Yeperenye Festival.
The Desert Mob art exhibition is commonly regarded as the best of its type in the country. There was the Wearable Works of Art exhibition, hosted by Jeannie Little, which was a sensation. There was a choir from Tasmania. There was the Hermannsburg Ladies Choir. It was just sensational. Everyone involved is to be congratulated, and I know that that congratulations would be extended from both sides of politics. It is a marvellous opportunity for Alice Springs to showcase itself to Australia and, indeed, the world.
It is important that the event be assured of ongoing support, which brings me to a point I would like to raise. Perhaps I could put it this way: if government could give an indication that it intends to follow through in its continuation of funding the Alice Springs Festival, the government, or the Chief Minister, being Minister for the Arts, should make a public statement to that effect. To the best of my knowledge, none has been made. I know there are some concerns by those in Alice Springs that, perhaps, the fundraising may not be there in the future or, if it is, there is an expectation, it is fair to say, that the funding will be increased. My understanding is that, this year, the Northern Territory government provided $30 000 - $20 000 core funding carried over from last year, plus a $10 000 grant for this year. The festival organisers obtained funds from other sources but, in essence, the festival was completed on a shoestring budget of - the figure I have been told is $130 000. However, they will not be able to do that again. It was incredible that they could put together such an outstanding festival for $130 000. I am sure members of the Assembly will well appreciate that that is not much money to stage an outstanding festival such as this. There has been a suggestion made to me and, indeed others, that perhaps this is an opportunity for government to rethink its approach and strategies as to how it can best serve events such as the Alice Springs Festival.
It has further been suggested that there may well be a role for the Major Events Company. I received an invitation dated 1 October from the Major Events Company. It is clear from the letter that the Major Events Company plans to broaden its wings. I gather that the they are wanting to lend support and assistance to events in Central Australia which, of course, is of particular interest to me. My inquiry is whether the Major Events Company proposes to meet with the organisers from the Alice Springs Festival with a view to lending them a helping hand, if not from an experience and general resources point of view, then perhaps in a funding sense.
I note that the Major Events Company is having a launch. If I am understanding the letter of 1 October correctly. I am assuming that the Major Events Company is planning to think more broadly about how it can assist various organisations in the Territory. I really hope that it extends to assisting the Alice Springs Festival. The Major Events Company is, it is fair to say, perceived as essentially conducting the V8 Supercars and the Finke Desert Race. I know that that is not, strictly speaking, correct, but there is that perception out there. It would be wonderful for Major Events to get more involved in the arts; there is a natural synergy there. Certainly, any representations made by the Major Events Company would be very welcomed by those people involved with the festival.
Before I leave that topic, for members in the Top End who would not have had the benefit of attending any of the events from the Alice Springs Festival, it is important to realise how big this festival was. The best way to illustrate that is to mention the street carnival at the beginning of the festival. It was a very colourful parade which attracted hundreds of people. One journalist said that he has not seen a crowd as big since the Queen visited Alice Springs a couple of years ago. I do not mean to make a comparison between the Queen and the Alice Springs Festival. However, it does indicate that the festival has the broad support of many people in Alice Springs who were prepared to turn up, not only to a number of events, but to the street carnival.
Having dealt with that matter, I would like in the time available to turn to quite a different matter. Members will recall that, in June last year, I brought to the attention of the House an issue in my electorate which was damage caused to houses in the Gillen area caused specifically by the construction works of the Gillen Seniors Village. I met with local residents - in fact, I have done a lot of work with them. Some of them now have retained solicitors, and those solicitors continue to liase with the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment. This is becoming a bigger problem than it should ever have been. I will refer to what the minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Environment said in June last year. In this place he said:
- I give an undertaking to the senior citizens there that any damage that was done as a result of …
This construction work.. He went on to say that, provided there was a report from an independent surveyor, attesting that the damage was caused by the construction works, the minister would ensure that people’s homes would be fixed. The minister said:
- My department will compensate these people should the independent surveyor decide that the damage to their
homes was done as a result of the vibrating roller. The vibrating roller is not going to continue.
The particular roller was a method of soil compaction that was used which was the wrong method. It should never have been used in the first place. Not surprisingly, various damage was caused. A further quote from the minister in this place is that:
They will be compensated. So, if the surveyor comes back and says: ‘You caused the problem’, we are going to fix it.
There are 10 residents who have retained the services of a local law firm, Messrs Collier and Dean. Some residents have not decided to retain lawyers. I understand that most of their homes have been fixed, but there is a feeling that those residents who have pursued their right to retain lawyers are being ignored by the minister.
The minister, it is fair to say, has dropped the ball on a promise he gave in this place to fix the damage caused to these houses by the construction of the seniors village. The minister promised to fix the damage last year, but 10 people have still not had their homes fixed. That is a disgraceful situation.
I recently received a letter from Messrs Collier and Dean dated 1 October, advising me that their last correspondence with the minister’s department was on 23 June this year, wherein they provided the department with a list of the damage to the 10 homes of the clients for whom this law firm is acting. The letter dated 1 October says: ‘To date, we have had no response from the department with respect to that letter’.
This is a dreadful situation. Most of the residents are senior citizens; they should not be disadvantaged. They had every right to rely on the word the minister gave in this parliament that he would fix the problem. Not only would he fix it, but he would compensate these people – two separate things. These people, through their lawyers, have been, it seems to me, relentless in pursuing or dealing with the department, and it seems that they have been put on the bottom of a pile. Why it is that the law firm has not received a response to a detailed letter – I believe it is about four pages dated 23 June - I do not know. I am making these comments in the Assembly because I know the minister will be listening or, if he is not, his advisers are. I urge him, in the strongest possible terms, to do something to turn his attention to this problem. He made persuasive promises – they were persuasive because he made them with great commitment and gusto.
If this minister is to be taken at his word, then the 10 residents and their families should be able to expect that their homes will be fixed, or at very least, that their law firm would receive a response to a letter dated 23 June. With those comments, I urge the minister to get on to this matter as a matter of urgency. It has been over 12 months since this matter surfaced. If the minister is to be taken at his word, then I would expect that he will do whatever it takes to ensure that these people’s homes are fixed and that they are compensated.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I recognise the work of Dr Norina Dragovic. Dr Dragovic is the longest-serving public sector dentist in the Territory and is retiring after working in Darwin for over 33 years.
Dr Norina Dragovic was employed by the then Commonwealth Department of Health in February 1970 to work in the new Darwin Dental Clinic in Mitchell Street. At that time, the headquarters of the Health Department were located in an old style Darwin house on the Esplanade. Rural Health and Aerial Medical Services operated from a couple of ex-Army Sydney Williams huts located between Mitchell Street and the Esplanade. None of these buildings were airconditioned. The Darwin Airport terminal was a converted corrugated iron Air Force hangar.
Initially, Dr Dragovic was accommodated in staff accommodation at the old Darwin Hospital on Myilly Point and, several years later, moved into one of the flats above the Dental Clinic, where she resided until the clinic closed.
During her working life in Darwin, Dr Dragovic saw many change. These included surviving Cyclone Tracy on Christmas Eve 1974 and the subsequent closure of the Nightcliff Dental Clinic; the establishment of the Children’s Dental Service; the opening and closure of the Casuarina Dental Clinic; Northern Territory self-government in 1978; the development of the satellite city of Palmerston; the opening and relocation of Palmerston Dental Clinic; and the closure of the Mitchell Street Dental Clinic.
Dr Dragovic has lived through a very interesting time in the development of Darwin and the Northern Territory. She has been a constant provider of dental services during times when dentists have been scarce. I wish Dr Dragovic a happy and healthy retirement.
I also advise the House on progress on this government’s election commitment on undergrounding power in Nightcliff – a very exciting project for members of my electorate. The undergrounding power project has started in Nightcliff this week with the first poles to come down over the next few weeks. The first section will be on Dick Ward Drive between Progress Drive and the Woolworths Supermarket. This small section heralds the beginning of the main project, which will start in earnest in the new year. Northern Power Services Pty Ltd will be doing the work on behalf of the Power and Water Corporation. The work started on Monday and is expected to be completed by the end of December this year. The main project is well on track, with the exhaustive tender and project management process getting closer to starting the main work. Once started, the Nightcliff and Rapid Creek area should have its power supply system underground within three years, something that I know the people of Nightcliff and Rapid Creek will be extremely pleased about.
I also inform members of some exciting things happening at the Nightcliff High School and, particularly, about significant changes to the school for next year. I am also pleased to advise that there appear to be increased enrolments for Year 8 next year at the school.
During the October school holidays, the Nightcliff High School Principal, Mr Paul Atkinson, joined a group of approximately 60 representatives of DEET who attended the Navcon 2K3 Conference in Adelaide. This was a truly international conference with most of the keynote speakers from other countries. This conference is about Navigator Schools, the equivalent of the Northern Territory’s Lighthouse Schools. The overall theme was Learning and Thinking, Learning and Leading, and Learning and Technology.
The conference gave the Northern Territory representatives an opportunity to learn about current effective schooling in the other states and territories. While in Adelaide, Mr Atkinson, together with Mr Greg Robson, Assistant Principal from Nightcliff Primary School, and the Lighthouse School facilitator, Mr Luke Hodgson, visited Elizabeth Vale School as recommended by the Nightcliff School review team. This is a truly innovative school that works with children from infancy through to Year 10.
The ideas that Mr Atkinson brought back are contributing to the plans for next year’s Year 8 intake. These plans are being developed by a project team drawn from the staff. The project is called ‘Innov8 at Year 8’. The whole of the Year 8 cohort will have a defined learning area. The students will have home rooms within this area and a large open space where all the Year 8 students will be able to meet and work. There will also be smaller rooms for small groups, which will be able to withdraw from the greater group. The idea is to have a range of learning environments. The learning areas will be able to be supervised easily with the more open plan.
It is envisaged the students will plan their learning activities on a day-by-day basis. They will be expected to cover the key learning areas, but they will have full flexibility in how they approach their learning. Technology will have an important role in the Innov8 program. Even the timetabling will be flexible. There will be a core time that students will have to be at school, but they will have an option of arriving and finishing earlier or later as they choose. The staffing arrangements will be flexible as well. Teachers and ancillary staff will be able to work with larger groups, with multiple staff, or work in smaller groups as required. The Innov8 teaching team is already working on the program, and have even used my electorate office conference room to conduct some of their planning sessions.
The Innov8 program is to give students a new and exciting way to learn and provide a more natural transition from primary to high school. The students will still have specialist teachers, but they will be available for a much greater part of the school day, so when they have unstructured time, they will have access to those staff. There will be enhanced pastoral care for the students as well.
Another big development that was recently announced is the joining of the Northern Territory Music School with Nightcliff High School. The music school will be relocating to the high school over the Christmas holidays in time for the 2004 academic year, and this is a truly exciting development.
The music school provides music tuition to a range of schools already, and having it relocated to Nightcliff High means it will be able to expand its operations, particularly in the VET sector. They expect to be able to offer courses to aspiring commercial musicians as well. Both Nightcliff High and the music school are registered training organisations and this will allow students at Nightcliff High to be offered advanced music courses that have not been available before. The performance facilities at Nightcliff are a significant improvement on the music school’s current location. I look forward to these new developments, and to informing the House on further matters to do with the Nightcliff High School.
There is already an active music program at Nightcliff under the guidance of Ms Lee. Anyone attending the Mindil Markets this Thursday evening - that is today - at 5.30 pm will be able to catch the school band and dance performance.
Some of the current students are doing very well. In particular, Alex Newman won the Westpac Australian Mathematics Competition medal, with a score in the 99th percentile; Aaron Motlop represented the Northern Territory in the Australian Under 18 touch championships in Coffs Harbour. Aaron was named as the most valuable player and the player’s player. Joseph Aberdeen has been selected for the Australian Student Minerals Venture over the Christmas holidays. The event is held at Queensland University. This young man’s achievements seem to have no end.
Nightcliff High is a really up and coming high school and it is going to be rivalling Darwin High for our young people in the Darwin area in the coming years. I know that there are many young people who are moving into Year 8 next year who are very excited about the changes that are happening at Nightcliff High School. I, for one, am looking to those changes. One of my sons is going there next year, and I look forward to reporting on other things happening at Nightcliff High School over the coming year.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I raise several issues, the first of which is, during the ministerial reports this morning, I asked a very brief question of the Minister for Local Government. As I sat down, I asked the minister whether he had heard anything in relation to the department’s intention to reduce the number of local governments in the Northern Territory to about 20. I asked the minister to confirm or deny. The minister stood up and said:
- Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I have heard nothing of the sort regarding bringing local governments together
to a minimal number of 20.
I wish to draw the minister’s attention to a briefing note that he received some time ago, back in June, and some of the key points. The first key point was:
- Currently, in excess of 60 local government organisations are in the Northern Territory.
The second key point was:
- The initiative aims to reduce this figure to approximately 20 over time through encouraging the establishment
of combined regional authorities with more appropriate traditionally based government structures.
I do not have a problem with the thrust of that in terms of what is obviously intended to be a voluntary process. However, I do have some concerns with the minister knowing, or being briefed, of one aspect of his department’s actions - and presumably, I would suggest, the department has his imprimatur - and standing up in this place and saying another.
The local government reform process has caused some grief, especially in remote communities. I am sure you would be well aware of that, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, over recent times. I would urge the government to at least be honest about its targets so people know where they stand. The need to do this process honestly, openly and transparently is probably more important in a lot of these remote communities than it would be in non-remote communities simply because, in those remote communities, the level of trust that needs to be placed in government is much higher than the general cynical attitude that we see in the major centres in the Northern Territory.
I get the sense that listening to the minister is like watching a badly dubbed film. His lips move, but what he says is completely out of sync with the pictures. I bring this to the minister’s attention, and I certainly hope that the minister will start being honest with groups like LGANT and the public of the Northern Territory and this place, when he makes pronouncements regarding which he had no such intention.
I also raise one of my favourite subjects, which is roads. I put on the record a letter I have received from Steven Cadzow. I would like to quote his letter into the Hansard so that the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure can hear directly from Mr Cadzow’s lips to his ears:
- I am writing to you with regard to the dismal and appalling condition of the Plenty Highway. My family and I have
resided at Mount Riddock Station for 16 years and, in that time, we can recall 22 vehicle rollovers on the Plenty
Highway that runs through Mount Riddock. Out of these 22 accidents, three fatalities have occurred.
- In particular, the state of the highway in the sandhills 7 km east of the Mount Riddock turn-off has made
drivers, predominantly those in road trains, drive on the wrong side of the road to climb the hill.
On more than one occasion, this has been a seriously dangerous situation for oncoming traffic - locals
and tourists alike. The road is so badly blown apart because of the loss of gravel and corrugations so
deep that, if a truck were to drive over it, the result would be getting bogged, or worse, rolling over.
- Another exceptionally dangerous part of the Plenty Highway is at approximately 5 km west of the Mount
Riddock turn-off, called the Kong Straight Corner. The road again has lost its gravel and bulldust holes
have been created. Another condition of this particular bit of the road is that the wheel ruts and corrugations
are so deep that it is nearly impossible to drive a vehicle moving along the road safely and continuously on the
right side of the road.
It is my considered opinion that the Plenty Highway is deteriorating at a rate faster than the road can be repaired.
As the condition of the road has displayed continuous downhill decline, vehicles cannot maintain any speed, and
expensive damage is occurring to them. One such example of that is, on average, a road train cannot exceed 30 km/h
to 40 km/h, and the stress on livestock being carted on the Plenty Highway is rising as a result of its condition.
As the tourist traffic increases every year on the Plenty Highway, we feel that the road in its present state is putting
more lives at risk. We feel it is only a matter of time until another serious accident occurs.
Yours sincerely
I hope that the minister is paying attention to this, because Mr Cadzow has basically expressed what so many people have expressed. It is not just me causing trouble. I know that the beef industry has raised the issue with the minister for Primary Industries and several other ministers, and I know that lots of other people are complaining about the roads. So, this is nothing knew. I know that the minister threw a bouquet at me today saying that he is glad that at least one member on this side is prepared to go to Canberra hand-in-hand with him. I repeat the invitation - any time after the November sitting would suit me fine. I am happy to go hand-in-hand with the minister to Canberra to represent the Northern Territory to try and extract more money out of Canberra.
However, I also urge the minister in the strongest possible terms: open the purse and repair these roads. It is going to be cheaper if you open the purse now, than it will be for the repair job that is awaiting you around the corner. The repair job you are going to have to do on this road and so many other beef roads – these are the commercial roads of the Northern Territory – is going to be enormous and need much larger sums of money than a bit of R and M money now. Minister, I call upon you, urge you, plead, beseech, and beg of you to open your purse. Get these cattle roads open, as well as other roads in the Northern Territory, so the people in the Territory can go about their commerce.
I also raise another issue which is a letter I have received – or I know that the Minister for Parks and Wildlife has received - from a gentleman by the name of Alan Bell. Alan Bell has written to me about dogs on the Owen Springs Reserve. As I understand it, the Owen Springs Reserve has not been completely declared a park, but dogs are certainly prevented from going into our parks. Mr Bell writes to us that, surely there must be some space somewhere around Alice Springs where you can go camping with your dog, the family pet, and spend the night out. In reading the letter, it is clear that Mr Bell is a responsible dog owner and cares enough about his dog to take it camping. I know that dogs like going out to the bush.
I believe he has a legitimate request of government. It is not like we are so pressed for space in the Northern Territory that we cannot let Fido run around in a bit of scrub out the back. I am not suggesting that we throw open the national park estate to dogs - and there are good reasons to keeping dogs out of the national park estate. But there are places at Owen Springs where I imagine somebody should be able to take a dog, and that dog should be allowed to run free and have a bit of romp through the bush and enjoy the environment as well as its owners. Mr Bell has my support, in as much that he deserves to have a hearing from the minister. At least find some way of enabling a part of Alice Springs to become available for dog owners to have access and allow them to take their woofers out onto that particular part of land, simply because it is an entirely reasonable proposition that a man and a woman who owns a dog in the Northern Territory should be allowed to take that dog out for a walk and let it have a bit of run around in the scrub.
Other areas like Wrigley’s waterhole north of Alice Springs have been sign-posted that no dogs are allowed. Certainly, the park estate section of Owen Springs is in the same category, but there are other sections. I would urge, in the strongest possible terms, that the government contacts this gentleman and finds a way to deal with his problem, so that this gentleman and other dog owners can take their dog out and enjoy the Territory lifestyle.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I would like to pay tribute to Dr Jim Cairns, one of the much-loved men of the Australian Labor Party, recognised around Australia as a man of great compassion committed to the cause of peace.
Cairns, whose father failed to return from the World War I, was forced to suspend his studies to support his family and joined the Victorian Police Force in 1933, later becoming a detective. Studying at night, he completed an Economics degree from the University of Melbourne. He completed a Doctorate in Economic History in 1957. Jim Cairns served as a federal parliamentarian from 1955 to 1977 for the electorates of Yarra and later Lalor. He also held the posts of Deputy Prime Minister, Treasurer and Trade Minister. Jim Cairns came within two votes of securing the leadership of the ALP when Whitlam vacated and recontested it in 1968. Jim Cairns is well remembered for his role in the movement against Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam War. As Chair of the Vietnam Moratorium, he led an estimated 100 000 in the largest political protest ever seen in Australia in a demonstration in the streets of Melbourne.
Peter Botsman in today’s The Australian said:
- Rereading Cairns and rethinking his legacy is important. He led the greatest, most successful Australian
campaign against a war in the 20th century. In 1968 he was, hands-down, the Australian orator and political
activist. Much more than Whitlam ever could, he held audiences in the palm of his hand. His quiet sincerity
and integrity turned warmongers into believers of peace.
Territorians will best remember Jim Cairns for his sympathetic and decisive leadership in the immediate aftermaths of the devastation brought by Cyclone Tracy and his role in the subsequent reconstruction of Darwin. Paul Strangio and his biography of Cairns, writes:
- Once informed of the situation, Cairns responded promptly and compassionately. He cut through red tape,
instructing the director-general of the Natural Disasters Operation, Major-General Alan Stretton, to
assume supreme command of Darwin.
Over the following week, the critical phase of the relief operation, Cairns and Stretton were in constant
communication. In addition, he arranged a special Cabinet meeting to deal with the problems of finding
temporary accommodation and supplying financial help for the thousands of evacuees.
On Boxing Day, along with his wife, Gwen, he flew to Darwin to inspect the devastated city, visiting evacuation
centres and comforting disaster victims. Stretton was ‘impressed by their sincerity and obvious concern’ and
later wrote that both were’ very emotionally involved as they heard first-hand stories of the terrible tragedy’.
Back in Melbourne after a 35-hour round trip, and exhausted and still emotional, Cairns told reporters that the city
looked like ‘a battlefield, a Hiroshima’. He went on:
- The morale and courage of the people of Darwin is high. It was an honour to move, often silently, among them,
and to try to share a little in their tragedy and their courage. The loss of Darwin is a national loss. Its cost must
and will be shared by the nation.
Jim Cairns was made a life member of the ALP in 2000. Jim Cairns signifies the great qualities of idealism, passion and a fervent belief that peace among human kind can be obtained. He is survived by his son, Barry. He will be missed by many - a great servant to the people of Australia and of the Labor Party.
This evening I also inform members of a significant but largely unreported event that took place in Alice Springs between 12 and 14 October. More than 250 delegates came from all over Australia and overseas to participate in the Australian Institute of Project Management’s annual conference. Participants included significant delegations from China, Japan, New Zealand, India and Europe, as well as practitioners from all states of Australia. The Northern Territory chapter of the AIPM worked hard to secure this conference for the Territory in the face of strong competition. I commend the institute for staging a successful conference and for helping to support local business in and around Alice Springs.
It is a measure of the significance of the event that the Chinese delegation was led by a Mr Zhang Qing Lin, China’s representative of ASEAN, and that the key note address was delivered by Mr Adesh Jain, the Director of Centre for Excellence in Project Management in India. I understand the conference was a blend of high quality presentations on project management, with a number of networking and social events.
These conventions are very important for the people of Central Australia, particularly at a time when international tourist numbers are down. It was great that the delegates were able to enjoy a taste of the Outback last Sunday evening at Ooraminna Homestead on Deepwell Station outside Alice Springs. I understand the evening, chatting over a barbecue in the bush, was very well received by all those that participated. This is what the Centre is all about.
Following this, on Monday evening, a gala dinner was held to present AIPM’s Project Management Achievement Awards 2003. I extend my congratulations to all the winners and to the organisers of the event, because these functions provide practitioners with the opportunity to showcase their projects of excellence. In my view, all the entries in these award processes are winners because of the benefits derived by the teams working on the submissions.
It was pleasing to note that the awards function was held this year in the Alice Springs Convention Centre, which was the winner of the NT Project Management Achievement Award last year, and went on to become a national AIPMA finalist. The project manager for this $25m PPP project was none other than Mr Pat Coleman of Savant, the man recently appointed by this government to be the Project Director for the Darwin waterfront redevelopment. So, Pat, congratulations. That is a great honour for you.
In conclusion, it is touching to note that the AIPM decided to leave a lasting token of its successful day in the Centre. As you would expect, they did it in a very practical way by presenting a substantial donation to support the operations of the Royal Flying Doctor Service. I applaud the members of the AIPM for their gesture, and I take this opportunity to let them know that they will be most welcome to hold a conference at the new convention centre in Darwin in the near future.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for being deliberately absent from his chair so that I can speak before he does.
I support the member for Macdonnell about the letter from Mr Alan Bell, who also wrote to me and, obviously, wrote to all members of parliament, but directed it particularly to the Minister for Parks and Wildlife. I shall read what he said:
- I am writing regarding another restriction placed on Territorian lifestyle. I read in the NT News dated
8 October 2003 concerning ‘No Dogs Allowed’ on Owen Springs Reserve.
A similar article was written in the Centralian Advocate of 10 October: ‘Pets banned at Centre reserve’. I will read that article:
- Pets have been banned from Owen Springs almost six months after the former pastoral lease opened as a reserve.
In the NT News article reported:
- Visitors to Owen Springs Reserve in Central Australia were told yesterday to keep their pets at home.
I believe Mr Alan Bell has a real case. He has been visiting Owen Springs Station area for well on 25 years, enjoying the numerous waterholes along the Hugh River, for instance. I will read from his letter:
- During this time, it has been the only place pet owners have had where they can enjoy their pets’ company and
not annoy anyone else since the closure of the ‘Wrigleys waterhole’.
There are now no areas where pet owners can enjoy their pets’ company on weekend camping trips, which is
part of the ‘Territorian lifestyle’.
Then he referred to this document and others:
- Reading the latest information from your department in a pamphlet entitled Building a Better Territory from the
desert to the sea, part of your main heading states:
- ‘Territorians love getting away and spending time out bush, particularly in our fantastic national parks.
It is all part of our unique Territory lifestyle’.
Having said that, you then tell them: ‘You cannot take your pet with you. Too bad. Leave it at home or put it in a kennel at extra cost while you go on a camping trip’.
It is important for the minister and the government to consider how they deal with Owen Springs Station. It was purchased by the CLP government for one specific purpose, and that was to provide Alice Springs with unencumbered, unhindered access to an area on our doorstep where they can enjoy themselves. More and more, this government is continuing to hamper Territorians; pulling them back from the lifestyle that they came to enjoy these past 25 years under a CLP government. Now they are told: ‘Too bad, too sad; you have to put up with it’.
Another matter I wish to raise to tonight is the Dominguez home at 46 Taylor Street, Alice Springs. I asked the minister a question this afternoon, the answer to which I found totally unsatisfactory. I will be sending a copy of his answer to the Dominguez family for them look at and to pursue further.
This family has had its lifestyle and amenity completely disrupted since the home next door was built. The owners commenced building some time late last year. I understand that, around November last year, they saw some stumps being placed in the ground on the vacant block next door. Just prior to that, some earthmoving equipment came on to the block and shifted a lot of dirt from the front of the block to the rear of the block. In doing so, the heavy machinery that went back and forth on the block crushed the edge of the block adjoining the two residences, between 46 and 48 Taylor Street. That cracked the rock that formed the wall there. Now that boundary needs to be reinforced with a retaining wall, or it will continue to crumble, with dirt falling into 46 Taylor Street, which belongs to Dominguez - a block that is significantly lower than the adjoining block on 48 Taylor Street.
The Dominguez family have sought assistance from the government, from the department of Planning, for almost 12 months. For a long time they were ignored, and it was not until the member for Daly brought the matter to the attention of the minister in April last year. In spite of the letters that the Dominguez had written to the government and approaches to the public service, it took the member for Daly bringing the matter to the attention of the minister before he even did anything.
The minister then went to visit the Dominguez family, some time after the April sittings in Alice Springs. At that time, he said to the Dominguez: ‘I will fix it’. I do not know what he meant by that, but I would assume that Mr and Mrs Dominguez would expect, from the minister’s comment, that he would actually do something to sort out the problems. When he spoke to them, they explained to him that they were trying to get some sort of mediation between themselves and the neighbours. There were issues that the Dominguez family had with the house next door.
Not only was the house not built according to plan, the plan, which I have a copy of, shows that the house was to be built on stumps about a metre off the ground. I visited 46 and 48 Taylor Street the other day, and the house is built on something like 3 m to 4 m off the ground on stumps that were, according to some photographs that I have seen, welded together. The garage, which was, according to the plan, to be sunk into the ground in the allotment on 48 Taylor Street, is now built on top, so no excavation was done to accommodate the garage. Therefore, several things were built into the house that were not consistent with the plans. When the Dominguez family complained to the building division, no notice was taken – nothing was done about it. Now that the house is completed, officials are saying: ‘Well, it is too late for us to do anything now. Sorry about that, you have to put up with it’.
The family has complained over and over again about the problem. The house is built of ZINCALUME. As we all know, ZINCALUME is a highly reflective material. The sheets of ZINCALUME are corrugated sheets. Those corrugations catch the sun at every angle. Because 46 Taylor Street is west of 48 Taylor Street, with sheets of ZINCALUME aligned parallel to the east side of the house, after lunch time, the sun is right on the ZINCALUME sheets, and the reflected light of the sun then falls totally on the eastern side of 46 Taylor Street. The Dominguez have to live with that all afternoon, with the glare shining into the eastern side of their house. They built their house to align in such a way that the eastern side, which would always be in the shade in the afternoon, would be a place where the family could enjoy summer afternoons in the shade of the house. Now, with the ZINCALUME reflecting all the sunlight off the house next door on to the eastern side of the house, it is not possible to go out there. I have been to 46 Taylor Street in the middle of the afternoon when the sun is shining brightly on the ZINCALUME, and I tell you, you need sunglasses to be outside the house; it is that glarey. I have seen photographs of the children inside the house where the reflected light shines right into the house and, in the late afternoon, about 5 pm or so, when the sun is nearly horizontal, the light was reflected off the ZINCALUME as if it were reflected off a mirror.
So, the Dominguez have a significant detriment to their amenity; to the way they can live in their home that they so lovingly built many years ago. This house is less than 12 months old and it has already caused significant problems, not only in the reflected light, but in construction of the house. In the earthmoving stage, the wall between the two blocks had been damaged, and now a retaining wall has to be built. Not only that, the house was supposed to built on one metre stumps; it is now on 3 m or 4 m stumps so that house towers over the 46 Taylor Street house, which is a single-storey built on a concrete slab. However, the windows overlook the whole of the backyard. I believe that the Dominguez family have a lot to complain about.
They sought an audience with the Chief Minister also, and the Chief Minister did deign to visit them. She then responded in this fashion - and I have a copy of her letter to the Dominguez. She wrote to Mrs Dominguez, her first name being Gloria. I quote from the letter from the Chief Minister:
- Thank you for your meeting with me during my visit to Alice Springs last month, and for bringing me up to date
with your concerns regarding your neighbour’s house at 46 Taylor Street.
Well, 46 is not theirs, it is 48. Anyway, it is one or the other. This letter was signed by the Chief Minister on 10 October 2003: I am quoting the letter still:
- While I have sympathy with any person who has a hostile relationship with their neighbours, the fact remains
that the house at 46 Taylor Street has been lawfully constructed in all respects.
I have communication from Dr Dominguez, who responded in the following manner in an e-mail that was sent to me. Paragraph 2, in his comments are:
- … has been lawfully constructed in all respects. As we …
- … mentioned before, the house was built without following the approved plan. It was not amended to well after
the house was built. To build without an approval plan (under the Building Act) is a $10 000 fine. This was not
imposed on anyone.
The builder, by damaging our property, broke the law. He was not fined.
The certifier who approved the house retrospectively, somehow had the paperwork passed through the DIPI
(sic) system. It should be all recorded there and we have not been furnished with those details. It would appear
to be not transparent at all.
I come back to the Chief Minister’s letter. The third paragraph:
- Government, at both ministerial and departmental level, has gone to considerable lengths to help you and
your neighbours achieve a resolution of the dispute, and reach an acceptable compromise.
In his response, Dr Dominguez wrote:
- Yes, they have. Considerable lengths to ignore us and took some 10 months to even get the first reply from
the minister.
The minister, or someone in his department, even authorised Peter Bannister (an environmental scientist) to do
work for the neighbours - at no cost to them - to produce a report that they intend to use in court against us.
The minister has been a busy boy. I would like to know how government equipment and funds were allocated
to help them with their court case when they were not allocated to us. Yes, he was there helping them and we
have the photos to prove it.
There are significant issues. The Chief Minister’s letter has not resolved OR answered anything at all, except to shelter her minister from all the non-response that he has made to the Dominguez. The Dominguez family has now spent some $56 000 so far to try and ameliorate the problems they have with their house, and it appears that the costs are continuing to escalate. This minister, this government, has just totally ignored a poor couple and their two children and the home that they built so lovingly so many long years ago. They want to live in Alice Springs and they should be allowed to live in harmony with everybody else.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your time has expired.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, this evening I recognise the decades of hard work of a Northern Territory public servant who is known to many of us. Penny Baird retired from the Northern Territory public service on 1 July this year. Penny has spent the second part of the last century in Darwin primarily, with stints in Alice Springs as well. I first met Penny at about three years of age when I was babysat with her sons, as we both lived in the same street in Nightcliff. I have known the family for the most part of my life. Penny, at my request, provided me with a great deal of information about her employment history with the public service, because she was possibly our longest-serving public servant at the time of her retirement. That is obviously contestable; I have not checked all the details with the Public Service Commissioner.
She tells me that she arrived in Darwin at the age of two years in 1947. Her mother, Mrs Mac (Mavis) Wilson, along with other women evacuees from Darwin in World War II, was allowed to return to Darwin at that time. Initially, they were housed in the little fibro cottages at Bullocky Point which were there for the Vestey’s meatworks employees. The home in which her mother lived before being evacuated, at the corner of Daly Street, had been directly hit by a bomb and there was a huge crater in the ground.
The families were later housed in the Sydney Williams corrugated iron houses in Parap Camp which the Army had used. Her home had a ‘tinea’ in big letters, sign across the front. She can clearly remember that they had a flaming fury toilet and no refrigerator or fans. Her father, George Mackenzie, had a huge vegetable garden along one side of the house. He was a farmer from Harrowgate in Yorkshire.
Her father died in 1949, a month after a tragic traffic accident. It was a dreadful time for her mother, who was left to fend for three young children in post-war Darwin. The children were aged eight, four and two. Gladys Litchfield offered her mother part-time work initially, in a little shop in Westralia Street. Her mum used to cycle to work at A E Jolly’s store in Smith Street with her young brother in a baby carry seat on the back of the bike. He would be at work all day with her mother. Her mother also worked for Harry Chan’s Smith Street store, did the cleaning of government offices after her day job, and followed that by working at the Star Picture Theatre, selling tickets, at night. She also did dressmaking and made sponge cakes by hand-beating, on weekends. It was a very tough time for a young mother in post-war Darwin. Women did not get anywhere near the equal pay of men and, also, there was no such thing as a supporting mother’s benefit or assistance in any way. Her mother’s family was in New South Wales, so her mother was very isolated in Darwin with her three children.
Coming from this very harsh upbringing, Penny started employment in 1961, just a few weeks short of her 16th birthday, with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, on the corner of Smith and Bennett Streets. She had completed her Year 10 Intermediate Certificate. It was quite common back in the 1960s for parents to arrange employment for their children through social acquaintances and, in Penny’s case, her mother discussed the topic of employment while playing competition tennis at the Gilruth Avenue Courts with the then accountant, Mr Ansell Bogey. Penny describes the hours as being long, with late Friday nights and Saturday mornings, and the policy of the bank that no one could knock off for the day until everyone had finished their duties. Often, she would miss the 5 pm bus to Nightcliff and, with the next bus being around 10 pm when the picture theatre finished, her parents would have to drive all the way into town to pick her up.
Her rate of pay was half that of her friends who were working for the government, so she left the bank’s employment after three years. In 1964, her next position was with the Department of Health. She only stayed there for eight months yet, after working in the bank, she says: ‘I could not believe the amount of salary I received for so little work’. She says it was a difficult time for her. She was constantly asking for more work to do and asking: ‘What are you paying me for?’ I am sure today’s public servants would not express the same sentiments. From 1964 to 1966, she worked for the Attorney-General’s Department’s D Branch, which she described as ‘ASIO’ in an office services position. At the time, she was a very young employee, aged 21. As was the nature of the day, her employment had to cease when her first child became due. This was obligatory.
She then to work for her mother in the ladies fashion shops she owned that many of us old Darwin folk, especially from around the Nightcliff area, would remember: the Wilson’s Fashion Salon and Mac’s Material Salon. Penny worked there on a part-time basis after the birth of her two sons, John and Calumn Maclean, with whom I played as a child.
Penny was tragically widowed in 1971. Out of necessity, she sought full-time work when her sons were aged only five and three. That is the time when the boys and I were raised together because, at that time, my mother entered this Assembly. We were the kids with the rare working mothers in that era in Darwin. In those days, Penny points out, there was no such thing as a supporting mother’s benefit or a single parent benefit; she had no choice but to work.
From 1971 to 1975, she was employed as a shop manageress at her mother’s shops at Nightcliff. I remember plenty of occasions when the boys and I would go down there to visit their mother and my mother, who had the electorate office at the old Nightcliff Shopping Centre. The business was sold, she points out, after Cyclone Tracy and her daughter, Rebekah Baird, was born on 3 May 1975.
Penny lost the Nakara house she had purchased six months earlier during Cyclone Tracy. It was completely destroyed. The family was evacuated on the fifth day after Tracy and they ended up in the School of Artillery on the north shore of Manly. She was there with her two sons. They had been evacuated in a Hercules via Brisbane. She said the boys had a marvellous time at the barracks. They went to see the zoo and other sights in Sydney, which were eye-opening sights for young lads from Darwin.
In February, she received a signed letter from a doctor to say that she could return to Darwin. In those days, they prevented women and children from returning to Darwin post-Cyclone Tracy. I remember the arguments my mother had, as a member of the Assembly, to try and secure the rights of women to return. One of the things the government had decided was that the male would have authority to say whether women could return, to our eternal shame. Penny was fortunate. She received some help. Her sons were sent to Katherine to be cared for by Pat and Noel Buntine on their new property, Carbeen Park, out in the scrub of Katherine. She says she will be forever grateful to them for their unstinting kindness during this period.
Before long, Penny secured a job with the Department of Repatriation and Compensation as a clerk and she remained there until her daughter’s birth. However, quickly after the birth, she had to return to work because her husband broke his arm playing rugby – she says ‘thanks to Stem Edwards’. At that time, the couple were living in a couple of room at Stuart Park in what Penny describes as a ‘cyclone ravaged house’. I recall many people at the time living in cyclone ravaged houses, because houses were few and far between. So if we had digs in those days, they were well and truly beaten about. In August of that year, they purchased their previous home in Nightcliff and had it re-roofed and made livable.
In 1977, Penny commenced employment with the Public Service Commissioner’s Office, which had a founding staff of five.
In 1980, the family was transferred to Alice Springs for two years, and she enjoyed her position in Alice Springs with the Public Service Commissioner’s Office and Audit Bureau. In 1981, she was transferred to the Education Department in Alice Springs as an Examiner of Accounts.
On her subsequent return to Darwin in 1982, the department placed her with schools as a School Secretary. She describes this period as being one of the most wonderful of her life, being School Secretary variously at Anula, Tiwi and at Rapid Creek Primary School until its closure in 1991.
After the closure of the school, she was loaned by the Education Department to the Museums and Art Galleries Board division of History for the period of the 50th anniversary of the bombing of Darwin. This was an absolutely unforgettable time for Penny. It was meant to be a three-month posting, but extended to 20 months. It was her privilege to see many of the returned servicemen visiting Darwin and to listen to their wartime stories of the town. Her stepfather, Alan Wilson, donated a sight from a Japanese 8 inch gun from Nauru, taken out from Singapore when his battalion, the 38/51s took the surrender on Nauru Island. Her mother gave a wooden parquetry vase from the MV Zealandia for display purposes. Her mother had been evacuated from Darwin in December 1941 on the MV Zealandia, which was bombed and sunk in Darwin Harbour on its return in February 1942.
In 1994, Penny was transferred from the Education Department, here to the Department of the Legislative Assembly as a Hansard Clerk. This was short-lived as her husband took up a position in Broome as a regional manager for Far North West of DEET, the Department of Employment Education and Training, for two years. After two years leave without pay, on her return to Darwin in 1996, she was placed in the Travel Officer position within the Department of the Legislative Assembly, a position in which most members of this Assembly would come to know her and understand her due diligence and professionalism. She remained in this position until her retirement on 1 July 2003. She has had an extended association with the Department of Legislative Assembly, she writes, through Hansard typing for the then Legislative Council after her widowhood in 1971.
Penny says that a former resident of Nightcliff, Mrs Judy Ralphs, suggested she might like to have a go at Hansard typing as a way to supplement her income. She said the evening hours were ideal, as her two young sons were in bed early and cared for by her parents. She said they typed on manual typewriters, the old Imperial 66’s, high above the members in an elongated, cramped box of a room, and they could view the members below through glass windows. She said she immensely enjoyed all the Hansard work. She said it kept her in touch with what was going on in the Territory. Penny writes:
- I will always remember the new member for Nightcliff, Dawn Lawrie, and her maiden speech. I thought very highly
of the long-term members and colleagues, mainly Bernie Kilgariff and Mr Ron Withnall, for their unstinting
kindness to the new members. I remember most of them as gentlemen.
Penny, I attended your farewell at the Legislative Assembly and heard many kind words from people who were at that gathering. I certainly know that there are members here at the Assembly who have had a very long association with the Assembly. We all wish you well for your retirement. We know you are a very loving grandmother, and have put a great deal of effort into your stints in agencies and the public service.
You have my loyal friendship. I have known you since I was a child; I have enjoyed your kindness. I cringe at the stories you tell of when I was a child when we used to humbug your husband Stuart for rides on his postie bike, but those were the days in Darwin. We all, in this Assembly, to a degree, have fond memories of our childhood. I certainly have very fond memories of the effervescent, beautiful and engaging Penny.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I suppose I could headline my talk tonight, ‘Unfinished Business’, because I have two stories I want to tell and I do not think both have been finished. One is an issue that was raised recently. I know the member for Port Darwin will be interested, because it is an issue that will need debating, to some extent, outside of this House. I was talking to a policeman not so long ago, and he said: ‘You really ought to get into Mitchell Street at 4 am if you want to see what the real life is like. He said, in a lot of cases, it is just terrible what goes on there at 4 am. I suppose that was backed up by the headlines in September in the NT News: ‘100 Rampage through Streets’. It talked about police being deployed, and I quote from the NT News:
- Police were deployed from all over Darwin to break up a rolling brawl involving more than 100 people in
the city centre yesterday.
The all-in fight erupted outside Discovery Nightclub on Mitchell Street soon after 4 am.
Eleven police units from Palmerston, Darwin and Casuarina responded and took five people into protective
custody.
Further on they say:
- Territory police said about 100 people were involved - many of them were drunk.
In September, actually just a bit before that, was an articles under the headlines: ‘Pub Drinkers Breath Tested’:
Police bid to catch hotels.
Pub patrons are being taken from dance floors and bars onto the street to undergo police breathalyser tests.
The tests are part of a police crackdown on licensed premises in Darwin which serve alcohol in intoxicated
patrons.
It goes on to quote one person that the police had grabbed a person, an elderly tourist, from a dance floor, and frogmarched them across the road to be tested. It goes on to describe a little about what happened. It also quotes the Australian Hotels Association NT Executive Director, Greg Weller, who said:
- … the aggressive approach was ‘disturbing’. It’s a fairly questionable act, ethically and legally’, Mr Weller said.
Then, on 1 October, we had another headline which said, ‘Patrons Urged to Unmask Pub Cops’. Again, quoting from the NT News:
- Drinkers were last night urged to dob in undercover police operating in pubs and nightclubs. A trade union …
- … said the officers would be unmasked because they were harassing bar workers. Police would not comment on the
call last night, but Acting Commander Greg Dowd said police were simply doing their job. ‘Plain clothes police
officers operated in several Darwin drinking spots over the weekend. Customers were breathalysed after being
asked to go outside, and at least two bar staff face prosecution for allegedly serving drunks’.
What came out after that was what was quite exciting. A member of the opposition was on the radio - I think the member for Drysdale – who basically said that this was a sign that people were being breath tested - not so much a sign of being breath-tested, he was basically saying that this was a threat to the average drinker whose lifestyle was being affected, and this could also apply to restaurants. There was an interview on ABC that morning.
Then my colleague over here, the member for Greatorex, put out a press release which said:
- More talk but no action by minister Henderson.
‘Will drinkers in the Territory pubs and clubs still be subject to random breath testing by police? That is
the question Territorians want police minister Paul Henderson to give a straight answer on’, CLP Deputy Leader,
Dr Richard Lim, said today.
Dr Lim said the police minister was trying to have it both ways with Territorians today, talking tough about
government being opposed to random breath testing in pubs and clubs while, at the same time, giving
Territorians no guarantee it will stop.
- Dr Lim went on to say: ‘Many more Territorians are having their lifestyles encroached on. I don’t even
drink alcohol …
- .. but I certainly sympathise with those who feel that what’s happening is an interference in their life. Where does
it stop? Will patrons in restaurants be next? If RBTs in pubs and clubs is not government policy why is it happening
and what is going to be done to stop it?’
Okay. That certainly got things going because the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, Paul Henderson, put out a press release - it must have been pretty quick after all that came out - saying:
Government does not support breath testing in pubs. Police minister Paul Henderson said today ‘The Martin
government does not support breath testing people drinking in pubs. ‘The breath testing of pub patrons is not
government policy and the government does not support it’, Mr Henderson said. ‘I have spoken this morning
to Police Commissioner Paul White about the NT police operation being carried out in Darwin and made clear
this is not in line with the government’s position. Territorians like to have a drink and going to a pub for a beer
with friends is part of our lifestyle. The government does not support abusive and antisocial behaviour and it
won’t be tolerated in pubs or anywhere else. We do not believe that breath testing customers drinking in the pub
is the way to address this problem’.
Of course, it just so happened that the day that all came out, or the next day - and I presume that perhaps the Police Commissioner had written this the day before. But, in the 2 October NT News, there was a letter from the Police Commissioner and he said:
- I write to clarify the situation concerning the police and the licensed premises, following the Northern Territory
News front page article on Wednesday 1 October entitled, ‘Patrons urged to unmask pub cops’.
- Police are often required to respond to alcohol-related incidents. The reality is that many of these occur in and
around licensed premises. In fact, Operation City Safe was launched last year to counter concerns about
alcohol-related crime and disorder in the CBD. General duties police and Operation City Safe patrols are
required to prevent and reduce alcohol-related incidents and the harm associated with these incidents.
NT Police recognise that the overwhelming majority of patrons are law-abiding and simply want to relax and
enjoy a few drinks.
But the Police Commissioner went on further to say - if I can find it:
- Comments regarding the use of breathalysers by police must be put in context. The fact is that three patrons were
recently asked to voluntary submit to a breath analysis test after allegedly intoxicated misbehaviour on licensed
premises came to the attention of police officers. It is an offence to serve liquor to a person on licensed premises
who is intoxicated.
I know the member for Greatorex has said to me that he has seen a tape of a person being basically frogmarched out of a pub because, obviously, he is disputing that that is correct. I have asked the Police Commissioner if he has any record of two policeman frogmarching a customer out of a pub. The member for Greatorex says he has seen the video, but he was not sure what pub it was in. I have spoken to the Police Commissioner and asked if he has any knowledge of this particular incident. So, that is where that stands.
I also spoke to Peter Allen of the substance abuse committee. I believe I am correct saying that that was at an open session of the meeting. I asked Peter Allen whether breath testing of patrons occurred in previous years. He said there were six breath tests that occurred previously and, when I spoke to him informally later on just to check when that had occurred, it appears over at least the last four or five years.
The previous government has allowed some breath testing in pubs. This government has allowed some breath testing in pubs and, all of a sudden because you get two headlines here, we have a hullabaloo about breath testing in pubs. It seems to me that we make a lot of noise about alcohol. We make a lot of noise about what happens in Mitchell Street. We know that police, as the paper said, had to fight off and control 100 drunken people in Mitchell Street.
Obviously, they are trying to do something about that, not only for the public safety but for their own. It disappoints me a little that the minister - and I have said it on radio - dropped his Police Commissioner in it. The Police Commissioner is doing something that the previous Police Commissioners have done. If you believe the Police Commissioner - and I believe him - there were only three checks in the whole of Darwin. There may have been checks somewhere else, such as Katherine, However, I presume he is talking about Darwin CBD. If that is correct, three is not a big deal, especially if they were doing what has been done previously.
We have a situation where I feel we have not given support to our Police Commissioner, on both sides of parliament because, to some extent it is a very touchy issue. Once this issue was blown up to the extent that politicians were saying that the average Joe Blow in the pub was getting breath tested, you can see the votes disappearing very fast. This was on dangerous country: ‘My average drinker is being affected by police breath testing’. Was that the truth? This is why a lot of questions need to be asked and the debate needs to come back to this parliament.
I have said before to other people: ‘Who complains about Aboriginal people who bought their liquor legitimately, but just happen to be within 2 km of a licensed store and get it poured out?’. In fact, just before the Katherine election the NT News had a page showing how much liquor is poured out every week. That is done to control antisocial behaviour. That is what it is all about. That is a lot of alcohol that gets poured down the drain. I suppose those people paid for their alcohol and, just because they happen to be within 2 km of the pub, it is poured away. However, here we have police who pulled up three people to get breath tested to try and stop violence in our CBD and, all of a sudden, we dropped it like a ton of bricks.
If I was to stand back and try to look at this thing fairly rationally, I would say one is the case of us being very sensitive about how it appears to the average Joe Blow - the average voter in the northern suburbs of the city - and the other one does not make any difference because it is not an issue that is going to effect anyone electorally.
That is an issue on which I would like the Police Commissioner to come back and explain what has happened. Was there a particular case that was on the video that needs explanation? Was that person frogmarched out of the pub for some reason completely unrelated to breath testing? It might have been something else altogether. We do not know. However, parliament requires an explanation of what has gone on. As soon as the minister issued that media release, everything stopped. It was all quiet. I believe there is some unfinished business, as I call it, and we need an explanation of why police were targeting the CBD. Why did the minister drop the so-called policy? Are there any other issues that we do not know about? Were the police targeting certain licensed premises in the CBD because they may have been the cause of trouble? I do not know. It would be interesting to see what the answer is to all that.
Finally, on my unfinished business, I had a letter from Val Cowan, who is the Secretary/Treasurer of Daly River Community Development Association. As you know, those people are concerned about clearing and development upstream from the Daly River. She sent me this e-mail the other day. I will not read it all. She said:
- I am writing to you on behalf of the Daly River Community Development Association. We have been concerned
for some considerable time now about the clearing of land approximately 70 km up from the Daly River Crossing.
Our association is not anti-development, as long as it is sustainable and in the best interests of all people, and all
the way along the river from the escarpment country to the mouth. So far, our correspondence to the Northern
Territory government has met with no response apart from notification of receipt of the letters.
The reason I call that unfinished business is because Val Cowan wrote to the minister in July. All she has received is a notification that the letter has arrived. I call that unfinished business. I hope the minister can come back to this parliament and tell us that the business is finished, and he has replied to this lady. Otherwise, that is very slack on behalf of the minister or the government.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016